ArticlePloS one2025
CRISPR genome editing using a combined positive and negative selection system.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Viral genome editing methods and applications in the CRISPR era.Journal of virology · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)/Cas system is a powerful genome editing tool that has revolutionized research. Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are the most common form of genetic variation in humans. Only a subset of these SNPs has been shown to be linked to genetic diseases, while the biological relevance of the majority remains unclear. Investigating these variants of unknown significance could provide valuable insights into their roles in biological processes, disease susceptibility, and treatment responses. While CRISPR/Cas has emerged as a transformative technology, its ability to make single nucleotide substitutions remains a significant limitation. Other techniques in single nucleotide editing, such as base editing and prime editing, offer promising possibilities to complement CRISPR/Cas systems, though they also have their own limitations. Hence, alternative approaches are necessary to overcome the limitations of CRISPR. Here, to improve the feasibility of generating single base edits in the genome, we provide a protocol that introduces a multiple expression and dual selection (MEDS) system, which, alongside CRISPR, utilizes the opposing roles of cytosine deaminase/uracil phosphoribosyltransferase (CD/UPRT) for negative selection and neomycin phosphotransferase II (NPT II) for positive selection. As a proof of concept and to demonstrate feasibility of the method, we used MEDS, along with traditional CRISPR-Cas9, to generate sickle hemoglobin by introducing a point mutation (A → T) in the sixth codon of the hemoglobin beta gene.
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.