ArticleScientific reports2021
Generation of mutant pigs by lipofection-mediated genome editing in embryos.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advances in pig embryo production for cryopreservation, transfer and genome editing.The Journal of reproduction and development · 2026Review
- Pig Genome Editing for Agriculture: Achievements and Challenges.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Article
- Genome editing of porcine zygotes via lipofection of two guide RNAs using a CRISPR/Cas9 system.The Journal of reproduction and development · 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
- Current status and future of gene engineering in livestock.BMB reports · 2024Review
- Production of Genetically Modified Porcine Embryos via Lipofection of Zona-Pellucida-Intact Oocytes Using the CRISPR/Cas9 System.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
- Effects of the timing of electroporation duringVeterinary and animal science · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The specificity and efficiency of CRISPR/Cas9 gene-editing systems are determined by several factors, including the mode of delivery, when applied to mammalian embryos. Given the limited time window for delivery, faster and more reliable methods to introduce Cas9-gRNA ribonucleoprotein complexes (RNPs) into target embryos are needed. In pigs, somatic cell nuclear transfer using gene-modified somatic cells and the direct introduction of gene editors into the cytoplasm of zygotes/embryos by microinjection or electroporation have been used to generate gene-edited embryos; however, these strategies require expensive equipment and sophisticated techniques. In this study, we developed a novel lipofection-mediated RNP transfection technique that does not require specialized equipment for the generation of gene-edited pigs and produced no detectable off-target events. In particular, we determined the concentration of lipofection reagent for efficient RNP delivery into embryos and successfully generated MSTN gene-edited pigs (with mutations in 7 of 9 piglets) after blastocyst transfer to a recipient gilt. This newly established lipofection-based technique is still in its early stages and requires improvements, particularly in terms of editing efficiency. Nonetheless, this practical method for rapid and large-scale lipofection-mediated gene editing in pigs has important agricultural and biomedical applications.
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.