ArticlePloS one2024
Zygote cryobanking applied to CRISPR/Cas9 microinjection in mice.
Article in PloS one, 2024. 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.
- Delivery Systems for Therapeutic Genome Editing: Challenges, Innovations, and Future Perspectives.MedComm · 2026Review
- CRISPR-Cas9 in the Tailoring of Genetically Engineered Animals.Current issues in molecular biology · 2025Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Microinjection of CRISPR/Cas9 requires the availability of zygotes that implies animal breeding, superovulation schemes, and embryo collection. Vitrification of zygotes may allow having ready-to-use embryos and to temporally dissociate the workload of embryo production from microinjection. In this study, fresh (F group) or vitrified (V group) zygotes were microinjected with CRISPR/Cas9 system to test the hypothesis that vitrified zygotes could be a suitable source of embryos for microinjection. In Experiment 1 (in vitro evaluation), B6D2F1/J zygotes were microinjected and cultured until blastocyst stage. Embryo survival and cleavage rates after microinjection were similar between groups (~50% and ~80% respectively; P = NS). Development rate was significantly higher for F than V group (55.0% vs. 32.6%, respectively; P<0.05). Mutation rate did not show statistical differences among groups (P = NS). In Experiment 2 (in vivo evaluation), C57BL/6J zygotes were microinjected and transferred to recipient females. Embryo survival was significantly lower in fresh than in vitrified zygotes (49.2% vs. 62.7%, respectively; P<0.05). Cleavage rate did not show statistical differences (~70%; P = NS). Pregnancy rate (70.0% vs. 58.3%) and birth rate (11.9% vs. 11.2%) were not different between groups (F vs. V group; P = NS). Offspring mutation rate was higher for F than V group, in both heterodimer analysis (73.7% vs. 33.3%, respectively; P = 0.015) and Sanger sequencing (89.5% vs. 41.7%, respectively; P = 0.006). In conclusion, vitrified-warmed zygotes present a viable alternative source for CRISPR/Cas9 microinjection when the production of fresh embryos is impeded by limited technical support. The possibility of zygote cryobanking to perform microinjection sessions on demand seems to be a suitable alternative to avoid the breeding and maintenance of animals all over the year, enhancing the implementation of CRISPR technology.
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.