CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 45

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

CRISPR in Animals and Animal Models

Shrock, Ellen, Güell, Marc·2017·Progress in Molecular Biology and Translational Science
DOI 10.1016/bs.pmbts.2017.07.010
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

CRISPR-Cas9 has revolutionized the generation of transgenic animals. This system has demonstrated an unprecedented efficiency, multiplexability, and ease of use, thereby reducing the time and cost required for genome editing and enabling the production of animals with more extensive genetic modifications. It has also been shown to be applicable to a wide variety of animals, from early-branching metazoans to primates. Genome-wide screens in model organisms have been performed, accurate models of human diseases have been constructed, and potential therapies have been tested and validated in animal models. Several achievements in genetic modification of animals have been translated into products for the agricultural and pharmaceutical industries. Based on the remarkable progress to date, one may anticipate that in the future, CRISPR-Cas9 technology will enable additional far-reaching advances, including understanding the bases of diseases with complex genetic origins, engineering animals to produce organs for human transplantation, and genetically transforming entire populations of organisms to prevent the spread of disease.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/bs.pmbts.2017.07.010

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 86

  1. Rocha-Martins, 2015, From gene targeting to genome editing: transgenic animals applications and beyond, Acad Bras Cienc, 87, 1323, 10.1590/0001-3765201520140710 · DOI
  2. Doudna, 2014, Genome editing. The new frontier of genome engineering with CRISPR-Cas9, Science, 346, 1258096, 10.1126/science.1258096 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Hsu, 2014, Development and applications of CRISPR-Cas9 for genome engineering, Cell, 157, 1262, 10.1016/j.cell.2014.05.010 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Barrangou, 2007, CRISPR provides acquired resistance against viruses in prokaryotes, Science, 315, 1709, 10.1126/science.1138140 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Jinek, 2013, RNA-programmed genome editing in human cells, Elife, 2, e00471, 10.7554/eLife.00471 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Mali, 2013, RNA-guided human genome engineering via Cas9, Science, 339, 823, 10.1126/science.1232033 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Cong, 2013, Multiplex genome engineering using CRISPR/Cas systems, Science, 339, 819, 10.1126/science.1231143 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Chu, 2015, Increasing the efficiency of homology-directed repair for CRISPR-Cas9-induced precise gene editing in mammalian cells, Nat Biotechnol, 33, 543, 10.1038/nbt.3198 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Zhang, 2017, Efficient precise knockin with a double cut HDR donor after CRISPR/Cas9-mediated double-stranded DNA cleavage, Genome Biol, 18, 35, 10.1186/s13059-017-1164-8 · DOI
  10. Davis, 2014, Homology-directed repair of DNA nicks via pathways distinct from canonical double-strand break repair, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 111, E924, 10.1073/pnas.1400236111 · DOI
  11. Byrne, 2014, Multi-kilobase homozygous targeted gene replacement in human induced pluripotent stem cells, Nucl Acids Res, 43, e21, 10.1093/nar/gku1246 · DOI
  12. Fu, 2013, High-frequency off-target mutagenesis induced by CRISPR-Cas nucleases in human cells, Nat Biotechnol, 31, 822, 10.1038/nbt.2623 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Lin, 2014, CRISPR/Cas9 systems have off-target activity with insertions or deletions between target DNA and guide RNA sequences, Nucl Acids Res, 42, 7473, 10.1093/nar/gku402 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Schumann, 2015, Generation of knock-in primary human T cells using Cas9 ribonucleoproteins, Proc Natl Acad Sci, 112, 201512503, 10.1073/pnas.1512503112 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Ran, 2013, Double nicking by RNA-guided CRISPR Cas9 for enhanced genome editing specificity, Cell, 154, 1380, 10.1016/j.cell.2013.08.021 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Guilinger, 2014, Fusion of catalytically inactive Cas9 to FokI nuclease improves the specificity of genome modification, Nat Biotechnol, 32, 577, 10.1038/nbt.2909 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Kato, 2017, In vivo and in vitro disease modeling with CRISPR/Cas9, Brief Funct Genomics, 16, 13, 10.1093/bfgp/elw031 · DOI
  18. Yu, 2013, Highly efficient genome modifications mediated by CRISPR/Cas9 in Drosophila, Genetics, 195, 289, 10.1534/genetics.113.153825 · DOI
  19. Hammond, 2015, A CRISPR-Cas9 gene drive system targeting female reproduction in the malaria mosquito vector Anopheles gambiae, Nat Biotechnol, 34, 78, 10.1038/nbt.3439 · DOI
  20. Lin, 2016, Genome editing in sea urchin embryos by using a CRISPR/Cas9 system, Dev Biol, 409, 420, 10.1016/j.ydbio.2015.11.018 · DOI
  21. Li, 2016, Zebrafish genome engineering using the CRISPR–Cas9 system, Trends Genet, 32, 815, 10.1016/j.tig.2016.10.005 · DOI
  22. Wang, 2013, One-step generation of mice carrying mutations in multiple genes by CRISPR/Cas-mediated genome engineering, Cell, 153, 910, 10.1016/j.cell.2013.04.025 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Niu, 2014, Generation of gene-modified cynomolgus monkey via Cas9/RNA-mediated gene targeting in one-cell embryos, Cell, 156, 836, 10.1016/j.cell.2014.01.027 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Dickinson, 2016, CRISPR-based methods for Caenorhabditis elegans genome engineering, Genetics, 202, 885, 10.1534/genetics.115.182162 · DOI
  25. Varshney, 2015, High-throughput gene targeting and phenotyping in zebrafish using CRISPR/Cas9, Genome Res., 25, 1030, 10.1101/gr.186379.114 · DOI
  26. Sánchez-Rivera, 2014, Rapid modelling of cooperating genetic events in cancer through somatic genome editing, Nature, 516, 428, 10.1038/nature13906 · DOI
  27. Cheng, 2014, Efficient gene editing in adult mouse livers via adenoviral delivery of CRISPR/Cas9, FEBS Lett, 588, 3954, 10.1016/j.febslet.2014.09.008 · DOI
  28. Zuris, 2014, Cationic lipid-mediated delivery of proteins enables efficient protein-based genome editing in vitro and in vivo, Nat Biotechnol, 33, 73, 10.1038/nbt.3081 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Li, 2015, Efficient generation of genetically distinct pigs in a single pregnancy using multiplexed single-guide RNA and carbohydrate selection, Xenotransplantation, 22, 20, 10.1111/xen.12131 · DOI
  30. Gao, 2017, Single Cas9 nickase induced generation of NRAMP1 knockin cattle with reduced off-target effects, Genome Biol, 18, 13, 10.1186/s13059-016-1144-4 · DOI
  31. Verma, 2015, Handmade cloning: recent advances, potential and pitfalls, J Anim Sci Biotechnol, 6, 43, 10.1186/s40104-015-0043-y · DOI
  32. Wang, 2016, Efficient generation of B2m-null pigs via injection of zygote with TALENs, Sci Rep, 6, 38854, 10.1038/srep38854 · DOI
  33. Chan, 2013, Progress and prospects for genetic modification of nonhuman primate models in biomedical research, ILAR J, 54, 211, 10.1093/ilar/ilt035 · DOI
  34. Chan, 2001, Transgenic monkeys produced by retroviral gene transfer into mature oocytes, Science, 291, 309, 10.1126/science.291.5502.309 · DOI
  35. Niu, 2010, Transgenic rhesus monkeys produced by gene transfer into early-cleavage-stage embryos using a simian immunodeficiency virus-based vector, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 107, 17663, 10.1073/pnas.1006563107 · DOI
  36. Shalem, 2014, Genome-scale CRISPR-Cas9 knockout screening in human cells, Science, 343, 84, 10.1126/science.1247005 · DOI · Paper page
  37. Zhou, 2014, High-throughput screening of a CRISPR/Cas9 library for functional genomics in human cells, Nature, 509, 487, 10.1038/nature13166 · DOI · Paper page
  38. Shah, 2015, Rapid reverse genetic screening using CRISPR in zebrafish, Nat Methods, 12, 535, 10.1038/nmeth.3360 · DOI
  39. D’Agostino, 2016, A rapid and cheap methodology for CRISPR/Cas9 zebrafish mutant screening, Mol Biotechnol, 58, 73, 10.1007/s12033-015-9905-y · DOI
  40. Yang, 2013, Optimization of scarless human stem cell genome editing, Nucl Acids Res, 41, 9049, 10.1093/nar/gkt555 · DOI
  41. Canver, 2014, Characterization of genomic deletion efficiency mediated by clustered regularly interspaced palindromic repeats (CRISPR)/Cas9 nuclease system in mammalian cells, J Biol Chem, 289, 21312, 10.1074/jbc.M114.564625 · DOI
  42. Wang, 2015, Large genomic fragment deletion and functional gene cassette knock-in via Cas9 protein mediated genome editing in one-cell rodent embryos, Sci Rep, 5, 17517, 10.1038/srep17517 · DOI
  43. Seruggia, 2015, Functional validation of mouse tyrosinase non-coding regulatory DNA elements by CRISPR-Cas9-mediated mutagenesis, Nucl Acids Res, 43, 4855, 10.1093/nar/gkv375 · DOI
  44. Dow, 2015, Modeling disease in vivo with CRISPR/Cas9, Trends Mol Med, 21, 609, 10.1016/j.molmed.2015.07.006 · DOI
  45. Mei, 2016, Recent progress in CRISPR/Cas9 technology, J Genet Genom, 43, 63, 10.1016/j.jgg.2016.01.001 · DOI · Paper page
  46. Platt, 2014, CRISPR-Cas9 knockin mice for genome editing and cancer modeling, Cell, 159, 440, 10.1016/j.cell.2014.09.014 · DOI · Paper page
  47. Xue, 2014, CRISPR-mediated direct mutation of cancer genes in the mouse liver, Nature, 514, 380, 10.1038/nature13589 · DOI · Paper page
  48. Tabebordbar, 2016, In vivo gene editing in dystrophic mouse muscle and muscle stem cells, Science, 351, 407, 10.1126/science.aad5177 · DOI · Paper page
  49. Nelson, 2016, In vivo genome editing improves muscle function in a mouse model of Duchenne muscular dystrophy, Science, 351, 403, 10.1126/science.aad5143 · DOI · Paper page
  50. Ousterout, 2015, Multiplex CRISPR/Cas9-based genome editing for correction of dystrophin mutations that cause Duchenne muscular dystrophy, Nat Commun, 6, 6244, 10.1038/ncomms7244 · DOI · Paper page
  51. Long, 2014, Prevention of muscular dystrophy in mice by CRISPR/Cas9-mediated editing of germline DNA, Science, 345, 1184, 10.1126/science.1254445 · DOI · Paper page
  52. Zhu, 2017, CRISPR/Cas9-mediated genome editing corrects dystrophin mutation in skeletal muscle stem cells in a mouse model of muscle dystrophy, Mol Ther Nucl Acids, 7, 31, 10.1016/j.omtn.2017.02.007 · DOI
  53. Carlson, 2016, Production of hornless dairy cattle from genome-edited cell lines, Nat Biotechnol, 34, 479, 10.1038/nbt.3560 · DOI
  54. Dhanapala, 2015, Production and immunological analysis of IgE reactive recombinant egg white allergens expressed in Escherichia coli, Mol Immunol, 65, 104, 10.1016/j.molimm.2015.01.006 · DOI
  55. Oishi, 2016, Targeted mutagenesis in chicken using CRISPR/Cas9 system, Sci Rep, 6, 23980, 10.1038/srep23980 · DOI
  56. Burkard, 2017, Precision engineering for PRRSV resistance in pigs: Macrophages from genome edited pigs lacking CD163 SRCR5 domain are fully resistant to both PRRSV genotypes while maintaining biological function, PLoS Pathog, 13, e1006206, 10.1371/journal.ppat.1006206 · DOI
  57. Ma, 2016, CRISPR/Cas9 platforms for genome editing in plants: developments and applications, Mol Plant, 9, 961, 10.1016/j.molp.2016.04.009 · DOI
  58. Monzani, 2016, Transgenic bovine as bioreactors: challenges and perspectives, Bioengineered, 7, 123, 10.1080/21655979.2016.1171429 · DOI
  59. Cyranoski, 2015, Gene-edited “micropigs” to be sold as pets at Chinese institute, Nature, 526, 18, 10.1038/nature.2015.18448 · DOI
  60. Reardon, 2016, Welcome to the CRISPR zoo, Nature, 531, 160, 10.1038/531160a · DOI
  61. Zou, 2015, Generation of gene-target dogs using CRISPR/Cas9 system, J Mol Cell Biol, 7, 580, 10.1093/jmcb/mjv061 · DOI
  62. Shafran, 2014, Organ shortage: the greatest challenge facing transplant medicine, World J Surg, 38, 1650, 10.1007/s00268-014-2639-3 · DOI
  63. Vadori, 2015, The immunological barriers to xenotransplantation, Tissue Antigens, 86, 239, 10.1111/tan.12669 · DOI
  64. Semaan, 2015, Cytotoxic effects during knock out of multiple porcine endogenous retrovirus (PERV) sequences in the pig genome by zinc finger nucleases (ZFN), PLoS One, 10, e0122059, 10.1371/journal.pone.0122059 · DOI
  65. Cooper, 2016, The role of genetically engineered pigs in xenotransplantation research, J Pathol, 238, 288, 10.1002/path.4635 · DOI
  66. Whitworth, 2014, Use of the CRISPR/Cas9 system to produce genetically engineered pigs from in vitro-derived oocytes and embryos, Biol Reprod, 91, 78, 10.1095/biolreprod.114.121723 · DOI
  67. Yang, 2015, Genome-wide inactivation of porcine endogenous retroviruses (PERVs), Science, 350, 10.1126/science.aad1191 · DOI
  68. Niu, 2017, Inactivation of porcine endogenous retrovirus in pigs using CRISPR-Cas9, Science., 10.1126/science.aan4187 · DOI · Paper page
  69. Iwase, 2015, Pig kidney graft survival in a baboon for 136 days: longest life-supporting organ graft survival to date, Xenotransplantation, 22, 302, 10.1111/xen.12174 · DOI
  70. Kobayashi, 2010, Generation of rat pancreas in mouse by interspecific blastocyst injection of pluripotent stem cells, Cell, 142, 787, 10.1016/j.cell.2010.07.039 · DOI
  71. Jun Wu, 2017, Interspecies chimerism with mammalian pluripotent stem cells, Cell, 168, 473, 10.1016/j.cell.2016.12.036 · DOI
  72. Piaggio, 2017, Is it time for synthetic biodiversity conservation?, Trends Ecol Evol, 32, 97, 10.1016/j.tree.2016.10.016 · DOI
  73. Simoni, 2015, Development of synthetic selfish elements based on modular nucleases in Drosophila melanogaster, Nucl Acids Res, 43, 2991, 10.1093/nar/gkv117 · DOI
  74. Bassett, 2013, Highly efficient targeted mutagenesis of Drosophila with the CRISPR/Cas9 system, Cell Rep, 4, 220, 10.1016/j.celrep.2013.06.020 · DOI
  75. Gratz, 2013, Genome engineering of Drosophila with the CRISPR RNA-guided Cas9 nuclease, Genetics, 194, 1029, 10.1534/genetics.113.152710 · DOI
  76. Gantz, 2015, Genome editing. The mutagenic chain reaction: a method for converting heterozygous to homozygous mutations, Science, 348, 442, 10.1126/science.aaa5945 · DOI
  77. Hammond, 2016, A CRISPR-Cas9 gene drive system targeting female reproduction in the malaria mosquito vector Anopheles gambiae, Nat Biotechnol, 34, 78, 10.1038/nbt.3439 · DOI
  78. Gantz, 2015, Highly efficient Cas9-mediated gene drive for population modification of the malaria vector mosquito Anopheles stephensi, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 112, E6736, 10.1073/pnas.1521077112 · DOI
  79. Capizzi, 2014, Rating the rat: global patterns and research priorities in impacts and management of rodent pests, Mamm Rev, 44, 148, 10.1111/mam.12019 · DOI
  80. Unckless RL, Clark AG, Messer PW. Evolution of resistance against CRISPR/Cas9 gene drive. bioRxiv. Available from: http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/06/11/058438; 2016. · DOI
  81. Shultz D. Should we bring extinct species back from the dead? Science; September 2016. · DOI
  82. Shapiro, 2015, Mammoth 2.0: will genome engineering resurrect extinct species?, Genome Biol, 16, 228, 10.1186/s13059-015-0800-4 · DOI
  83. Folch, 2009, First birth of an animal from an extinct subspecies (Capra pyrenaica pyrenaica) by cloning, Theriogenology, 71, 1026, 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2008.11.005 · DOI
  84. Lynch, 2015, Elephantid genomes reveal the molecular bases of woolly mammoth adaptations to the Arctic, Cell Rep, 12, 217, 10.1016/j.celrep.2015.06.027 · DOI · Paper page
  85. Combes, 2014, Every silver lining has a cloud: the scientific and animal welfare issues surrounding a new approach to the production of transgenic animals, Altern Lab Anim, 42, 137, 10.1177/026119291404200206 · DOI
  86. Rodriguez, 2016, Ethical issues in genome editing using Crispr/Cas9 system, J Clin Res Bioeth, 7, 1

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 45

Metadata

Authors
Shrock, E., & Güell, M.
Venue
Progress in Molecular Biology and Translational Science
Publisher
Elsevier
Published
2017
Pages
95-114
ISSN
1877-1173
DOI
10.1016/bs.pmbts.2017.07.010
Cited by
45
References
17
Language
en
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review