ArticleBMC genomics2024
A catalog of gene editing sites and genetic variations in editing sites in model organisms.
Article in BMC genomics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Transgenesis and targeted mutagenesis in the human-parasitic nematodeFrontiers in parasitology · 2026Review
- CRISPR-based Transcriptional Regulation: Technologies, Applications, and Future Directions.DNA · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCRISPR-Cas systems require a protospacer adjacent motif (PAM), which plays an essential role in self/non-self discrimination in their natural context, to cleave DNA for genome editing. Unfortunately, common genetic variation is distributed throughout genomes, which can block recognition of target sites by Cas proteins. However, little information is available about the distribution of editing sites in model organisms and how often common variation overlaps with those PAM sites.
resultsHerein, we characterized six representative Cas proteins (Cas9, Cas12a, Cas12b, Cas12i, Cas12j and Cas12l) genomic editing sites in ten model organisms (yeast, flatworms, flies, zebrafish, mice, humans, rice, maize, Arabidopsis and tomato). We demonstrated that there were more than 34 editing sites per kilobase on average in these genomes. In each genome, 91.69-99.83% and 95.4-99.73% of genes had at least one unique editing site in exon and promoter, respectively. Depending on publicly available genomic diversity data, we identified the variations (SNPs and InDels) in editing sites in humans and rice, indicating the risk in the application of CRISPR/Cas technology. Finally, using CCR5 and BCL11A as examples, we revealed variation site was a factor that must be considered when designing sgRNA.
conclusionsOur findings not only revealed the distribution characteristics of editing sites of six representative Cas proteins in ten model organism genomes but also shed light on the adverse effect of variation sites on target site recognition. Our current work will serve as a reminder of the risks of CRISPR application.
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.