ArticleInternational journal of molecular sciences2022
Single-Step Genome Editing of Small Ruminant Embryos by Electroporation.
Article in International journal of molecular sciences, 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, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Genome edited sheep generated by zygote electroporation of prime editor ribonucleoproteins.Frontiers in genome editing · 2026Article
- Efficient gene editing of BMP15, GDF9, and MSTN-but not the imprinted CLPG gene-in goat embryos via electrotransfection and handmade cloning.Functional & integrative genomics · 2025Article
- Electroporation Delivery of Cas9 sgRNA Ribonucleoprotein-Mediated Genome Editing in Sheep IVF Zygotes.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Livestock embryonic stem cells for reproductive biotechniques and genetic improvement.Animal reproduction · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We investigated the possibility of single-step genome editing in small ruminants by CRISPR-Cas9 zygote electroporation. We targeted SOCS2 and PDX1 in sheep embryos and OTX2 in goat embryos, utilizing a dual sgRNA approach. Gene editing efficiency was compared between microinjection and three different electroporation settings performed at four different times of embryo development. Electroporation of sheep zygotes 6 h after fertilization with settings that included short high-voltage (poring) and long low-voltage (transfer) pulses was efficient at producing SOCS2 knock-out blastocysts. The mutation rate after CRISPR/Cas9 electroporation was 95.6% ± 8%, including 95.4% ± 9% biallelic mutations; which compared favorably to 82.3% ± 8% and 25% ± 10%, respectively, when using microinjection. We also successfully disrupted the PDX1 gene in sheep and the OTX2 gene in goat embryos. The biallelic mutation rate was 81 ± 5% for PDX1 and 85% ± 6% for OTX2. In conclusion, using single-step CRISPR-Cas9 zygote electroporation, we successfully introduced biallelic deletions in the genome of small ruminant 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.