Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31391532›Full record

ArticleNature communications2019

Visualisation of dCas9 target search in vivo using an open-microscopy framework.

Koen J A Martens, Sam P B van Beljouw, Simon van der Els, Jochem N A Vink, Sander Baas, George A Vogelaar, Stan J J Brouns, Peter van Baarlen, Michiel Kleerebezem, Johannes Hohlbein

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature communications, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed
18.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

48 citing papers in PubMed, 115 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Anisotropic DBSCAN for 3D SMLM Data Clustering.The journal of physical chemistry. B · 2024
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Koen J A MartensLaboratory of Biophysics, Wageningen University and Research, Stippeneng 4, 6708 WE, Wageningen, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9447-8579
Sam P B van BeljouwLaboratory of Biophysics, Wageningen University and Research, Stippeneng 4, 6708 WE, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Simon van der ElsHost-Microbe Interactomics Group, Animal Sciences, Wageningen University and Research, De Elst 1, 6708 WD, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Jochem N A VinkKavli Institute of Nanoscience, Department of Bionanoscience, Delft University of Technology, Van der Maasweg 9, 2629 HZ, Delft, The Netherlands.
Sander BaasLaboratory of Biophysics, Wageningen University and Research, Stippeneng 4, 6708 WE, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
George A VogelaarLaboratory of Biophysics, Wageningen University and Research, Stippeneng 4, 6708 WE, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Stan J J BrounsKavli Institute of Nanoscience, Department of Bionanoscience, Delft University of Technology, Van der Maasweg 9, 2629 HZ, Delft, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9573-1724
Peter van BaarlenHost-Microbe Interactomics Group, Animal Sciences, Wageningen University and Research, De Elst 1, 6708 WD, Wageningen, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3530-5472
Michiel KleerebezemHost-Microbe Interactomics Group, Animal Sciences, Wageningen University and Research, De Elst 1, 6708 WD, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Johannes HohlbeinLaboratory of Biophysics, Wageningen University and Research, Stippeneng 4, 6708 WE, Wageningen, The Netherlands. Johannes.Hohlbein@wur.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7436-2221
Wageningen University & Research · NLDelft University of Technology · NLNederlands Instituut Voor Zuivel Oonderzoek · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

CRISPR-Cas9 is widely used in genomic editing, but the kinetics of target search and its relation to the cellular concentration of Cas9 have remained elusive. Effective target search requires constant screening of the protospacer adjacent motif (PAM) and a 30 ms upper limit for screening was recently found. To further quantify the rapid switching between DNA-bound and freely-diffusing states of dCas9, we developed an open-microscopy framework, the miCube, and introduce Monte-Carlo diffusion distribution analysis (MC-DDA). Our analysis reveals that dCas9 is screening PAMs 40% of the time in Gram-positive Lactoccous lactis, averaging 17 ± 4 ms per binding event. Using heterogeneous dCas9 expression, we determine the number of cellular target-containing plasmids and derive the copy number dependent Cas9 cleavage. Furthermore, we show that dCas9 is not irreversibly bound to target sites but can still interfere with plasmid replication. Taken together, our quantitative data facilitates further optimization of the CRISPR-Cas toolbox.

Indexed as

Gene EditingCRISPR-Associated Protein 9Gene DosageLactococcus lactisLuminescent ProteinsMicroscopyModels, GeneticMonte Carlo MethodNucleotide MotifsPlasmidsRecombinant Fusion ProteinsRed Fluorescent ProteinSingle Molecule ImagingTime FactorsCas9 endonuclease Streptococcus pyogenesCRISPR-Associated Protein 9Luminescent ProteinsRecombinant Fusion ProteinsRed Fluorescent Protein

Identifiers

PMID31391532
PMCPMC6685946
OpenAlexW2964566414

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.