ReviewMedical review (2021)2023
Precise genome editing with base editors.
Review in Medical review (2021), 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.
- Review
- A novel minimally humanized mouse model of aniridia for preclinical evaluation of CRISPR gene editing strategies.Frontiers in genome editing · 2026Article
- CRISPR Technology: Transforming the Future of Medicine and Diagnostics.Biochemistry · 2025Review
- Analysis of Cytosine Base Editors in Bovine Zygotes: Efficiency and Editing Window Characterization Through Targeting theCurrent issues in molecular biology · 2025Article
- Advancing gene editing therapeutics: Clinical trials and innovative delivery systems across diverse diseases.Molecular therapy. Nucleic acids · 2025Review
- Deconstructing cancer with precision genome editing.Biochemical Society transactions · 2024Review
- Emerging Gene Therapeutics for Epidermolysis Bullosa under Development.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Protein Engineering Technologies for Development of Next-Generation Genome Editors.Current opinion in biomedical engineering · 2023Article
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
Single-nucleotide variants account for about half of known pathogenic genetic variants in human. Genome editing strategies by reversing pathogenic point mutations with minimum side effects have great therapeutic potential and are now being actively pursued. The emerge of precise and efficient genome editing strategies such as base editing and prime editing provide powerful tools for nucleotide conversion without inducing double-stranded DNA breaks (DSBs), which have shown great potential for curing genetic disorders. A diverse toolkit of base editors has been developed to improve the editing efficiency and accuracy in different context of application. Here, we summarized the evolving of base editors (BEs), their limitations and future perspective of base editing-based therapeutic strategies.
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.