ReviewBiochemistry2023
Fire Burn and Cauldron Bubble: What Is in Your Genome Editing Brew?
Review in Biochemistry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- From Bench to Bedside: Ethical and Clinical Best Practices for Genome Editing Applications.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Improving laboratory animal genetic reporting: LAG-R guidelines.Nature communications · 2024Review
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
Genome editing is a rapidly evolving biotechnology with the potential to transform many sectors of industry such as agriculture, biomanufacturing, and medicine. This technology is enabled by an ever-growing portfolio of biomolecular reagents that span the central dogma, from DNA to RNA to protein. In this paper, we draw from our unique perspective as the National Metrology Institute of the United States to bring attention to the importance of understanding and reporting genome editing formulations accurately and promoting concepts to verify successful delivery into cells. Achieving the correct understanding may be hindered by the way units, quantities, and stoichiometries are reported in the field. We highlight the variability in how editing formulations are reported in the literature and examine how a reference molecule could be used to verify the delivery of a reagent into cells. We provide recommendations on how more accurate reporting of editing formulations and more careful verification of the steps in an editing experiment can help set baseline expectations of reagent performance, toward the aim of enabling genome editing studies to be more reproducible. We conclude with a future outlook on technologies that can further our control and enable our understanding of genome editing outcomes at the single-cell level.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.