Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27214565›Full record

ArticleJournal of visualized experiments : JoVE2016

Microinjection for Transgenesis and Genome Editing in Threespine Sticklebacks.

Priscilla A Erickson, Nicholas A Ellis, Craig T Miller

Open access · greenAbstract readVideo-Audio Media
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of visualized experiments : JoVE, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Dark world rises: The emergence of cavefish as a model for the study of evolution, development, behavior, and disease.Journal of experimental zoology. Part B, Molecular and developmental evolution · 2020
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. The genetic and molecular architecture of phenotypic diversity in sticklebacks.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2017
    Review
  15. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Priscilla A EricksonDepartment of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley.
Nicholas A EllisDepartment of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley.
Craig T MillerDepartment of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley; ctmiller@berkeley.edu.
University of California, Berkeley · US

Funding

POSTGRADUATE TRAINING PROGRAM IN GENETICST32GM007127 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY · PI DILLIN, ANDREW G · 1985 to 2016
$7.9M
Development Genetics of Tooth Number Variation in SticklebacksR01DE021475 · NIDCR · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY · PI MILLER, CRAIG THOMAS · 2011 to 2025
$5.4M
NIDCR NIH HHS R01 DE021475NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM007127
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The threespine stickleback fish has emerged as a powerful system to study the genetic basis of a wide variety of morphological, physiological, and behavioral phenotypes. The remarkably diverse phenotypes that have evolved as marine populations adapt to countless freshwater environments, combined with the ability to cross marine and freshwater forms, provide a rare vertebrate system in which genetics can be used to map genomic regions controlling evolved traits. Excellent genomic resources are now available, facilitating molecular genetic dissection of evolved changes. While mapping experiments generate lists of interesting candidate genes, functional genetic manipulations are required to test the roles of these genes. Gene regulation can be studied with transgenic reporter plasmids and BACs integrated into the genome using the Tol2 transposase system. Functions of specific candidate genes and cis-regulatory elements can be assessed by inducing targeted mutations with TALEN and CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing reagents. All methods require introducing nucleic acids into fertilized one-cell stickleback embryos, a task made challenging by the thick chorion of stickleback embryos and the relatively small and thin blastomere. Here, a detailed protocol for microinjection of nucleic acids into stickleback embryos is described for transgenic and genome editing applications to study gene expression and function, as well as techniques to assess the success of transgenesis and recover stable lines.

Indexed as

Gene EditingSmegmamorphaAnimalsGene Transfer TechniquesGenomeMicroinjections

Identifiers

PMID27214565
PMCPMC4942152
OpenAlexW2381998674

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.