ArticleNature communications2025
Combinatorial protein engineering identifies potent CRISPR activators with reduced toxicity.
Article in Nature communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- From epigenetic mark detection to rational design of epigenetic editing strategies.Molecular therapy. Advances · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Current protein engineering methods are inadequate to explore the combinatorial potential offered by nature's vast repertoire of protein domains-limiting our ability to create optimal synthetic tools. To overcome this barrier, we develop an approach to create and test thousands of chimeric proteins and employ it to probe an expansive combinatorial landscape of over 15,000 multi-domain CRISPR activators. Our findings indicate that many activators produce substantial cellular toxicity, often unrelated to their capacity to regulate gene expression. We also explore the biochemical features of activation domains and determine how their combinatorial interactions shape activator behavior. Finally, we identify two potent CRISPR activators, MHV and MMH, and demonstrate their enhanced activity across diverse targets and cell types compared to the gold-standard MCP activator, synergistic activation mediator (SAM).
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.