ArticleLab animal2025
Prime editing outperforms homology-directed repair as a tool for CRISPR-mediated variant knock-in in zebrafish.
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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Catfish Transgenesis and Gene Editing: Overview, Recent Advances, and Future Perspectives.Biology · 2026Review
- Review
- Optimised genome editing for precise DNA insertion and substitution using prime editors in zebrafish.eLife · 2026Article
- Zebrafish as a translational platform for investigating multi-organ pharmacological interactions of traditional Chinese medicine.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Review
- O-GlcNAcylation in novel regulated cell death: ferroptosis, pyroptosis, and necroptosis.Cell death discovery · 2025Review
- Evaluating variants of uncertain significance in adult zebrafish via prime editing: a proof of concept with a COL1A2 variant.BMC medical genomics · 2025Article
- Optimized Ribonucleoprotein Complexes Enhance Prime Editing Efficiency in Zebrafish.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- PrimeNet: rational design of Prime editing pegRNAs by deep learning.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
40437234What 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.