Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25532495›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2014

Asymmetric parental genome engineering by Cas9 during mouse meiotic exit.

Toru Suzuki, Maki Asami, Anthony C F Perry

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Effects of the timing of electroporation duringVeterinary and animal science · 2022
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. The dawn of non-human primate models for neurodevelopmental disorders.Current opinion in genetics & development · 2020
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Human germline genome editing.Nature cell biology · 2019
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Precision editing in the human embryo.Nature biotechnology · 2017
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Toru SuzukiLaboratory of Mammalian Molecular Embryology, Department of Biology and Biochemistry, University of Bath, BA2 7AY, England.
Maki AsamiLaboratory of Mammalian Molecular Embryology, Department of Biology and Biochemistry, University of Bath, BA2 7AY, England.
Anthony C F PerryLaboratory of Mammalian Molecular Embryology, Department of Biology and Biochemistry, University of Bath, BA2 7AY, England.

Funding

Medical Research Council G1000839
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mammalian genomes can be edited by injecting pronuclear embryos with Cas9 cRNA and guide RNA (gRNA) but it is unknown whether editing can also occur during the onset of embryonic development, prior to pronuclear embryogenesis. We here report Cas9-mediated editing during sperm-induced meiotic exit and the initiation of development. Injection of unfertilized, mouse metaphase II (mII) oocytes with Cas9 cRNA, gRNA and sperm enabled efficient editing of transgenic and native alleles. Pre-loading oocytes with Cas9 increased sensitivity to gRNA ~100-fold. Paternal allelic editing occurred as an early event: single embryo genome analysis revealed editing within 3 h of sperm injection, coinciding with sperm chromatin decondensation during the gamete-to-embryo transition but prior to pronucleus formation. Maternal alleles underwent editing after the first round of DNA replication, resulting in mosaicism. Asymmetric editing of maternal and paternal alleles suggests a novel strategy for discriminatory targeting of parental genomes.

Indexed as

GenomeMeiosisAnimalsDNA ReplicationGenetic EngineeringMiceMice, TransgenicOocytesSperm Injections, Intracytoplasmic

Identifiers

PMID25532495
PMCPMC4274505

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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 OpenQuestion graph.