ArticleCommunications biology2024
Expanding the CRISPR base editing toolbox in Drosophila melanogaster.
Article in Communications biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Establishing efficient multi-gene editing tools for papaya.Horticulture research · 2026Article
- Applications and challenges of Drosophila melanogaster as a laboratory model in human cancer research: a narrative review.Discover oncology · 2025Review
- Research progress of base editing and prime editing tools based on the CRISPR/Cas system.Molecular therapy. Nucleic acids · 2025Review
- Single-cell transcriptional landscapes of Aedes aegypti midgut and fat body after a bloodmeal.Cell genomics · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
CRISPR base editors can introduce point mutations into DNA precisely, and cytosine base editors (CBEs) catalyze C to T transitions. While CBEs have been thoroughly explored in cell culture and organisms such as mice, little is known about DNA base editing in insects. In this study, we evaluated germline editing rates of three different CBEs expressed under actin (ubiquitous) or nanos (germline) promoters utilizing Drosophila melanogaster. The original Rattus norvegicus-derived cytosine deaminase APOBEC1 (rAPO-1) displayed high base editing rates (~99%) with undetectable indel formation. Additionally, we show that base editors can be used for generating male sterility and female lethality. Overall, this study highlights the importance of promoter choice and sex-specific transmission for efficient base editing in flies while providing new insights for future genetic biocontrol designs in insects.
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.