Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28752194›Full record

ReviewMammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society2017

From engineering to editing the rat genome.

Stephen Meek, Tomoji Mashimo, Tom Burdon

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 66 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Rat models of musculoskeletal lysosomal storage disorders and their role in pre-clinical evaluation of gene therapy approaches.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Stephen MeekThe Roslin Institute and R(D)VS, University of Edinburgh, Easter Bush, Midlothian, EH25 9RG, UK. stephen.meek@roslin.ed.ac.uk.
Tomoji MashimoInstitute of Experimental Animal Sciences, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka University, Osaka, 565-0871, Japan.
Tom BurdonThe Roslin Institute and R(D)VS, University of Edinburgh, Easter Bush, Midlothian, EH25 9RG, UK. tom.burdon@roslin.ed.ac.uk.
Osaka University · JPRoslin Institute · GBUniversity of Edinburgh · GB

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/H012478/1Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/J004316/1Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/M023397/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Since its domestication over 100 years ago, the laboratory rat has been the preferred experimental animal in many areas of biomedical research (Lindsey and Baker The laboratory rat. Academic, New York, pp 1-52, 2006). Its physiology, size, genetics, reproductive cycle, cognitive and behavioural characteristics have made it a particularly useful animal model for studying many human disorders and diseases. Indeed, through selective breeding programmes numerous strains have been derived that are now the mainstay of research on hypertension, obesity and neurobiology (Okamoto and Aoki Jpn Circ J 27:282-293, 1963; Zucker and Zucker J Hered 52(6):275-278, 1961). Despite this wealth of genetic and phenotypic diversity, the ability to manipulate and interrogate the genetic basis of existing phenotypes in rat strains and the methodology to generate new rat models has lagged significantly behind the advances made with its close cousin, the laboratory mouse. However, recent technical developments in stem cell biology and genetic engineering have again brought the rat to the forefront of biomedical studies and enabled researchers to exploit the increasingly accessible wealth of genome sequence information. In this review, we will describe how a breakthrough in understanding the molecular basis of self-renewal of the pluripotent founder cells of the mammalian embryo, embryonic stem (ES) cells, enabled the derivation of rat ES cells and their application in transgenesis. We will also describe the remarkable progress that has been made in the development of gene editing enzymes that enable the generation of transgenic rats directly through targeted genetic modifications in the genomes of zygotes. The simplicity, efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the CRISPR/Cas gene editing system, in particular, mean that the ability to engineer the rat genome is no longer a limiting factor. The selection of suitable targets and gene modifications will now become a priority: a challenge where ES culture and gene editing technologies can play complementary roles in generating accurate bespoke rat models for studying biological processes and modelling human disease.

Indexed as

Gene EditingGenetic EngineeringGenomeAnimalsAnimals, Genetically ModifiedCell DifferentiationCRISPR-Cas SystemsEmbryo, MammalianEmbryonic Stem CellsGene RearrangementGene TargetingMiceOligodeoxyribonucleotidesRatsTranscription Activator-Like Effector NucleasesZinc Finger NucleasesOligodeoxyribonucleotidesTranscription Activator-Like Effector NucleasesZinc Finger Nucleases

Identifiers

PMID28752194
PMCPMC5569148
OpenAlexW2740313377

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.