ArticleScientific reports2025
Efficiency of genome editing using modified single-stranded oligodeoxyribonucleotides in human cells.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Strategies and considerations for the generation of ssDNA-Based HDR templates for CRISPR-based genome editing.BMC genomics · 2026Review
- Application of SNV Detection Methods for Market Control of Food Products from New Genomic Techniques.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
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
Abstract
Single-stranded oligodeoxyribonucleotide (ssODN) gene editing has emerged as a promising therapeutic strategy. However, further improvements in efficiency are desired for practical application. The effects of strand length and locked nucleic acid (LNA) modification on ssODN genome editing were investigated by introducing an assay cassette into the genome of HEK293T cells and measuring precise base deletions of eight bases. The introduction of LNAs into ssODNs, five pairs of LNAs at 25-35 nt from the centre and one pair at 20-25 nt, showed approximately 18-fold higher efficiency than unmodified ssODNs of the same length in the study using 70 nt ssODNs. In addition, genome editing efficiency was further improved when LNAs were introduced at the same positions as the 70 nt ssODN, which showed the highest efficiency for the 90 nt ssODN. However, in some cases, the same number of LNA modifications could conversely reduce the efficiency, and the modification positions in the ssODN method were successfully optimised in the present study. Furthermore, the oligo DNA was shown to be effective not only for deletions but also for base substitutions, with an editing efficiency of 0.63% per cell.
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.