ReviewGenes2024
Knockout, Knockdown, and the Schrödinger Paradox: Genetic Immunity to Phenotypic Recapitulation in Zebrafish.
Review in Genes, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Zebrafish and CRISPR-A synergistic approach to decipher and cure human diseases.Animal models and experimental medicine · 2026Review
- METTL16 in cancer: Roles and regulatory mechanisms.Genes & diseases · 2026Review
- E3 ubiquitin ligases in neurodegenerative diseases.Military Medical Research · 2026Review
- Morpholino Knockdown in Zebrafish: A Tool to Investigate the Functional Impact of Variants of Unknown Significance in Mitochondrial Diseases.Neuromolecular medicine · 2025Review
- Heterogeneity of Variances in Milk Yield in Murrah Buffaloes.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- Mutations in the microexon splicing regulator srrm4 have minor phenotypic effects on zebrafish neural development.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Previous research has highlighted significant phenotypic discrepancies between knockout and knockdown approaches in zebrafish, raising concerns about the reliability of these methods. However, our study suggests that these differences are not as pronounced as was once believed. By carefully examining the roles of maternal and zygotic gene contributions, we demonstrate that these factors significantly influence phenotypic outcomes, often accounting for the observed discrepancies. Our findings emphasize that morpholinos, despite their potential off-target effects, can be effective tools when used with rigorous controls. We introduce the concept of graded maternal contribution, which explains how the uneven distribution of maternal mRNA and proteins during gametogenesis impacts phenotypic variability. Our research categorizes genes into three types-susceptible, immune, and "Schrödinger" (conditional)-based on their phenotypic expression and interaction with genetic compensation mechanisms. This distinction provides new insights into the paradoxical outcomes observed in genetic studies. Ultimately, our work underscores the importance of considering both maternal and zygotic contributions, alongside rigorous experimental controls, to accurately interpret gene function and the mechanisms underlying disease. This study advocates for the continued use of morpholinos in conjunction with advanced genetic tools like CRISPR/Cas9, stressing the need for a meticulous experimental design to optimize the utility of zebrafish in genetic research and therapeutic development.
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.