CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 746

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Co-expression of multiple transgenes in mouse CNS: a comparison of strategies

Jankowsky, Joanna L, Slunt, Hilda H, Ratovitski, Tamara, Jenkins, Nancy A, Copeland, Neal G, Borchelt, David R·2001·Biomolecular Engineering
DOI 10.1016/s1389-0344(01)00067-3
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The introduction of two transgenes into one animal is increasingly common as transgenic experiments become more sophisticated. In this study we examine two strategies for creating double transgenic founders from a single microinjection. In the first approach, two constructs, each with its own promoter element, were coinjected into the pronucleus. In the second approach, both transgenes were cloned into one vector, separated by an internal ribosomal entry site (IRES), and placed under control of a single promoter. Both strategies save time and increase the percentage of double transgenic offspring over the standard method of mating single transgenic lines. However, despite high transgene copy numbers, the bicistronic lines did not show robust expression of either protein. Copy number and protein expression correlated much better in the coinjected lines, with expression levels in one line approaching that observed in some of our best single transgenic controls. Thus we recommend coinjection of individual plasmids for the generation of multiply transgenic founders.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s1389-0344(01)00067-3

Cites

1 of 1 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?

  • The APPswe/PS1dE9 model co-expresses a chimeric mouse/human APP695 harboring the Swedish K670M/N671L mutations and human PS1 with the exon-9 deletion mutation.

    “The AD mouse model used in this study (APPswe/PS1dE9-Line 85) co-expresses a chimeric mouse/human APP695 harboring the Swedish K670M/N671L mutations (Mo/HuAPPswe) and human PS1with the exon-9 deletion mutation (PS1dE9).”

    From Receptor-Associated Protein (RAP) Plays a Central Role in Modulating Aβ Deposition in APP/PS1 Transgenic Mice (2008) · cites this paper as [29]

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 24

  1. Borchelt, 1996, Neuron, 17, 1005, 10.1016/S0896-6273(00)80230-5 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Carlson, 1997, Hum. Mol. Genet., 6, 1951, 10.1093/hmg/6.11.1951 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Iadecola, 1999, Nature Neurosci., 2, 157, 10.1038/5715 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Wyss-Coray, 1997, Nature, 389, 603, 10.1038/39321 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Holcomb, 1998, Nature Med., 4, 97, 10.1038/nm0198-097 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Couillard-Després, 1998, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 95, 9626, 10.1073/pnas.95.16.9626 · DOI
  7. Greenberg, 1991, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 88, 8327, 10.1073/pnas.88.19.8327 · DOI
  8. Overbeek, 1991, Transgenic Res., 1, 31, 10.1007/BF02512994 · DOI
  9. Créancier, 2000, J. Cell Biol., 150, 275, 10.1083/jcb.150.1.275 · DOI
  10. Mountford, 1995, Trends Genet., 11, 179, 10.1016/S0168-9525(00)89040-X · DOI
  11. Shaw-Jackson, 1999, J. Virol., 73, 2729, 10.1128/JVI.73.4.2729-2738.1999 · DOI
  12. Serizawa, 2000, Nature Neurosci., 3, 687, 10.1038/76641 · DOI
  13. Mombaerts, 1996, Cell, 87, 675, 10.1016/S0092-8674(00)81387-2 · DOI
  14. Davis, 1998, Neuron, 20, 603, 10.1016/S0896-6273(00)80998-8 · DOI
  15. Borchelt, 1996, Genet. Anal. (Biomed. Eng.), 13, 159, 10.1016/S1050-3862(96)00167-2 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Lee, 1997, Nature Med., 3, 756, 10.1038/nm0797-756 · DOI
  17. Thinakaran, 1996, Neuron, 17, 181, 10.1016/S0896-6273(00)80291-3 · DOI
  18. Wong, 1997, Nature, 387, 288, 10.1038/387288a0 · DOI
  19. Weidemann, 1989, Cell, 57, 115, 10.1016/0092-8674(89)90177-3 · DOI
  20. Thinakaran, 1997, J. Biol. Chem., 272, 28415, 10.1074/jbc.272.45.28415 · DOI
  21. Slunt, 1994, J. Biol. Chem., 269, 2637, 10.1016/S0021-9258(17)41992-2 · DOI
  22. Wakayama, 1998, Nature, 394, 369, 10.1038/28615 · DOI
  23. Baguisi, 1999, Nat Biotechnol., 17, 456, 10.1038/8632 · DOI
  24. McCreath, 2000, Nature, 405, 1066, 10.1038/35016604 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Jankowsky, J. L., Slunt, H. H., Ratovitski, T., Jenkins, N. A., Copeland, N. G., & Borchelt, D. R.
Venue
Biomolecular Engineering
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2001-06
Volume
17
Issue
6
Pages
157-165
ISSN
1389-0344
DOI
10.1016/s1389-0344(01)00067-3
Cited by
746
References
1
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