ArticleScientific reports2022
Necessity of integrated genomic analysis to establish a designed knock-in mouse from CRISPR-Cas9-induced mutants.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The CRISPR-Cas9 method for generation of knock-in mutations in rodent embryos yields many F0 generation candidates that may have the designed mutations. The first task for selection of promising F0 generations is to analyze genomic DNA which likely contains a mixture of designed and unexpected mutations. In our study, while generating Prlhr-Venus knock-in reporter mice, we found that genomic rearrangements near the targeted knock-in allele, tandem multicopies at a target allele locus, and mosaic genotypes for two different knock-in alleles occurred in addition to the designed knock-in mutation in the F0 generation. Conventional PCR and genomic sequencing were not able to detect mosaicism nor discriminate between the designed one-copy knock-in mutant and a multicopy-inserted mutant. However, by using a combination of Southern blotting and the next-generation sequencing-based RAISING method, these mutants were successfully detected in the F0 generation. In the F1 and F2 generations, droplet digital PCR assisted in establishing the strain, although a multicopy was falsely detected as one copy by analysis of the F0 generation. Thus, the combination of these methods allowed us to select promising F0 generations and facilitated establishment of the designed strain. We emphasize that focusing only on positive evidence of knock-in can lead to erroneous selection of undesirable strains.
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.