Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28052104›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Insertional Mutagenesis by CRISPR/Cas9 Ribonucleoprotein Gene Editing in Cells Targeted for Point Mutation Repair Directed by Short Single-Stranded DNA Oligonucleotides.

Natalia Rivera-Torres, Kelly Banas, Pawel Bialk, Kevin M Bloh, Eric B Kmiec

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Mutation Breeding ofJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Cas9 Mediated Correction ofOncoTargets and therapy · 2020
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Functional Gene Knockout ofMolecular therapy oncolytics · 2018
    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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Natalia Rivera-TorresGene Editing Institute, Helen F. Graham Cancer Center and Research Institute, Newark, Delaware, United States of America.
Kelly BanasGene Editing Institute, Helen F. Graham Cancer Center and Research Institute, Newark, Delaware, United States of America.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3130-9460
Pawel BialkGene Editing Institute, Helen F. Graham Cancer Center and Research Institute, Newark, Delaware, United States of America.
Kevin M BlohGene Editing Institute, Helen F. Graham Cancer Center and Research Institute, Newark, Delaware, United States of America.
Eric B KmiecGene Editing Institute, Helen F. Graham Cancer Center and Research Institute, Newark, Delaware, United States of America.
University of Delaware · USAlfred I. duPont Hospital for Children · US

Funding

The eye as a window into sickle cell disease morbidityP20GM109021 · NIGMS · NEMOURS CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, DELAWARE · PI HILDENBRAND, AIMEE K · 2014 to 2025
$20.7M
NIGMS NIH HHS P20 GM109021
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

CRISPR/Cas9 and single-stranded DNA oligonucleotides (ssODNs) have been used to direct the repair of a single base mutation in human genes. Here, we examine a method designed to increase the precision of RNA guided genome editing in human cells by utilizing a CRISPR/Cas9 ribonucleoprotein (RNP) complex to initiate DNA cleavage. The RNP is assembled in vitro and induces a double stranded break at a specific site surrounding the mutant base designated for correction by the ssODN. We use an integrated mutant eGFP gene, bearing a single base change rendering the expressed protein nonfunctional, as a single copy target in HCT 116 cells. We observe significant gene correction activity of the mutant base, promoted by the RNP and single-stranded DNA oligonucleotide with validation through genotypic and phenotypic readout. We demonstrate that all individual components must be present to obtain successful gene editing. Importantly, we examine the genotype of individually sorted corrected and uncorrected clonally expanded cell populations for the mutagenic footprint left by the action of these gene editing tools. While the DNA sequence of the corrected population is exact with no adjacent sequence modification, the uncorrected population exhibits heterogeneous mutagenicity with a wide variety of deletions and insertions surrounding the target site. We designate this type of DNA aberration as on-site mutagenicity. Analyses of two clonal populations bearing specific DNA insertions surrounding the target site, indicate that point mutation repair has occurred at the level of the gene. The phenotype, however, is not rescued because a section of the single-stranded oligonucleotide has been inserted altering the reading frame and generating truncated proteins. These data illustrate the importance of analysing mutagenicity in uncorrected cells. Our results also form the basis of a simple model for point mutation repair directed by a short single-stranded DNA oligonucleotides and CRISPR/Cas9 ribonucleoprotein complex.

Indexed as

Gene EditingAllelesBase SequenceClone CellsCRISPR-Cas SystemsDNA RepairDNA, Single-StrandedFlow CytometryGreen Fluorescent ProteinsHCT116 CellsHumansMutagenesis, InsertionalOligonucleotidesPoint MutationRibonucleoproteinsDNA, Single-Strandedenhanced green fluorescent proteinGreen Fluorescent ProteinsOligonucleotidesRibonucleoproteins

Identifiers

PMID28052104
PMCPMC5214427
OpenAlexW2571296550

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.