ArticleJournal of microbiology (Seoul, Korea)2025
Efficiency of reverse genetics methods for rescuing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.
Article in Journal of microbiology (Seoul, Korea), 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Bacteria-free reverse genetics techniques are crucial for the efficient generation of recombinant viruses, bypassing the need for labor-intensive bacterial cloning. These methods are particularly relevant for studying the pathogenesis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the causative agent of COVID-19. This study compared the efficiency of three bacteria-free approaches-circular polymerase extension reaction (CPER) with and without nick sealing and infectious sub-genomic amplicons (ISA)-to bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC)-based technology for rescuing SARS-CoV-2. Significant differences in viral titers following transfection were observed between methods. CPER with nick sealing generated virus titers comparable to those of the BAC-based method and 10 times higher than those of the standard CPER. In contrast, ISA demonstrated extremely low efficiency, as cytopathic effects were detected only after two passages. All rescued viruses exhibited replication kinetics consistent with those of the original strain, with no significant deviation in replication capacity. Furthermore, the utility of CPER and ISA in genetically modifying SARS-CoV-2 was demonstrated by successfully inserting the gene encoding green fluorescent protein into the genome. Overall, this study underscores the potential of bacteria-free methods, such as CPER and ISA, in advancing SARS-CoV-2 research while highlighting their significant differences in efficiency.
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.