ArticleCurrent opinion in biomedical engineering2023
To Cut or not to Cut: Next-generation Genome Editors for Precision Genome Engineering.
Article in Current opinion in biomedical engineering, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Precision engineering of the probioticApplied and environmental microbiology · 2025Article
- CXCR4 Is a Potential Target for Anti-HIV Gene Therapy.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
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
Abstract
Since the original report of repurposing the CRISPR/Cas9 system for genome engineering, the past decade has witnessed profound improvement in our ability to efficiently manipulate the mammalian genome. However, significant challenges lie ahead that hinder the translation of CRISPR-based gene editing technologies into safe and effective therapeutics. The CRISPR systems often have a limited target scope due to PAM restrictions, and the off-target activity also poses serious risks for therapeutic applications. Moreover, the first-generation genome editors typically achieve desired genomic modifications by inducing double-strand breaks (DSBs) at target site(s). Despite being highly efficient, this "cut and fix" strategy is less favorable in clinical settings due to drawbacks associated with the nuclease-induced DSBs. In this review, we focus on recent advances that help address these challenges, including the engineering and discovery of novel CRISPR/Cas systems with improved functionalities and the development of DSB-free genome editors.
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.