ArticlePloS one
Confounds of using the unc-58 selection marker highlights the importance of genotyping co-CRISPR genes.
Article in PloS one. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cleavage of the Meckel-Gruber syndrome protein TMEM67 by ADAMTS9 uncouples Wnt signaling and ciliogenesis.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Synthetic guide sequence to generate CRISPR-Cas9 entry strains inmicroPublication biology · 2025Article
- Constitutive sodium permeability in aProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- FLInt: single shot safe harbor transgene integration via Fluorescent Landmark Interference.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2023Article
- Interpreting ciliopathy-associated missense variants of uncertain significance (VUS) in Caenorhabditis elegans.Human molecular genetics · 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
8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Multiple advances have been made to increase the efficiency of CRISPR/Cas9 editing using the model genetic organism Caenorhabditis elegans (C. elegans). Here we report on the use of co-CRISPR 'marker' genes: worms in which co-CRISPR events have occurred have overt, visible phenotypes which facilitates the selection of worms that harbour CRISPR events in the target gene. Mutation in the co-CRISPR gene is then removed by outcrossing to wild type but this can be challenging if the CRISPR and co-CRISPR gene are hard to segregate. However, segregating away the co-CRISPR modified gene can be less challenging if the worms selected appear wild type and are selected from a jackpot brood. These are broods in which a high proportion of the progeny of a single injected worm display the co-CRISPR phenotype suggesting high CRISPR efficiency. This can deliver worms that harbour the desired mutation in the target gene locus without the co-CRISPR mutation. We have successfully generated a discrete mutation in the C. elegans nlg-1 gene using this method. However, in the process of sequencing to authenticate editing in the nlg-1 gene we discovered genomic rearrangements that arise at the co-CRISPR gene unc-58 that by visual observation were phenotypically silent but nonetheless resulted in a significant reduction in motility scored by thrashing behaviour. This highlights that careful consideration of the hidden consequences of co-CRISPR mediated genetic changes should be taken before downstream analysis of gene function. Given this, we suggest sequencing of co-CRISPR genes following CRISPR procedures that utilise phenotypic selection as part of the pipeline.
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.