Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36833328›Full record

ArticleGenes2023

Increased On-Target Rate and Risk of Concatemerization after CRISPR-Enhanced Targeting in ES Cells.

Valérie Erbs, Romain Lorentz, Benjamin Eisenman, Laurence Schaeffer, Laurence Luppi, Loic Lindner, Yann Hérault, Guillaume Pavlovic, Marie Wattenhofer-Donzé, Marie-Christine Birling

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genes, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Genome engineering with Cas9 and AAV repair templates, successes and pitfalls.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2025
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Valérie ErbsCNRS, INSERM, Université de Strasbourg, CELPHEDIA, PHENOMIN-Institut Clinique de la Souris (ICS), 1 rue Laurent Fries, 67404 Illkirch Graffenstaden, France.
Romain LorentzCNRS, INSERM, Université de Strasbourg, CELPHEDIA, PHENOMIN-Institut Clinique de la Souris (ICS), 1 rue Laurent Fries, 67404 Illkirch Graffenstaden, France.
Benjamin EisenmanCNRS, INSERM, Université de Strasbourg, CELPHEDIA, PHENOMIN-Institut Clinique de la Souris (ICS), 1 rue Laurent Fries, 67404 Illkirch Graffenstaden, France.
Laurence SchaefferCNRS, INSERM, Université de Strasbourg, CELPHEDIA, PHENOMIN-Institut Clinique de la Souris (ICS), 1 rue Laurent Fries, 67404 Illkirch Graffenstaden, France.
Laurence LuppiCNRS, INSERM, Université de Strasbourg, CELPHEDIA, PHENOMIN-Institut Clinique de la Souris (ICS), 1 rue Laurent Fries, 67404 Illkirch Graffenstaden, France.
Loic LindnerCNRS, INSERM, Université de Strasbourg, CELPHEDIA, PHENOMIN-Institut Clinique de la Souris (ICS), 1 rue Laurent Fries, 67404 Illkirch Graffenstaden, France.ORCID 0000-0001-7121-8857
Yann HéraultCNRS, INSERM, Université de Strasbourg, CELPHEDIA, PHENOMIN-Institut Clinique de la Souris (ICS), 1 rue Laurent Fries, 67404 Illkirch Graffenstaden, France.ORCID 0000-0001-7049-6900
Guillaume PavlovicCNRS, INSERM, Université de Strasbourg, CELPHEDIA, PHENOMIN-Institut Clinique de la Souris (ICS), 1 rue Laurent Fries, 67404 Illkirch Graffenstaden, France.ORCID 0000-0001-9122-4592
Marie Wattenhofer-DonzéCNRS, INSERM, Université de Strasbourg, CELPHEDIA, PHENOMIN-Institut Clinique de la Souris (ICS), 1 rue Laurent Fries, 67404 Illkirch Graffenstaden, France.ORCID 0000-0002-6092-274X
Marie-Christine BirlingCNRS, INSERM, Université de Strasbourg, CELPHEDIA, PHENOMIN-Institut Clinique de la Souris (ICS), 1 rue Laurent Fries, 67404 Illkirch Graffenstaden, France.ORCID 0000-0002-3372-8108
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The French mouse clinic (Institut Clinique de la Souris; ICS) has produced more than 2000 targeting vectors for 'à la carte' mutagenesis in C57BL/6N mice. Although most of the vectors were used successfully for homologous recombination in murine embryonic stem cells (ESCs), a few have failed to target a specific locus after several attempts. We show here that co-electroporation of a CRISPR plasmid with the same targeting construct as the one that failed previously allows the systematic achievement of positive clones. A careful validation of these clones is, however, necessary as a significant number of clones (but not all) show a concatemerization of the targeting plasmid at the locus. A detailed Southern blot analysis permitted characterization of the nature of these events as standard long-range 5' and 3' PCRs were not able to distinguish between correct and incorrect alleles. We show that a simple and inexpensive PCR performed prior to ESC amplification allows detection and elimination of those clones with concatemers. Finally, although we only tested murine ESCs, our results highlight the risk of mis-validation of any genetically modified cell line (such as established lines, induced pluripotent stem cells or those used for ex vivo gene therapy) that combines the use of CRISPR/Cas9 and a circular double-stranded donor. We strongly advise the CRISPR community to perform a Southern blot with internal probes when using CRISPR to enhance homologous recombination in any cell type, including fertilized oocytes.

Indexed as

CRISPR-Cas SystemsEmbryonic Stem CellsAnimalsHomologous RecombinationMiceMice, Inbred C57BLMutagenesisCRISPR/Cas9double-strand breakembryonic stem cellsgene targetinggenome editinghomologous recombinationreproducibility

Identifiers

PMID36833328
PMCPMC9957269
OpenAlexW4319080860

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.