ArticleCells2024
Systematic Comparison of Computational Tools for Sanger Sequencing-Based Genome Editing Analysis.
Article in Cells, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- CRISPR/Cas9-mediated editing of theGM crops & food · 2026Article
- Highly efficient and low-mosaicismiScience · 2026Article
- Viral genome editing methods and applications in the CRISPR era.Journal of virology · 2026Review
- Targeting biofilm-related genes in a clinical methicillin-resistantFrontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
- Identification and Experimental Verification Reveal SLC2A3 Associated With Prognosis and Immune Infiltration in Colon Adenocarcinoma.Mediators of inflammation · 2026Article
- Isolation and transformation of perennial ryegrass (Frontiers in plant science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Successful genome editing depends on the cleavage efficiency of programmable nucleases (PNs) such as the CRISPR-Cas system. Various methods have been developed to assess the efficiency of PNs, most of which estimate the occurrence of indels caused by PN-induced double-strand breaks. In these methods, PN genomic target sites are amplified through PCR, and the resulting PCR products are subsequently analyzed using Sanger sequencing, high-throughput sequencing, or mismatch detection assays. Among these methods, Sanger sequencing of PCR products followed by indel analysis using online web tools has gained popularity due to its user-friendly nature. This approach estimates indel frequencies by computationally analyzing sequencing trace data. However, the accuracy of these computational tools remains uncertain. In this study, we compared the performance of four web tools, TIDE, ICE, DECODR, and SeqScreener, using artificial sequencing templates with predetermined indels. Our results demonstrated that these tools were able to estimate indel frequency with acceptable accuracy when the indels were simple and contained only a few base changes. However, the estimated values became more variable among the tools when the sequencing templates contained more complex indels or knock-in sequences. Moreover, although these tools effectively estimated the net indel sizes, their capability to deconvolute indel sequences exhibited variability with certain limitations. These findings underscore the importance of judiciously selecting and using an appropriate tool with caution, depending on the type of genome editing being performed.
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.