Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40699706›Full record

ReviewCurrent issues in molecular biology2025

CRISPR-Cas9 and Its Bioinformatics Tools: A Systematic Review.

Alicja Jasieniecka, Inês Domingues

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current issues in molecular biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 10 years of CRISPR/CAS genomic engineering in Yarrowia lipolytica.Bioprocess and biosystems engineering · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

2 authors.

Alicja JasienieckaPolytechnic University of Coimbra, Rua da Misericórdia, Lagar dos Cortiços, S. Martinho do Bispo, 3045-093 Coimbra, Portugal.
Inês DominguesPolytechnic University of Coimbra, Rua da Misericórdia, Lagar dos Cortiços, S. Martinho do Bispo, 3045-093 Coimbra, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-2334-7280

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

CRISPR-Cas9 has revolutionized genetic research with bioinformatics tools essential for tasks like guide RNA design, off-target prediction, and data analysis. This systematic review summarizes the functionality and key features of such tools. Studies published after 2012 were selected through searches in PubMed, Google Scholar, and other sources, with the final search conducted on 9 November 2024. Seven studies met the criteria, describing around 45 tools, including databases and functional programs. Tools like CRISPResso, CHOPCHOP, and Cas-OFFinder were commonly highlighted, with a major focus on single-guide RNA (sgRNA) design and optimization. Some tools provided specific solutions, while others offered broader functionality, but most lacked experimental validation. Several tools were developed by the authors of the studies, introducing potential bias. Findings highlight a need for integrated platforms that combine functionalities, reducing reliance on fragmented workflows. Current tools often address narrow tasks, complicating their practical application. Future development should focus on comprehensive, multitasking tools to improve accessibility and streamline research processes. Limitations include the descriptive nature of most studies, potential author bias, and challenges in comparing tools objectively. Nonetheless, this review underscores bioinformatics' critical role in CRISPR research and emphasizes the need for innovative, standardized platforms. This study received no funding and was not registered.

Indexed as

bioinformaticsCRISPRGMO tools

Identifiers

PMID40699706
PMCPMC12109910

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.