ArticlePloS one2020
Application of a cost-effective DNA extraction protocol for screening transgenic and CRISPR-edited primary goat cells.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The genotyping of genetically-modified cells is a crucial step in studies of transgenics and genomic editing with systems such as CRISPR/Cas. The detection of genome editing events can be directly related to the genotyping methodology used, which is influenced by its costs, since many experiments require the analysis of a large number of samples. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of direct lysis methods of genomic DNA (gDNA) extraction for the detection of knockins and knockouts in primary goat cells. Initially, three gDNA extraction protocols (protocol A, heat denaturation/freeze-thaw in water; protocol B, heat denaturation/proteinase K; and protocol C, CellsDirect Kit) were tested using different quantities (1,000, 5,000 and 10,000 cells) and types of goat primary cells (fibroblasts and goat mammary epithelial cells-GMECs) for subsequent validation by PCR amplification of small (GAPDH) and large amplicons (hLF transgene). All protocols were successful in the detection of the small amplicon; however, in GMECs, only protocol B resulted efficient amplification (protocol A-0%, protocol B-93%, protocol C-13.33%, P <0.05). In a proof-of-principle experiment, the TP53 gene was knocked out in GMECs by CRISPR/Cas9-mediated deletion while constructs containing the anti-VEGF monoclonal antibody (pBC-anti-VEGF) and bacterial L-Asparaginase (pBC-ASNase) transgenes were knocked-in separately in fibroblasts. Detection of successful editing was performed using protocol B and PCR. The integration rates of the pBC-ASNase and pBC-anti-VEGF transgenes were 93.6% and 72%, respectively, as per PCR. The efficiency of biallelic editing in GMECs using CRISPR/Cas9 for the TP53 deletion was 5.4%. Our results suggest that protocol B (heat denaturation/proteinase K) can be used as an inexpensive and quick methodology for detecting genetic modifications in different types of primary goat cells, with efficiency rates consistent with values previously described in the literature when using extraction kits or more complex proteinase K formulations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.