ArticleG3 (Bethesda, Md.)2026
Detection of CRISPR-Cas-induced mutations in Daphnia.
Article in G3 (Bethesda, Md.), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- CRISPR-Cas9-induced genetic mosaicism in three species of the microcrustaceanbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
CRISPR-Cas9 has established itself as a robust tool for conducting loss-of-function gene research in emerging model species, including the freshwater zooplankton Daphnia. However, sensitive detection of mutations, especially in genetic mosaic and pooled samples, remains a challenge. In this study, we evaluate 2 of the most widely used mutation screening techniques, the T7 Endonuclease I assay and fragment analysis for their sensitivity, accuracy, and practical use in detecting CRISPR-induced indels in 4 targeted genes, DNMT3A, DNMT3B, PERIOD2, and DMRT1 in Daphnia magna. Here, we show that T7 Endonuclease I, although it offers a quick and cost-effective screening method, often produces false positives, especially when examining pooled samples. Conversely, fragment analysis facilitates detecting allele size differences at a fine resolution, reproducibility in detecting indels, and distinguishing zygosity, and is more reliable as a method to detect mutation. Our comparative analyses convey the importance of carefully selecting the appropriate screening methods depending on research questions.
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.