ReviewFrontiers in genome editing2023
How genome editing changed the world of large animal research.
Review in Frontiers in genome editing, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Accurate prediction of CRISPR editing outcomes in somatic cell lines and zygotes with few-shot learning with inDecay.Genome biology · 2026Article
- Models of the human heart for biomedical research: Opportunities and challenges.Physiological reports · 2026Review
- Transgenesis in Drug Discovery: Enhancing Target Identification and Validation.Molecular biotechnology · 2026Review
- Emerging trends in genome editing of wild animals.Transgenic research · 2026Review
- Preventive Immunology for Livestock and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases in the One Health Era: From Mechanistic Insights to Innovative Interventions.Veterinary sciences · 2025Review
- Long-term (10-year) monitoring of transposon-mediated transgenic cattle.Transgenic research · 2024Article
- Review
- Male animal sterilization: history, current practices, and potential methods for replacing castration.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2024Review
- Gene-edited pigs: a translational model for human food allergy against alpha-Gal and anaphylaxis.Frontiers in immunology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The first genetically modified large animals were developed in 1985 by microinjection to increase the growth of agricultural livestock such as pigs. Since then, it has been a difficult trail due to the lack of genetic tools. Although methods and technologies were developed quickly for the main experimental mammal, the mouse, e.g., efficient pronuclear microinjection, gene targeting in embryonic stem cells, and omics data, most of it was-and in part still is-lacking when it comes to livestock. Over the next few decades, progress in genetic engineering of large animals was driven less by research for agriculture but more for biomedical applications, such as the production of pharmaceutical proteins in the milk of sheep, goats, or cows, xeno-organ transplantation, and modeling human diseases. Available technologies determined if a desired animal model could be realized, and efficiencies were generally low. Presented here is a short review of how genome editing tools, specifically CRISPR/Cas, have impacted the large animal field in recent years. Although there will be a focus on genome engineering of pigs for biomedical applications, the general principles and experimental approaches also apply to other livestock species or applications.
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.