ArticlePloS one2015
Differential requirements of singleplex and multiplex recombineering of large DNA constructs.
Article in PloS one, 2015. 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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Recombineering is an in vivo genetic engineering technique involving homologous recombination mediated by phage recombination proteins. The use of recombineering methodology is not limited by size and sequence constraints and therefore has enabled the streamlined construction of bacterial strains and multi-component plasmids. Recombineering applications commonly utilize singleplex strategies and the parameters are extensively tested. However, singleplex recombineering is not suitable for the modification of several loci in genome recoding and strain engineering exercises, which requires a multiplex recombineering design. Defining the main parameters affecting multiplex efficiency especially the insertion of multiple large genes is necessary to enable efficient large-scale modification of the genome. Here, we have tested different recombineering operational parameters of the lambda phage Red recombination system and compared singleplex and multiplex recombineering of large gene sized DNA cassettes. We have found that optimal multiplex recombination required long homology lengths in excess of 120 bp. However, efficient multiplexing was possible with only 60 bp of homology. Multiplex recombination was more limited by lower amounts of DNA than singleplex recombineering and was greatly enhanced by use of phosphorothioate protection of DNA. Exploring the mechanism of multiplexing revealed that efficient recombination required co-selection of an antibiotic marker and the presence of all three Red proteins. Building on these results, we substantially increased multiplex efficiency using an ExoVII deletion strain. Our findings elucidate key differences between singleplex and multiplex recombineering and provide important clues for further improving multiplex recombination efficiency.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.