ReviewNature reviews. Genetics2025
Methods and applications of in vivo CRISPR screening.
Review in Nature reviews. Genetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- High-Content CRISPR Screening: Methods and Applications.MedComm · 2026Review
- Data-centric feedback loops for next-generation immunotherapy development.Nature biomedical engineering · 2026Review
- [CRISPR-Cas9 activation screening identifies candidate chemokine regulators of ter-tiary lymphoid structure formation in bladder cancer].Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences · 2026Article
- Article
- Black-box data: a new paradigm for biomedicine in the AI era.Chemical science · 2026Review
- From CRISPR functional genomics to synthetic interventions: engineering antiviral strategies.Journal of virology · 2026Review
- Uncovering causal relationships in single-cell omic studies with causarray.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Article
- AI-driven CRISPR screening: optimizing gene editing through automation and intelligent decision support.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Review
- Probing neuropsychiatric disorders through in vivo CRISPR screening.Current opinion in genetics & development · 2026Review
- Library transgenesis in zebrafish through delayed site-specific mosaic integration for in vivo pooled screening of transgenes.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- CRISPR-based Transcriptional Regulation: Technologies, Applications, and Future Directions.DNA · 2025Article
- Elucidating photoreceptor gene function with in-vivo CRISPR knock-out perturbation assay.Research square · 2025Article
- Making sense of the regulatory genome.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2025Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A fundamental goal in genetics is to understand the connection between genotype and phenotype in health and disease. Genetic screens in which dozens to thousands of genetic elements are perturbed in a pooled fashion offer the opportunity to generate large-scale, information-rich and unbiased genotype-phenotype maps. Although typically applied in reductionist in vitro settings, methods enabling pooled CRISPR-Cas perturbation screening in vivo are gaining attention as they have the potential to accelerate the discovery and annotation of gene function across cells, tissues, developmental stages, disease states and species. In this Review, we discuss essential criteria for understanding, designing and implementing in vivo screening experiments, with a focus on pooled CRISPR-based screens in mice. We also highlight how the resulting datasets, combined with advances in multi-omics and artificial intelligence, will accelerate progress and enable fundamental discoveries across basic and translational sciences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40731099What 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.