Cited by 112CRISPR and Genetic EngineeringDNA Repair MechanismsReproductive Biology and Fertility

Inter-homologue repair in fertilized human eggs?

Open access
Egli, Dieter, Zuccaro, Michael V., Kosicki, Michael, Church, George M., Bradley, Allan, Jasin, Maria·2018·Nature

Published version of a preprint

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41586-018-0379-5

Cites

20 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Some results were interpreted to indicate repair of a CRISPR-Cas9-targeted gene allele by homology-directed repair with the cell's other allele as the donor template.

    “Some results were interpreted to indicate repair of a CRISPR-Cas9targeted gene allele by homology-directed repair with the cell's other allele as the donor template 114 .”

    From The promise and challenge of therapeutic genome editing (2020) · cites this paper as [114]

  • CRISPR-Cas9-induced deletions larger than the PCR fragment can eliminate one or both primer annealing sites, leading to amplification of only one allele and a false impression of unsuccessful targeting or a single homozygous event.

    “CRISPR-Cas9-induced deletions larger than these fragments in either direction would eliminate one or both PCR primer annealing sites.This in turn can lead to amplification of only one allele, giving the false impression that targeting was unsuccessful or that there is a single homozygous event at the on-target site (9,10,15).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Shin, H. Y. et al. CRISPR/Cas9 targeting events cause complex deletions and insertions at 17 sites in the mouse genome. Nat. Commun. 8, 15464 (2017).
  2. Parikh, B. A., Beckman, D. L., Patel, S. J., White, J. M. & Yokoyama, W. M. Detailed phenotypic and molecular analyses of genetically modified mice generated by CRISPR-Cas9-mediated editing. PLoS One 10, e0116484 (2015).
  3. Zuckermann, M. et al. Somatic CRISPR/Cas9-mediated tumour suppressor disruption enables versatile brain tumour modelling. Nat. Commun. 6, 7391 (2015).
  4. Shin, H. Y. et al. CRISPR/Cas9 targeting events cause complex deletions and insertions at 17 sites in the mouse genome. Nat. Commun. 8, 15464 (2017).
  5. Filler Hayut, S., Melamed Bessudo, C. & Levy, A. A. Targeted recombination between homologous chromosomes for precise breeding in tomato. Nat. Commun. 8, 15605 (2017).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Egli, D., Zuccaro, M. V., Kosicki, M., Church, G. M., Bradley, A., & Jasin, M.
Affiliations
  • Columbia University Irving Medical Center (US)
  • Columbia University (US)
  • Wellcome Sanger Institute (GB)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (US)
Corresponding author
  • Egli, Dieter
  • Jasin, Maria
Venue
Nature
Published
2018-08
Volume
560
Issue
7717
Pages
E5-E7
ISSN
  • 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-4687
OpenAlex
W2952775612
Cited by
111
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 4
FWCI
6.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature (publishedVersion)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Oregon Health and Science University
  • Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust
  • South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute
  • Temple University
  • Consorzio Interuniversitario Biotecnologie
  • Moxie Foundation
  • La Trobe University
  • University of Adelaide
  • Government of Jiangxi Province
  • Universitas Diponegoro
  • Institute for Basic Science (IBSR021-D1, R021-D1)
  • Directorate for Biological Sciences
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › CRISPR and Genetic Engineering
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › DNA Repair Mechanisms
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Biology and Fertility
Keywords
human embryo, CRISPR/Cas9, DNA double-strand break repair, metaphase II oocytes, germline gene therapy, zygote, homologous recombination

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review