Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40429848›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of molecular sciences2025

Transgene Mapping in Animals: What to Choose?

Alexander Smirnov, Maksim Makarenko, Anastasia Yunusova

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of molecular sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Alexander SmirnovInstitute of Cytology and Genetics, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences (SB RAS), Novosibirsk 630090, Russia.ORCID 0000-0001-5152-9914
Maksim MakarenkoDepartment of Genetics and Life Sciences, Sirius University of Science and Technology, Sirius Federal Territory, Sochi 354340, Russia.ORCID 0000-0002-0629-3874
Anastasia YunusovaInstitute of Cytology and Genetics, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences (SB RAS), Novosibirsk 630090, Russia.

Funding

Russian Science Foundation #22-74-10013
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The phenomenal progress in biotechnology and genomics is both inspiring and overwhelming-a classic curse of choice, particularly when it comes to selecting methods for mapping transgene DNA integration sites. Transgene localization remains a crucial task for the validation of transgenic mouse or other animal models generated by pronuclear microinjection. Due to the inherently random nature of DNA integration, reliable characterization of the insertion site is essential. Over the years, a vast number of mapping methods have been developed, and new approaches continue to emerge, making the choice of the most suitable technique increasingly complex. Factors such as cost, required reagents, and the nature of the generated data require careful consideration. In this review, we provide a structured overview of current transgene mapping techniques, which we have broadly classified into three categories: classic PCR-based methods (such as inverse PCR and TAIL-PCR), next-generation sequencing with target enrichment, and long-read sequencing platforms (PacBio and Oxford Nanopore). To aid in decision-making, we include a comparative table summarizing approximate costs for the methods. While each approach has its own advantages and limitations, we highlight our top four recommended methods, which we believe offer the best balance of cost-effectiveness, reliability, and simplicity for identifying transgene integration sites.

Indexed as

Animals, Genetically ModifiedChromosome MappingTransgenesAnimalsHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingMicePolymerase Chain Reactiongenome walkinglong-read sequencingpronuclear microinjectionTAIL-PCRtransgene

Identifiers

PMID40429848
PMCPMC12111812

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.