ArticlePoultry science2026
High genotoxicity of CRISPR/Cas9 versus limited efficacy of CRISPRi in chicken primordial germ cells.
Article in Poultry science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimizing CRISPR/Cas9 mutagenesis in Drosophila dendritic arborization neurons to avoid cytotoxicity.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2026Article
- Advances in Poultry RNA-Omics Research: Technologies, RNA Information Layers, and Applications in Complex Traits.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Review
- 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
CRISPR/Cas9 technology has transformed genome editing across species; however, its application in avian germ cells remains constrained-not only by editing efficiency, but also by limited evaluation of potential genotoxic effects. In this study, we systematically assessed the performance and genomic safety of CRISPR/Cas9 and CRISPR interference (CRISPRi) in chicken primordial germ cells (PGCs). While CRISPR/Cas9 achieved high editing efficiency, it simultaneously induced substantial DNA damage, apoptosis, and sex-specific cell cycle arrest, revealing the pronounced genotoxic sensitivity of PGCs. In contrast, CRISPRi was well tolerated but failed to achieve effective gene repression in chicken cells. Comparative experiments showed that CRISPRi functioned efficiently in human 293T cells but not in chicken PGCs or somatic DF-1 cells, suggesting species-dependent limitations of mammalian-optimized repression systems. Together, these findings reveal a fundamental trade-off-"efficient but toxic" versus "safe but ineffective"-when applying CRISPR tools to avian germ cells. Our results highlight the need for species-adapted, low-toxicity genome-editing platforms in poultry and provide a framework for evaluating editing strategies in developmentally sensitive cell types.
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.