Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36591999›Full record

ArticleJournal of visualized experiments : JoVE2022

Efficient Genome Editing of Mice by CRISPR Electroporation of Zygotes.

Chantal K Diallo, Andrew J Modzelewski

Abstract readVideo-Audio Media
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of visualized experiments : JoVE, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.1field-weighted citation impact, top 56% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Chantal K DialloDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, The University of Pennsylvania.
Andrew J ModzelewskiDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, The University of Pennsylvania; amodz@upenn.edu.
University of Pennsylvania · US

Funding

The Role of Retrotransposon Activity in Mammalian Pre-Implantation DevelopmentR00HD096108 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI MODZELEWSKI, ANDREW JOSEPH · 2022 to 2024
$744k
NICHD NIH HHS R00 HD096108
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With exceptional efficiency, accuracy, and ease, the CRISPR/Cas9 system has significantly improved genome editing in cell culture and lab animal experiments. When generating animal models, the electroporation of zygotes offers higher efficiency, simplicity, cost, and throughput as an alternative to the gold standard method of microinjection. Electroporation is also gentler, with higher viability, and reliably delivers Cas9/single-guide RNA (sgRNA) ribonucleoproteins (RNPs) into the zygotes of common laboratory mouse strains (e.g., C57BL/6J and C57BL/6N) that approaches 100% delivery efficiency. This technique enables insertion/deletion (indels) mutations, point mutations, the deletion of whole genes or exons, and small insertions in the range of 100-200 bp to insert LoxP or short tags like FLAG, HA, or V5. While constantly being improved, here we present the current state of CRISPR-EZ in a protocol that includes sgRNA production through in vitro transcription, embryo processing, RNP assembly, electroporation, and the genotyping of preimplantation embryos. A graduate-level researcher with minimal experience manipulating embryos can obtain genetically edited embryos in less than 1 week using this protocol. Here, we offer a straightforward, low-cost, efficient, high-capacity method that could be used with mouse embryos.

Indexed as

CRISPR-Cas SystemsGene EditingAnimalsElectroporationMiceMice, Inbred C57BLRibonucleoproteinsZygoteRibonucleoproteins

Identifiers

PMID36591999
PMCPMC13186264
OpenAlexW4311691119

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.