ReviewNature protocols2023
Precise mutagenesis in zebrafish using cytosine base editors.
Review in Nature protocols, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Zebrafish relatives as models for functional comparative genetics and genomics.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2026Review
- Rationally Designed TadA-Derived Cytosine Editors Enable Context-Independent Zebrafish Genome Editing.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025Article
- CRISPR/Cas9 technology in tumor research and drug development application progress and future prospects.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Review
- Base editors in zebrafish: a new era for functional genomics and disease modeling.Frontiers in genome editing · 2025Review
- ABE-ultramax for high-efficiency biallelic adenine base editing in zebrafish.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Exploring hematopoiesis in zebrafish using forward genetic screening.Experimental & molecular medicine · 2024Review
- Review
- Applications of CRISPR-Cas9 for advancing precision medicine in oncology: from target discovery to disease modeling.Frontiers in genetics · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Base editing is a powerful CRISPR-based technology for introducing precise substitutions into the genome. This technology greatly advances mutagenesis possibilities in vivo, particularly in zebrafish, for which the generation of precise point mutations is still challenging. Zebrafish have emerged as an important model for genetic studies and in vivo disease modeling. With the development of different base editor variants that recognize protospacer-adjacent motifs (PAMs) other than the classical 5'-NGG-3' PAM, it is now possible to design and test several guide RNAs to find the most efficient way to precisely introduce the desired substitution. Here, we describe the experimental design strategies and protocols for cytosine base editing in zebrafish, from guide RNA design and selection of base editor variants to generation of the zebrafish mutant line carrying the substitution of interest. By using co-selection by introducing a loss-of-function mutation in genes necessary for the formation of pigments, injected embryos with highly efficient base editing can be directly analyzed to determine the phenotypic impact of the targeted substitution. The generation of mutant embryos after base editor injections in zebrafish can be completed within 2 weeks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.