ReviewNature genetics2025
How and when organisms edit their own genomes.
Review in Nature genetics, 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.
- A sequence motif for DNA double-strand break and telomere healing during programmed DNA elimination.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Diversity at the HYP1 locus in potato cyst nematodes does not result from developmentally-programmed somatic mutations.PloS one · 2026Article
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
Mutations are often thought of as untargeted and non-adaptive, but in rare cases, organisms perform programmed, targeted and adaptive rearrangements of their own DNA sequences. Notable examples include the somatic diversification of immunoglobulin genes, which is the foundation of the vertebrate immune system, and natural CRISPR spacer arrays in bacteria, which recognize and cleave foreign DNA. These systems, along with a dozen known analogs scattered across the tree of life, often underlie critical biological functions, particularly in host-pathogen conflicts. In this Review, we compare the mechanisms by which organisms edit their own genomes. We show that superficially dissimilar editing systems often rely on surprisingly similar genetic mechanisms, regardless of function or taxon. Finally, we argue that the recurrence of editing in host-pathogen conflicts and the bias to a handful of well-studied organisms strongly suggest that new editing systems will be found in understudied pathogens and their hosts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40579538What 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.