ArticleBMC research notes2021
Comparison of the effects of introducing the CRISPR/Cas9 system by microinjection and electroporation into porcine embryos at different stages.
Article in BMC research notes, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.
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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 62 citations in OpenAlex.
- Selection of two pronuclei zygotes before electroporation does not improve gene editing efficiency or reduce mosaicism in porcine embryos despite optimized timing and Hoechst staining.Veterinary world · 2026Article
- Advances in pig embryo production for cryopreservation, transfer and genome editing.The Journal of reproduction and development · 2026Review
- Article
- 3D nanoprinting of embryo microinjection needles with anti-clogging features.Microsystems & nanoengineering · 2025Article
- CRISPR-Cas9 in the Tailoring of Genetically Engineered Animals.Current issues in molecular biology · 2025Review
- Design and developing a robot-assisted cell batch microinjection system for zebrafish embryo.Microsystems & nanoengineering · 2025Article
- Generation of albino C57BL/6J mice by CRISPR embryo editing of the mouse tyrosinase locus.Journal of genetics · 2025Article
- Comparison Between Electroporation at Different Voltage Levels and Microinjection to Generate Porcine Embryos with Multiple Xenoantigen Knock-Outs.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Evaluation of culture methods and chemical reagent combinations on CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing systems by lipofection in pig zygotes.In vitro cellular & developmental biology. Animal · 2024Article
- Analysis of fecal microbiome and metabolome changes in goats with pregnant toxemia.BMC veterinary research · 2024Article
- Current status and future of gene engineering in livestock.BMB reports · 2024Review
- Optimization of piggyBac transposon-mediated gene transfer method in common marmoset embryos.PloS one · 2023Article
- Multiple gene editing in porcine embryos using a combination of microinjection, electroporation, and transfection methods.Veterinary world · 2022Article
- Optimized Cas9:sgRNA delivery efficiently generates biallelic MSTN knockout sheep without affecting meat quality.BMC genomics · 2022Article
- Article
- Triple gene editing in porcine embryos using electroporation alone or in combination with microinjection.Veterinary world · 2022Article
- Application of the transgenic pig model in biomedical research: A review.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2022Review
- Delivering the CRISPR/Cas9 system for engineering gene therapies: Recent cargo and delivery approaches for clinical translation.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Review
- Multidrug-Resistant Microbial Therapy Using Antimicrobial Peptides and the CRISPR/Cas9 System.Veterinary medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2022Review
- Generation of mutant pigs by lipofection-mediated genome editing in embryos.Scientific reports · 2021Article
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 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveCytoplasmic microinjection and electroporation of the CRISPR/Cas9 system into zygotes are used for generating genetically modified pigs. However, these methods create mosaic mutations in embryos. In this study, we evaluated whether the gene editing method and embryonic stage for gene editing affect the gene editing efficiency of porcine embryos.
resultsFirst, we designed five guide RNAs (gRNAs) targeting the B4GALNT2 gene and evaluated mutation efficiency by introducing each gRNA with Cas9 protein into zygotes by electroporation. Next, the optimized gRNA with Cas9 protein was introduced into 1-cell and 2-cell stage embryos by either microinjection or electroporation. The sequence of gRNA affected the bi-allelic mutation rate and mutation efficiency of blastocysts derived from electroporated embryos. Microinjection significantly decreased the cleavage rates in each embryonic stage and blastocyst formation rates in 2-cell stage embryos compared with electroporation (p < 0.05). However, the bi-allelic mutation rate and mutation efficiency of blastocysts from the 1-cell stage embryos edited using microinjection were significantly higher (p < 0.05) than those of blastocysts from the 2-cell stage embryos edited by both methods. These results indicate that the gene editing method and embryonic stage for gene editing may affect the genotype and mutation efficiency of the resulting embryos.
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.