ReviewToxicology research2024
A review on molecular scissoring with CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing technology.
Review in Toxicology research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Alveolar Epithelial Cell Dysfunction in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: Mechanistic Insights and Targeted Interventions.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Strategies to develop climate-resilient chili peppers: transcription factor optimization through genome editing.Planta · 2025Review
- Nanocarriers for cutting-edge cancer immunotherapies.Journal of translational medicine · 2025Review
- Climate friendly MOFs synthesis for drug delivery systems by integrating AI, intelligent manufacturing, and quantum solutions in industry 6.0 sustainable approach.Toxicology research · 2025Review
- Molecular Communication of Microbial Plant Biostimulants in the Rhizosphere Under Abiotic Stress Conditions.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Article
- Extraction and characterization of novel alternative cellulosic fiber for sustainable textiles fromHeliyon · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Genome editing is a technology to make specific changes in the DNA of a cell or an organism. It has significantly altered the landscape of life sciences, facilitating the establishment of exceedingly customized genetic modifications. Among various genome editing technologies, the CRISPR/Cas9 system, a specific endonuclease induces a double stranded DNA break and enabling modifications to the genome, has surfaced as a formidable and adaptable instrument. Its significance cannot be overstated, as it not only allows for the manipulation of genomes in model organisms but also holds great potential for revolutionary advances in medicine, particularly in treating genetic diseases. This review paper explores the remarkable journey of CRISPR/Cas9, its natural function, mechanisms, and transformative impact on genome editing and finally the use of artificial intelligence and other intelligent manufacturing tools used. The introduction provides the background on genome editing, emphasizing the emergence and significance of CRISPR/Cas9. Subsequent sections comprehensively elucidate its natural function, disease modeling, agriculture, and biotechnology, address therapeutic applications, and ongoing clinical trials while also discussing prospects and ethical implications. We summarized the key findings, indicating that CRISPR/Cas9 has empowered the creation of disease-specific animal models. This provides invaluable insights into pathogenic mechanisms and opens new avenues for drug discovery, reaffirming the transformative impact of CRISPR/Cas9 on genome editing. Finally we discussed the importance of continued research and collaboration for comprehensive utilization of the inherent capabilities of this molecular precision tool in shaping forthcoming advancements.
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.