ArticleMolecular biology reports2023
Efficient site-specific integration in CHO-K1 cells using CRISPR/Cas9-modified donors.
Article in Molecular biology reports, 2023. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development of predictable and high-yield CHO cell line by site-specific integration.Journal of biological engineering · 2025Article
- Efficient Delivery of CRISPR-Cas9 RNP Complexes with Cyclodextrin-Based Nanosponges for Enhanced Genome Editing: TILD-CRISPR Integration.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Study on chromatin regulation patterns of expression vectors in the PhiC31 integration site.Epigenetics · 2024Article
- CHO cell engineering via targeted integration of circular miR-21 decoy using CRISPR/RMCE hybrid system.Applied microbiology and biotechnology · 2024Article
- Recombinant therapeutic proteins degradation and overcoming strategies in CHO cells.Applied microbiology and biotechnology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundConventional methods applied to develop recombinant CHO (rCHO) cell line as a predominant host for mammalian protein expression are limited to random integration approaches, which can prolong the process of getting the desired clones for months. CRISPR/Cas9 could be an alternative by mediating site-specific integration into transcriptionally active hot spots, promoting homogenous clones, and shortening the clonal selection process. However, applying this approach for the rCHO cell line development depends on an acceptable integration rate and robust sites for the sustained expression. METHODS AND
resultsIn this study, we aimed at improving the rate of GFP reporter integration to the Chromosome 3 (Chr3) pseudo-attP site of the CHO-K1 genome via two strategies; these include the PCR-based donor linearization and increasing local concentration of donor in the vicinity of DSB site by applying the monomeric streptavidin (mSA)-biotin tethering approach. According to the results, compared to the conventional CRISPR-mediated targeting, donor linearization and tethering methods exhibited 1.6- and 2.4-fold improvement in knock-in efficiency; among on-target clones, 84% and 73% were determined to be single copy by the quantitative PCR, respectively. Finally, to evaluate the expression level of the targeted integration, the expression cassette of hrsACE2 as a secretory protein was targeted to the Chr3 pseudo-attP site by applying the established tethering method. The generated cell pool reached 2-fold productivity, as compared to the random integration cell line.
conclusionOur study suggested reliable strategies for enhancing the CRISPR-mediated integration, introducing Chr3 pseudo-attP site as a potential candidate for the sustained transgene expression, which might be applied to promote the rCHO cell line development.
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.