ArticleVeterinary world2022
Triple gene editing in porcine embryos using electroporation alone or in combination with microinjection.
Article in Veterinary world, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison Between Electroporation at Different Voltage Levels and Microinjection to Generate Porcine Embryos with Multiple Xenoantigen Knock-Outs.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- CRISPR-based genome editing of a diurnal rodent, Nile grass rat (Arvicanthis niloticus).BMC biology · 2024Article
- Perspectives in Genome-Editing Techniques for Livestock.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Review
- Multiple gene editing in porcine embryos using a combination of microinjection, electroporation, and transfection methods.Veterinary world · 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
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aim: We previously developed the gene-editing by electroporation (EP) of Cas9 protein method, in which the CRISPR/Cas9 system was introduced into porcine Materials and Methods: We introduced guide RNAs targeting Results: Our results revealed a significant reduction in the rate of blastocyst formation in the two groups that underwent MI before and after EP (MI-EP and EP-MI group), compared with that in the groups treated with EP alone (EP group) (p=0.0224 and p<0.0001, respectively) and control (p=0.0029 and p<0.0001, respectively). There was no significant difference in the total mutation rates among the treatment groups in the resulting blastocysts. As an only positive effect of additional MI treatment, the rate of blastocysts carrying biallelic mutations in at least one target gene was higher in the MI-EP group than in the EP group. However, there was no difference in the rates of embryos carrying biallelic mutations in more than 2 target genes. Conclusion: These results indicate that although a combination of MI and EP does not improve the mutation efficiency or biallelic mutation for triple-gene knockout, MI treatment before EP is better to reduce mortality in porcine zygotic gene editing through a combination of MI and EP.
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.