Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40437234›Full record

ArticleLab animal2025

Prime editing outperforms homology-directed repair as a tool for CRISPR-mediated variant knock-in in zebrafish.

Michiel Vanhooydonck, Elyne De Neef, Hanna De Saffel, Annekatrien Boel, Andy Willaert, Bert Callewaert, Kathleen B M Claes

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Lab animal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
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

7 authors.

Michiel Vanhooydonck *Center for Medical Genetics, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-7350-9009
Elyne De Neef *Center for Medical Genetics, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0003-2933-2773
Hanna De SaffelCenter for Medical Genetics, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
Annekatrien BoelGhent-Fertility and Stem Cell Team (G-FaST), Department for Reproductive Medicine, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Andy WillaertCenter for Medical Genetics, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
Bert CallewaertCenter for Medical Genetics, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium. Bert.Callewaert@ugent.be.ORCID 0000-0002-9743-4205
Kathleen B M ClaesCenter for Medical Genetics, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium. Kathleen.Claes@UGent.be.ORCID 0000-0003-0841-7372

Funding

Universiteit Gent (UGent) BOF21/DOC/242Universiteit Gent (UGent) BOF GOA019-21
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Zebrafish serve as a valuable model organism for studying human genetic diseases. While generating knockout lines is relatively straightforward, introducing precise disease-specific genetic variants by knock-in (KI) remains challenging. KI lines, however, enable more accurate studies of molecular and physiological consequences of genetic diseases. Their generation is often hampered by low editing efficiency (EE) and potential off-target effects. Here, we optimized conventional CRISPR-Cas9-mediated homology-directed repair (HDR) strategies for precise KI of genetic variants in zebrafish and compared their efficacy with prime editing, a recently developed technique that is not yet commonly used. Using next-generation sequencing, we determined KI EE by HDR for six unique base-pair substitutions in three different zebrafish genes. We assessed the effect of (1) varying Cas9 amounts, (2) HDR templates with chemical modifications to improve integration efficiency, (3) different microinjection procedures and (4) introduction of additional synonymous guide-blocking variants in the HDR template. Increasing Cas9 amounts augmented KI EE, with optimal injected amounts of Cas9 between 200 pg and 800 pg. The use of Alt-R HDR templates further increased KI EE, while guide-blocking modifications did not. Injecting components directly into the cell was not superior to injections into the yolk. Prime editing, however, increased EE up to fourfold and expanded the F

Indexed as

CRISPR-Cas SystemsGene EditingGene Knock-In TechniquesRecombinational DNA RepairZebrafishAnimalsAnimals, Genetically Modified

Identifiers

PMID40437234

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.