Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25954970›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Differential requirements of singleplex and multiplex recombineering of large DNA constructs.

Thimma R Reddy, Emma J Kelsall, Léna M S Fevat, Sarah E Munson, Shaun M Cowley

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 100% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Thimma R ReddyDepartment of Biochemistry, University of Leicester, Leicester, LE1 9HN, United Kingdom.
Emma J KelsallDepartment of Biochemistry, University of Leicester, Leicester, LE1 9HN, United Kingdom.
Léna M S FevatCenter for Fisheries, Environment and Aquaculture Sciences, Lowestoft, NR33 0HT, United Kingdom.
Sarah E MunsonES Cell Facility, Center for Core Biotechnology Services, Leicester, LE1 9HN, United Kingdom.
Shaun M CowleyDepartment of Biochemistry, University of Leicester, Leicester, LE1 9HN, United Kingdom.
University of Leicester · GBCentre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council G0600135Medical Research Council MR/J009202/1
6 · The paper itself

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

Bacteriophage lambdaCloning, MolecularDNAEscherichia coliGenetic EngineeringHomologous RecombinationPlasmidsDNA

Identifiers

PMID25954970
PMCPMC4425527
OpenAlexW270472480

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.