ReviewCurrent issues in molecular biology2025
CRISPR-Cas9 and Its Bioinformatics Tools: A Systematic Review.
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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Genome Editing in Solanaceae: Harnessing CRISPR-Cas Technology for Precision Crop Improvement.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- 10 years of CRISPR/CAS genomic engineering in Yarrowia lipolytica.Bioprocess and biosystems engineering · 2026Review
- Simulation of CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing for the Vitellogenin gene in Apis mellifera.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Designing genome editing experiments with EditABLE.Genome biology · 2026Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.