Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30258061›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2018

Transgene-free genome editing in marine algae by bacterial conjugation - comparison with biolistic CRISPR/Cas9 transformation.

A K Sharma, M Nymark, T Sparstad, A M Bones, P Winge

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing 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

31 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Genetic engineering in diatoms: advances and prospects.The Plant journal : for cell and molecular biology · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Marine drugs · 2024
    Article
  9. A synthetic biology approach for the treatment of pollutants with microalgae.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Green diatom mutants reveal an intricate biosynthetic pathway of fucoxanthin.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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.

A K SharmaCell, Molecular biology and Genomics Group, Department of Biology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, N-7491, Trondheim, Norway.
M NymarkCell, Molecular biology and Genomics Group, Department of Biology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, N-7491, Trondheim, Norway.
T SparstadCell, Molecular biology and Genomics Group, Department of Biology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, N-7491, Trondheim, Norway.
A M BonesCell, Molecular biology and Genomics Group, Department of Biology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, N-7491, Trondheim, Norway.
P WingeCell, Molecular biology and Genomics Group, Department of Biology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, N-7491, Trondheim, Norway. per.winge@ntnu.no.

Funding

Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation GBMF4966
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The CRISPR/Cas9 technology has opened the possibility for targeted genome editing in various organisms including diatom model organisms. One standard method for delivery of vectors to diatom cells is by biolistic particle bombardment. Recently delivery by conjugation was added to the tool-box. An important difference between these methods is that biolistic transformation results in transgene integration of vector DNA into the algae genome, whereas conjugative transformation allows the vector to be maintained as an episome in the recipient cells. In this study, we have used both transformation methods to deliver the CRISPR/Cas9 system to the marine diatom Phaeodactylum tricornutum aiming to induce mutations in a common target gene. This allowed us to compare the two CRISPR/Cas9 delivery systems with regard to mutation efficiency, and to assess potential problems connected to constitutive expression of Cas9. We found that the percentage of CRISPR-induced targeted biallelic mutations are similar for both methods, but an extended growth period might be needed to induce biallelic mutations when the CRISPR/Cas9 system is episomal. Independent of the CRISPR/Cas9 vector system, constitutive expression of Cas9 can cause re-editing of mutant lines with small indels. Complications associated with the biolistic transformation system like the permanent and random integration of foreign DNA into the host genome and unstable mutant lines caused by constitutive expression of Cas9 can be avoided using the episomal CRISPR/Cas9 system. The episomal vector can be eliminated from the diatom cells by removal of selection pressure, resulting in transient Cas9 expression and non-transgenic mutant lines. Depending on legislation, such lines might be considered as non-GMOs.

Indexed as

BiolisticsConjugation, GeneticCRISPR-Cas SystemsTransformation, GeneticDiatomsEscherichia coliGenetic VectorsPlasmids

Identifiers

PMID30258061
PMCPMC6158232

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.