Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30284144›Full record

ArticleTransgenic research2018

Mosaicism diminishes the value of pre-implantation embryo biopsies for detecting CRISPR/Cas9 induced mutations in sheep.

Marcela Vilarino, Fabian Patrik Suchy, Sheikh Tamir Rashid, Helen Lindsay, Juan Reyes, Bret Roberts McNabb, Talitha van der Meulen, Mark O Huising, Hiromitsu Nakauchi, Pablo Juan Ross

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Transgenic research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Viruses · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Perspectives in Genome-Editing Techniques for Livestock.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023
    Review
  7. Embryo biotechnologies in sheep: Achievements and new improvements.Reproduction in domestic animals = Zuchthygiene · 2022
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Current status of the application of gene editing in pigs.The Journal of reproduction and development · 2021
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Human germline genome editing.Nature cell biology · 2019
    Review
  20. Review
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

10 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

Marcela VilarinoDepartment of Animal Science, College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, University of California Davis, Davis, CA, USA.
Fabian Patrik SuchySchool of Medicine, Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Sheikh Tamir RashidCentre for Stem Cells and Regenerative Medicine and Institute for Liver Studies, King's College, London, UK.
Helen LindsayInstitute of Molecular Life Sciences, University of Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Juan ReyesDepartment of Animal Science, College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, University of California Davis, Davis, CA, USA.
Bret Roberts McNabbDepartment of Population Health and Reproduction, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California Davis, Davis, CA, USA.
Talitha van der MeulenDepartment of Neurobiology, Physiology and Behavior, College of Biological Sciences, University of California Davis, Davis, CA, USA.
Mark O HuisingDepartment of Neurobiology, Physiology and Behavior, College of Biological Sciences, University of California Davis, Davis, CA, USA.
Hiromitsu NakauchiSchool of Medicine, Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. nakauchi@stanford.edu.
Pablo Juan RossDepartment of Animal Science, College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, University of California Davis, Davis, CA, USA. pross@ucdavis.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-3972-3754
University of California, Davis · USInstitute for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine · INKing's College London · GBSIB Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics · CHStanford University · US

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/L006537/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The production of knock-out (KO) livestock models is both expensive and time consuming due to their long gestational interval and low number of offspring. One alternative to increase efficiency is performing a genetic screening to select pre-implantation embryos that have incorporated the desired mutation. Here we report the use of sheep embryo biopsies for detecting CRISPR/Cas9-induced mutations targeting the gene PDX1 prior to embryo transfer. PDX1 is a critical gene for pancreas development and the target gene required for the creation of pancreatogenesis-disabled sheep. We evaluated the viability of biopsied embryos in vitro and in vivo, and we determined the mutation efficiency using PCR combined with gel electrophoresis and digital droplet PCR (ddPCR). Next, we determined the presence of mosaicism in ~ 50% of the recovered fetuses employing a clonal sequencing methodology. While the use of biopsies did not compromise embryo viability, the presence of mosaicism diminished the diagnostic value of the technique. If mosaicism could be overcome, pre-implantation embryo biopsies for mutation screening represents a powerful approach that will streamline the creation of KO animals.

Indexed as

Animals, Genetically ModifiedBlastocystCRISPR-Cas SystemsEmbryo, MammalianMutationAnimalsBiopsyEmbryonic DevelopmentEmbryo TransferFemaleGene EditingHomeodomain ProteinsMaleMosaicismSheepTrans-ActivatorsHomeodomain Proteinspancreatic and duodenal homeobox 1 proteinTrans-ActivatorsBiopsyGene-editingLivestockMosaicOvine

Identifiers

PMID30284144
OpenAlexW2895036765

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.