Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 351

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Rapid reverse genetic screening using CRISPR in zebrafish

Open access
Shah, Arish N, Davey, Crystal F, Whitebirch, Alex C, Miller, Adam C, Moens, Cecilia B·2015·Nature Methods

Abstract

Identifying genes involved in biological processes is critical for understanding the molecular building blocks of life. We used engineered CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats) to efficiently mutate specific loci in zebrafish (Danio rerio) and screen for genes involved in vertebrate biological processes. We found that increasing CRISPR efficiency by injecting optimized amounts of Cas9-encoding mRNA and multiplexing single guide RNAs (sgRNAs) allowed for phenocopy of known mutants across many phenotypes in embryos. We performed a proof-of-concept screen in which we used intersecting, multiplexed pool injections to examine 48 loci and identified two new genes involved in electrical-synapse formation. By deep sequencing target loci, we found that 90% of the genes were effectively screened. We conclude that CRISPR can be used as a powerful reverse genetic screening strategy in vivo in a vertebrate system.

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 · 10.1038/nmeth.3360

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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

Cited by

See all 351

Metadata

Authors
Shah, A. N., Davey, C. F., Whitebirch, A. C., Miller, A. C., & Moens, C. B.
Venue
Nature Methods
Published
2015-04-13
Volume
12
Issue
6
Pages
535-540
ISSN
  • 1548-7091 (ISSN-L)
  • 1548-7105
OpenAlex
W2093767301
Cited by
351
References
9
FWCI
16.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.