CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 409

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

CRISPR-Cas12a: Functional overview and applications

Paul, Bijoya, Montoya, Guillermo·2020·Biomedical Journal
DOI 10.1016/j.bj.2019.10.005PMC PMC7090318
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.bj.2019.10.005

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 Stages of CRISPR-Cas immunity- Adaptation, Expression/Maturation, Interference.
Fig. 1 Stages of CRISPR-Cas immunity- Adaptation, Expression/Maturation, Interference.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Fig. 2 Domain organisation and R-loop complex of Ca9 and Cas12a.
Fig. 2 Domain organisation and R-loop complex of Ca9 and Cas12a.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Fig. 3 Model mapping the catalytic pathway of CRISPR-Cas12a.
Fig. 3 Model mapping the catalytic pathway of CRISPR-Cas12a.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Fig. 4 Cas12a vs Cas9.
Fig. 4 Cas12a vs Cas9.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 61

  1. Wright, 2016, Biology and applications of CRISPR systems: harnessing nature's toolbox for genome engineering, Cell, 164, 29, 10.1016/j.cell.2015.12.035 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Barrangou, 2017, A decade of discovery: CRISPR functions and applications, Nat Microbiol, 2, 17092, 10.1038/nmicrobiol.2017.92 · DOI
  3. Leitao, 2017, Applications of genome editing by programmable nucleases to the metabolic engineering of secondary metabolites, J Biotechnol, 241, 50, 10.1016/j.jbiotec.2016.11.009 · DOI
  4. Knipping, 2017, Genome-wide specificity of highly efficient TALENs and CRISPR/Cas9 for T cell receptor modification, Mol Ther - Methods Clin Dev, 4, 213, 10.1016/j.omtm.2017.01.005 · DOI
  5. Chandrasegaran, 2016, Origins of programmable nucleases for genome engineering, J Mol Biol, 428, 963, 10.1016/j.jmb.2015.10.014 · DOI
  6. Tebas, 2014, Gene editing of CCR5 in autologous CD4 T cells of persons infected with HIV, N Engl J Med, 370, 901, 10.1056/NEJMoa1300662 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Redondo, 2008, Molecular basis of xeroderma pigmentosum group C DNA recognition by engineered meganucleases, Nature, 456, 107, 10.1038/nature07343 · DOI
  8. Gasiunas, 2012, Cas9-crRNA ribonucleoprotein complex mediates specific DNA cleavage for adaptive immunity in bacteria, Proc Natl Acad Sci, 109, E2579, 10.1073/pnas.1208507109 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Mojica, 2005, Intervening sequences of regularly spaced prokaryotic repeats derive from foreign genetic elements, J Mol Evol, 60, 174, 10.1007/s00239-004-0046-3 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Nuñez, 2014, Cas1–Cas2 complex formation mediates spacer acquisition during CRISPR–Cas adaptive immunity, Nat Struct Mol Biol, 21, 528, 10.1038/nsmb.2820 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Nuñez, 2015, Foreign DNA capture during CRISPR–Cas adaptive immunity, Nature, 527, 535, 10.1038/nature15760 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Jackson, 2017, CRISPR-Cas: adapting to change, Science, 356, eaal5056, 10.1126/science.aal5056 · DOI
  13. Mojica, 2009, Short motif sequences determine the targets of the prokaryotic CRISPR defence system, Microbiology, 155, 733, 10.1099/mic.0.023960-0 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Nishimasu, 2017, Structures and mechanisms of CRISPR RNA-guided effector nucleases, Curr Opin Struct Biol, 43, 68, 10.1016/j.sbi.2016.11.013 · DOI
  15. Shmakov, 2017, Diversity and evolution of class 2 CRISPR–Cas systems, Nat Rev Microbiol, 15, 169, 10.1038/nrmicro.2016.184 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Horvath, 2010, CRISPR/Cas, the immune system of bacteria and archaea, Science, 327, 167, 10.1126/science.1179555 · DOI
  17. Stella, 2017, Class2 CRISPR-cas RNA-guided endonucleases: Swiss army knives of genome editing, Nat Struct Mol Biol, 24, 882, 10.1038/nsmb.3486 · DOI
  18. Liu, 2017, C2c1-sgRNA complex structure reveals RNA-guided DNA cleavage mechanism, Mol Cell, 65, 310, 10.1016/j.molcel.2016.11.040 · DOI
  19. Yang, 2017, PAM-dependent target DNA recognition and cleavage by C2c1 CRISPR-cas endonuclease, Cell, 167, 1814, 10.1016/j.cell.2016.11.053 · DOI
  20. Shmakov, 2015, Discovery and functional characterization of diverse class 2 CRISPR-cas systems, Mol Cell, 60, 385, 10.1016/j.molcel.2015.10.008 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Stella, 2017, Structure of the Cpf1 endonuclease R-loop complex after target DNA cleavage, Nature, 546, 559, 10.1038/nature22398 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Dong, 2016, The crystal structure of Cpf1 in complex with CRISPR RNA, Nature, 532, 522, 10.1038/nature17944 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Makarova, 2015, An updated evolutionary classification of CRISPR–Cas systems, Nat Rev Microbiol, 13, 722, 10.1038/nrmicro3569 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Amitai, 2016, CRISPR–Cas adaptation: insights into the mechanism of action, Nat Rev Microbiol, 14, 67, 10.1038/nrmicro.2015.14 · DOI
  25. van der Oost, 2014, Unravelling the structural and mechanistic basis of CRISPR–Cas systems, Nat Rev Microbiol, 12, 479, 10.1038/nrmicro3279 · DOI
  26. Stella, 2017, Class 2 CRISPR–Cas RNA-guided endonucleases: Swiss Army knives of genome editing, Nat Struct Mol Biol, 24, 882, 10.1038/nsmb.3486 · DOI
  27. Zetsche, 2015, Cpf1 is a single RNA-guided endonuclease of a class 2 CRISPR-Cas system, Cell, 163, 759, 10.1016/j.cell.2015.09.038 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Charpentier, 2015, Biogenesis pathways of RNA guides in archaeal and bacterial CRISPR-Cas adaptive immunity, FEMS Microbiol Rev, 39, 428, 10.1093/femsre/fuv023 · DOI
  29. Fonfara, 2016, The CRISPR-associated DNA-cleaving enzyme Cpf1 also processes precursor CRISPR RNA, Nature, 532, 517, 10.1038/nature17945 · DOI · Paper page
  30. Swarts, 2017, Structural basis for guide RNA processing and seed-dependent DNA targeting by CRISPR-cas12a, Mol Cell, 66, 221, 10.1016/j.molcel.2017.03.016 · DOI
  31. Stella, 2018, Conformational activation promotes CRISPR-cas12a catalysis and resetting of the endonuclease activity, Cell, 175, 1856, 10.1016/j.cell.2018.10.045 · DOI
  32. Sternberg, 2014, DNA interrogation by the CRISPR RNA-guided endonuclease Cas9, Nature, 507, 62, 10.1038/nature13011 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Yamano, 2017, Structural basis for the canonical and non-canonical PAM recognition by CRISPR-cpf1, Mol Cell, 67, 633, 10.1016/j.molcel.2017.06.035 · DOI · Paper page
  34. Singh, 2018, Real-time observation of DNA target interrogation and product release by the RNA-guided endonuclease CRISPR Cpf1 (Cas12a), Proc Natl Acad Sci, 115, 5444, 10.1073/pnas.1718686115 · DOI
  35. Murugan, 2019, Pervasive off-target and double-stranded DNA nicking by CRISPR-Cas12a, BioRxiv, 657791
  36. Jiang, 2016, Structures of a CRISPR-Cas9 R-loop complex primed for DNA cleavage, Science, 351, 867, 10.1126/science.aad8282 · DOI
  37. Jiang, 2015, A Cas9–guide RNA complex preorganized for target DNA recognition, Science, 348, 1477, 10.1126/science.aab1452 · DOI
  38. Fonfara, 2016, The CRISPR-associated DNA-cleaving enzyme Cpf1 also processes precursor CRISPR RNA, Nature, 532, 517, 10.1038/nature17945 · DOI · Paper page
  39. Gao, 2016, Type V CRISPR-Cas Cpf1 endonuclease employs a unique mechanism for crRNA-mediated target DNA recognition, Cell Res, 26, 901, 10.1038/cr.2016.88 · DOI
  40. Anders, 2014, Structural basis of PAM-dependent target DNA recognition by the Cas9 endonuclease, Nature, 513, 569, 10.1038/nature13579 · DOI · Paper page
  41. Stella, 2016, The genome editing revolution: a CRISPR-Cas TALE off-target story, Bioessays, 38, S4, 10.1002/bies.201670903 · DOI
  42. Jones, 2019, Massively parallel kinetic profiling of natural and engineered CRISPR, nucleases. BioRxiv, 696393
  43. Kim, 2016, Genome-wide analysis reveals specificities of Cpf1 endonucleases in human cells, Nat Biotechnol, 34, 863, 10.1038/nbt.3609 · DOI · Paper page
  44. Gao, 2017, Engineered Cpf1 variants with altered PAM specificities, Nat Biotechnol, 35, 789, 10.1038/nbt.3900 · DOI · Paper page
  45. Kim, 2017, Efficient transcriptional gene repression by type V-A CRISPR-cpf1 from Eubacterium eligens, ACS Synth Biol, 6, 1273, 10.1021/acssynbio.6b00368 · DOI
  46. Zetsche, 2017, Multiplex gene editing by CRISPR–Cpf1 using a single crRNA array, Nat Biotechnol, 35, 31, 10.1038/nbt.3737 · DOI · Paper page
  47. Campa, 2019, Multiplexed genome engineering by Cas12a and CRISPR arrays encoded on single transcripts, Nat Methods, 67, 887, 10.1038/s41592-019-0508-6 · DOI
  48. Li, 2018, CRISPR-Cpf1-Assisted multiplex genome editing and transcriptional repression in Streptomyces, Appl Environ Microbiol, 84, e00827, 10.1128/AEM.00827-18 · DOI
  49. Wang, 2017, Zhu J kang. Multiplex gene editing in rice using the CRISPR-cpf1 system, Mol Plant, 10, 1011, 10.1016/j.molp.2017.03.001 · DOI
  50. Zhang, 2017, Multiplex gene regulation by CRISPR-ddCpf1, Cell Discov, 3, 17018, 10.1038/celldisc.2017.18 · DOI
  51. Xu, 2017, Generation of targeted mutant rice using a CRISPR-Cpf1 system, Plant Biotechnol J, 15, 713, 10.1111/pbi.12669 · DOI
  52. Kim, 2017, CRISPR/Cpf1-mediated DNA-free plant genome editing, Nat Commun, 8, 14406, 10.1038/ncomms14406 · DOI
  53. Zhang, 2017, CRISPR-Cpf1 correction of muscular dystrophy mutations in human cardiomyocytes and mice, Sci Adv, 3, e1602814, 10.1126/sciadv.1602814 · DOI
  54. Tsukamoto, 2018, Generation of the adenovirus vector-mediated CRISPR/Cpf1 system and the application for primary human hepatocytes prepared from humanized mice with chimeric liver, Biol Pharm Bull, 41, 1089, 10.1248/bpb.b18-00222 · DOI
  55. Lee, 2019, Knockout rat models mimicking human atherosclerosis created by Cpf1-mediated gene targeting, Sci Rep, 9, 2628, 10.1038/s41598-019-38732-2 · DOI
  56. English, 2019, Programmable CRISPR-responsive smart materials, Science, 365, 780, 10.1126/science.aaw5122 · DOI
  57. Jasin, 2013, Repair of strand breaks by homologous recombination, Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol, 5, a012740, 10.1101/cshperspect.a012740 · DOI
  58. Schmid-Burgk, 2016, CRISPaint allows modular base-specific gene tagging using a ligase-4-dependent mechanism, Nat Commun, 7, 12338, 10.1038/ncomms12338 · DOI
  59. Suzuki, 2016, In vivo genome editing via CRISPR/Cas9 mediated homology-independent targeted integration, Nature, 540, 144, 10.1038/nature20565 · DOI · Paper page
  60. Peters, 2017, Recruitment of CRISPR-Cas systems by Tn7-like transposons, Proc Natl Acad Sci, 114, E7358, 10.1073/pnas.1709035114 · DOI
  61. Strecker, 2019, RNA-guided DNA insertion with CRISPR-associated transposases, Science, 365, 48, 10.1126/science.aax9181 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 409

Metadata

Authors
Paul, B., & Montoya, G.
ORCID
Paul, Bijoya
Venue
Biomedical Journal
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-02
Volume
43
Issue
1
Pages
8-17
ISSN
2319-4170
DOI
10.1016/j.bj.2019.10.005
PMC
PMC7090318
Cited by
409
References
6
Language
en
Licence
Funders
  • Novo Nordisk Fonden (NNF0024386, NNF14CC0001, NNF17SA0030214, NNF18OC0055061)
  • Københavns Universitet

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