CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,545

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 46 of the 46 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The CRISPR tool kit for genome editing and beyond

Adli, Mazhar·2018·Nature Communications
DOI 10.1038/s41467-018-04252-2PMC PMC5953931
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

CRISPR is becoming an indispensable tool in biological research. Once known as the bacterial immune system against invading viruses, the programmable capacity of the Cas9 enzyme is now revolutionizing diverse fields of medical research, biotechnology, and agriculture. CRISPR-Cas9 is no longer just a gene-editing tool; the application areas of catalytically impaired inactive Cas9, including gene regulation, epigenetic editing, chromatin engineering, and imaging, now exceed the gene-editing functionality of WT Cas9. Here, we will present a brief history of gene-editing tools and describe the wide range of CRISPR-based genome-targeting tools. We will conclude with future directions and the broader impact of CRISPR technologies.

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/s41467-018-04252-2

Cites

46 of 46 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

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?

  • CRISPR/Cas-9 is the most effective, efficient, and accurate method of genome editing tool in all living cells and utilized in many applied disciplines.

    “Clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeat (CRISPR) and their associated protein (Cas-9) is the most effective, efficient, and accurate method of genome editing tool in all living cells and utilized in many applied disciplines.”

    From Mechanism and Applications of CRISPR/Cas-9-Mediated Genome Editing (2021) · cites this paper as [9]

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 143

  1. Smith, H. O. & Wilcox, K. W. A restriction enzyme from Hemophilus influenzae. I. Purification and general properties. J. Mol. Biol. 51, 379–391 (1970). · DOI
  2. Kelly, T. J. Jr. & Smith, H. O. A restriction enzyme from Hemophilus influenzae. II. J. Mol. Biol. 51, 393–409 (1970). · DOI
  3. Danna, K. & Nathans, D. Specific cleavage of simian virus 40 DNA by restriction endonuclease of Hemophilus influenzae. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 68, 2913–2917 (1971). · DOI
  4. Rothstein, R. J. One-step gene disruption in yeast. Methods Enzymol. 101, 202–211 (1983). · DOI
  5. Smithies, O., Gregg, R. G., Boggs, S. S., Koralewski, M. A. & Kucherlapati, R. S. Insertion of DNA sequences into the human chromosomal beta-globin locus by homologous recombination. Nature 317, 230–234 (1985). · DOI
  6. Thomas, K. R., Folger, K. R. & Capecchi, M. R. High frequency targeting of genes to specific sites in the mammalian genome. Cell 44, 419–428 (1986). · DOI
  7. Capecchi, M. R. Altering the genome by homologous recombination. Science 244, 1288–1292 (1989). · DOI
  8. Lin, F. L., Sperle, K. & Sternberg, N. Recombination in mouse L cells between DNA introduced into cells and homologous chromosomal sequences. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 82, 1391–1395 (1985). · DOI
  9. Rudin, N., Sugarman, E. & Haber, J. E. Genetic and physical analysis of double-strand break repair and recombination in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genetics 122, 519–534 (1989). · DOI
  10. Rouet, P., Smih, F. & Jasin, M. Introduction of double-strand breaks into the genome of mouse cells by expression of a rare-cutting endonuclease. Mol. Cell. Biol. 14, 8096–8106 (1994). · DOI
  11. Jeggo, P. A. DNA breakage and repair. Adv. Genet. 38, 185–218 (1998). · DOI
  12. Sussman, D. et al. Isolation and characterization of new homing endonuclease specificities at individual target site positions. J. Mol. Biol. 342, 31–41 (2004). · DOI
  13. Seligman, L. M. et al. Mutations altering the cleavage specificity of a homing endonuclease. Nucleic Acids Res. 30, 3870–3879 (2002). · DOI
  14. Rosen, L. E. et al. Homing endonuclease I-CreI derivatives with novel DNA target specificities. Nucleic Acids Res. 34, 4791–4800 (2006). · DOI
  15. Klug, A. & Rhodes, D. Zinc fingers: a novel protein fold for nucleic acid recognition. Cold Spring Harb. Symp. Quant. Biol. 52, 473–482 (1987). · DOI
  16. Kim, Y. G., Cha, J. & Chandrasegaran, S. Hybrid restriction enzymes: zinc finger fusions to Fok I cleavage domain. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 93, 1156–1160 (1996). · DOI · Paper page
  17. Bibikova, M. et al. Stimulation of homologous recombination through targeted cleavage by chimeric nucleases. Mol. Cell. Biol. 21, 289–297 (2001). · DOI
  18. Urnov, F. D. et al. Highly efficient endogenous human gene correction using designed zinc-finger nucleases. Nature 435, 646–651 (2005). · DOI
  19. Miller, J. C. et al. An improved zinc-finger nuclease architecture for highly specific genome editing. Nat. Biotechnol. 25, 778–785 (2007). · DOI · Paper page
  20. Urnov, F. D., Rebar, E. J., Holmes, M. C., Zhang, H. S. & Gregory, P. D. Genome editing with engineered zinc finger nucleases. Nat. Rev. Genet. 11, 636–646 (2010). · DOI · Paper page
  21. Boch, J. et al. Breaking the code of DNA binding specificity of TAL-type III effectors. Science 326, 1509–1512 (2009). · DOI · Paper page
  22. Moscou, M. J. & Bogdanove, A. J. A simple cipher governs DNA recognition by TAL effectors. Science 326, 1501 (2009). · DOI
  23. Christian, M. et al. Targeting DNA double-strand breaks with TAL effector nucleases. Genetics 186, 757–761 (2010). · DOI · Paper page
  24. Zhang, F. et al. Efficient construction of sequence-specific TAL effectors for modulating mammalian transcription. Nat. Biotechnol. 29, 149–153 (2011). · DOI · Paper page
  25. Miller, J. C. et al. A TALE nuclease architecture for efficient genome editing. Nat. Biotechnol. 29, 143–148 (2011). · DOI · Paper page
  26. Li, T. et al. Modularly assembled designer TAL effector nucleases for targeted gene knockout and gene replacement in eukaryotes. Nucleic Acids Res. 39, 6315–6325 (2011). · DOI
  27. Jansen, R., Embden, J. D., Gaastra, W. & Schouls, L. M. Identification of genes that are associated with DNA repeats in prokaryotes. Mol. Microbiol. 43, 1565–1575 (2002). · DOI · Paper page
  28. Ishino, Y., Shinagawa, H., Makino, K., Amemura, M. & Nakata, A. Nucleotide sequence of the iap gene, responsible for alkaline phosphatase isozyme conversion in Escherichia coli, and identification of the gene product. J. Bacteriol. 169, 5429–5433 (1987). · DOI · Paper page
  29. Mojica, F. J., Diez-Villasenor, C., Soria, E. & Juez, G. Biological significance of a family of regularly spaced repeats in the genomes of Archaea, Bacteria and mitochondria. Mol. Microbiol. 36, 244–246 (2000). · DOI
  30. Mojica, F. J., Diez-Villasenor, C., Garcia-Martinez, J. & Soria, E. Intervening sequences of regularly spaced prokaryotic repeats derive from foreign genetic elements. J. Mol. Evol. 60, 174–182 (2005). · DOI · Paper page
  31. Bolotin, A., Quinquis, B., Sorokin, A. & Ehrlich, S. D. Clustered regularly interspaced short palindrome repeats (CRISPRs) have spacers of extrachromosomal origin. Microbiology 151, 2551–2561 (2005). · DOI · Paper page
  32. Pourcel, C., Salvignol, G. & Vergnaud, G. CRISPR elements in Yersinia pestis acquire new repeats by preferential uptake of bacteriophage DNA, and provide additional tools for evolutionary studies. Microbiology 151, 653–663 (2005). · DOI · Paper page
  33. Makarova, K. S., Grishin, N. V., Shabalina, S. A., Wolf, Y. I. & Koonin, E. V. A putative RNA-interference-based immune system in prokaryotes: computational analysis of the predicted enzymatic machinery, functional analogies with eukaryotic RNAi, and hypothetical mechanisms of action. Biol. Direct 1, 7 (2006). · DOI · Paper page
  34. Barrangou, R. et al. CRISPR provides acquired resistance against viruses in prokaryotes. Science 315, 1709–1712 (2007). · DOI · Paper page
  35. Brouns, S. J. et al. Small CRISPR RNAs guide antiviral defense in prokaryotes. Science 321, 960–964 (2008). · DOI · Paper page
  36. Marraffini, L. A. & Sontheimer, E. J. CRISPR interference limits horizontal gene transfer in staphylococci by targeting DNA. Science 322, 1843–1845 (2008). · DOI · Paper page
  37. Deveau, H. et al. Phage response to CRISPR-encoded resistance in Streptococcus thermophilus. J. Bacteriol. 190, 1390–1400 (2008). · DOI
  38. Garneau, J. E. et al. The CRISPR/Cas bacterial immune system cleaves bacteriophage and plasmid DNA. Nature 468, 67–71 (2010). · DOI
  39. Sapranauskas, R. et al. The Streptococcus thermophilus CRISPR/Cas system provides immunity in Escherichia coli. Nucleic Acids Res. 39, 9275–9282 (2011). · DOI
  40. Gasiunas, G., Barrangou, R., Horvath, P. & Siksnys, V. Cas9-crRNA ribonucleoprotein complex mediates specific DNA cleavage for adaptive immunity in bacteria. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, E2579–E2586 (2012). · DOI · Paper page
  41. Haft, D. H., Selengut, J., Mongodin, E. F. & Nelson, K. E. A guild of 45 CRISPR-associated (Cas) protein families and multiple CRISPR/Cas subtypes exist in prokaryotic genomes. PLoS Comput. Biol. 1, e60 (2005). · DOI
  42. Makarova, K. S. et al. Evolution and classification of the CRISPR-Cas systems. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 9, 467–477 (2011). · DOI · Paper page
  43. Yamano, T. et al. Crystal structure of Cpf1 in complex with guide RNA and target DNA. Cell 165, 949–962 (2016). · DOI
  44. Zetsche, B. et al. Cpf1 is a single RNA-guided endonuclease of a class 2 CRISPR-Cas system. Cell 163, 759–771 (2015). · DOI · Paper page
  45. Fonfara, I., Richter, H., Bratovic, M., Le Rhun, A. & Charpentier, E. The CRISPR-associated DNA-cleaving enzyme Cpf1 also processes precursor CRISPR RNA. Nature 532, 517–521 (2016). · DOI · Paper page
  46. Hou, Z. et al. Efficient genome engineering in human pluripotent stem cells using Cas9 from Neisseria meningitidis. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 15644–15649 (2013). · DOI · Paper page
  47. Friedland, A. E. et al. Characterization of Staphylococcus aureus Cas9: a smaller Cas9 for all-in-one adeno-associated virus delivery and paired nickase applications. Genome Biol. 16, 257 (2015). · DOI
  48. Kim, E. et al. In vivo genome editing with a small Cas9 orthologue derived from Campylobacter jejuni. Nat. Commun. 8, 14500 (2017). · DOI · Paper page
  49. Mojica, F. J., Diez-Villasenor, C., Garcia-Martinez, J. & Almendros, C. Short motif sequences determine the targets of the prokaryotic CRISPR defence system. Microbiology 155, 733–740 (2009). · DOI · Paper page
  50. Kleinstiver, B. P. et al. Broadening the targeting range of Staphylococcus aureus CRISPR-Cas9 by modifying PAM recognition. Nat. Biotechnol. 33, 1293–1298 (2015). · DOI · Paper page
  51. Hirano, H. et al. Structure and engineering of Francisella novicida Cas9. Cell 164, 950–961 (2016). · DOI
  52. Cho, S. W. et al. Analysis of off-target effects of CRISPR/Cas-derived RNA-guided endonucleases and nickases. Genome Res. 24, 132–141 (2014). · DOI · Paper page
  53. Kuscu, C., Arslan, S., Singh, R., Thorpe, J. & Adli, M. Genome-wide analysis reveals characteristics of off-target sites bound by the Cas9 endonuclease. Nat. Biotechnol. 32, 677–683 (2014). · DOI · Paper page
  54. Singh, R., Kuscu, C., Quinlan, A., Qi, Y. & Adli, M. Cas9-chromatin binding information enables more accurate CRISPR off-target prediction. Nucleic Acids Res. 43, e118 (2015). · DOI · Paper page
  55. Crosetto, N. et al. Nucleotide-resolution DNA double-strand break mapping by next-generation sequencing. Nat. Methods 10, 361–365 (2013). · DOI · Paper page
  56. Kim, D. et al. Digenome-seq: genome-wide profiling of CRISPR-Cas9 off-target effects in human cells. Nat. Methods 12, 237–243 (2015). · DOI · Paper page
  57. Kleinstiver, B. P. et al. High-fidelity CRISPR-Cas9 nucleases with no detectable genome-wide off-target effects. Nature 529, 490–495 (2016). · DOI · Paper page
  58. Slaymaker, I. M. et al. Rationally engineered Cas9 nucleases with improved specificity. Science 351, 84–88 (2016). · DOI · Paper page
  59. Lin, S., Staahl, B. T., Alla, R. K. & Doudna, J. A. Enhanced homology-directed human genome engineering by controlled timing of CRISPR/Cas9 delivery. Elife 3, e04766 (2014). · DOI · Paper page
  60. Guilinger, J. P., Thompson, D. B. & Liu, D. R. Fusion of catalytically inactive Cas9 to FokI nuclease improves the specificity of genome modification. Nat. Biotechnol. 32, 577–582 (2014). · DOI · Paper page
  61. Tsai, S. Q. et al. Dimeric CRISPR RNA-guided FokI nucleases for highly specific genome editing. Nat. Biotechnol. 32, 569–576 (2014). · DOI · Paper page
  62. Dow, L. E. et al. Inducible in vivo genome editing with CRISPR-Cas9. Nat. Biotechnol. 33, 390–394 (2015). · DOI
  63. Nihongaki, Y., Kawano, F., Nakajima, T. & Sato, M. Photoactivatable CRISPR-Cas9 for optogenetic genome editing. Nat. Biotechnol. 33, 755–760 (2015). · DOI
  64. Hemphill, J., Borchardt, E. K., Brown, K., Asokan, A. & Deiters, A. Optical control of CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 137, 5642–5645 (2015). · DOI
  65. Oakes, B. L. et al. Profiling of engineering hotspots identifies an allosteric CRISPR-Cas9 switch. Nat. Biotechnol. 34, 646–651 (2016). · DOI
  66. Tang, W., Hu, J. H. & Liu, D. R. Aptazyme-embedded guide RNAs enable ligand-responsive genome editing and transcriptional activation. Nat. Commun. 8, 15939 (2017). · DOI
  67. Hess, G. T. et al. Directed evolution using dCas9-targeted somatic hypermutation in mammalian cells. Nat. Methods 13, 1036–1042 (2016). · DOI
  68. Ma, Y. et al. Targeted AID-mediated mutagenesis (TAM) enables efficient genomic diversification in mammalian cells. Nat. Methods 13, 1029–1035 (2016). · DOI
  69. Kuscu, C. & Adli, M. CRISPR-Cas9-AID base editor is a powerful gain-of-function screening tool. Nat. Methods 13, 983–984 (2016). · DOI
  70. Urrutia, R. KRAB-containing zinc-finger repressor proteins. Genome Biol. 4, 231 (2003). · DOI
  71. Friedman, J. R. et al. KAP-1, a novel corepressor for the highly conserved KRAB repression domain. Genes Dev. 10, 2067–2078 (1996). · DOI
  72. Maeder, M. L. et al. CRISPR RNA-guided activation of endogenous human genes. Nat. Methods 10, 977–979 (2013). · DOI · Paper page
  73. Perez-Pinera, P. et al. RNA-guided gene activation by CRISPR-Cas9-based transcription factors. Nat. Methods 10, 973–976 (2013). · DOI · Paper page
  74. Wysocka, J. & Herr, W. The herpes simplex virus VP16-induced complex: the makings of a regulatory switch. Trends Biochem. Sci. 28, 294–304 (2003). · DOI
  75. Cheng, A. W. et al. Multiplexed activation of endogenous genes by CRISPR-on, an RNA-guided transcriptional activator system. Cell. Res. 23, 1163–1171 (2013). · DOI
  76. Chavez, A. et al. Highly efficient Cas9-mediated transcriptional programming. Nat. Methods 12, 326–328 (2015). · DOI · Paper page
  77. Hardwick, J. M., Tse, L., Applegren, N., Nicholas, J. & Veliuona, M. A. The Epstein-Barr virus R transactivator (Rta) contains a complex, potent activation domain with properties different from those of VP16. J. Virol. 66, 5500–5508 (1992). · DOI
  78. Sugiyama, T. & Nakada, D. Translational control of bacteriophage MS2 RNA cistrons by MS2 coat protein: affinity and specificity of the interaction of MS2 coat protein with MS2 RNA. J. Mol. Biol. 48, 349–355 (1970). · DOI
  79. Peabody, D. S. The RNA binding site of bacteriophage MS2 coat protein. EMBO J. 12, 595–600 (1993). · DOI
  80. Zalatan, J. G. et al. Engineering complex synthetic transcriptional programs with CRISPR RNA scaffolds. Cell 160, 339–350 (2015). · DOI · Paper page
  81. Tanenbaum, M. E., Gilbert, L. A., Qi, L. S., Weissman, J. S. & Vale, R. D. A protein-tagging system for signal amplification in gene expression and fluorescence imaging. Cell 159, 635–646 (2014) · DOI
  82. Chavez, A. et al. Comparison of Cas9 activators in multiple species. Nat. Methods 13, 563–567 (2016). · DOI
  83. Nihongaki, Y., Yamamoto, S., Kawano, F., Suzuki, H. & Sato, M. CRISPR-Cas9-based photoactivatable transcription system. Chem. Biol. 22, 169–174 (2015). · DOI
  84. Polstein, L. R. & Gersbach, C. A. A light-inducible CRISPR-Cas9 system for control of endogenous gene activation. Nat. Chem. Biol. 11, 198–200 (2015). · DOI
  85. Zetsche, B., Volz, S. E. & Zhang, F. A split-Cas9 architecture for inducible genome editing and transcription modulation. Nat. Biotechnol. 33, 139–142 (2015). · DOI
  86. Gao, Y. et al. Complex transcriptional modulation with orthogonal and inducible dCas9 regulators. Nat. Methods 13, 1043–1049 (2016). · DOI
  87. Ptashne, M. On the use of the word ‘epigenetic’. Curr. Biol. 17, R233–R236 (2007). · DOI
  88. Greally, J. M. A user’s guide to the ambiguous word ‘epigenetics’. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell. Biol. 19, 207–208 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  89. Consortium, E. P. et al. An integrated encyclopedia of DNA elements in the human genome. Nature 489, 57–74 (2012). · DOI · Paper page
  90. Bernstein, B. E. et al. The NIH Roadmap Epigenomics Mapping Consortium. Nat. Biotechnol. 28, 1045–1048 (2010). · DOI · Paper page
  91. Holliday, R. & Pugh, J. E. DNA modification mechanisms and gene activity during development. Science 187, 226–232 (1975). · DOI
  92. Riggs, A. D. X inactivation, differentiation, and DNA methylation. Cytogenet. Cell Genet. 14, 9–25 (1975). · DOI
  93. Razin, A. & Riggs, A. D. DNA methylation and gene function. Science 210, 604–610 (1980). · DOI
  94. Okano, M., Bell, D. W., Haber, D. A. & Li, E. DNA methyltransferases Dnmt3a and Dnmt3b are essential for de novo methylation and mammalian development. Cell 99, 247–257 (1999). · DOI · Paper page
  95. Kaminskas, E., Farrell, A. T., Wang, Y. C., Sridhara, R. & Pazdur, R. FDA drug approval summary: azacitidine (5-azacytidine, Vidaza) for injectable suspension. Oncologist 10, 176–182 (2005). · DOI
  96. Amabile, A. et al. Inheritable silencing of endogenous genes by hit-and-run targeted epigenetic editing. Cell 167, 219–232.e214 (2016). · DOI · Paper page
  97. Vojta, A. et al. Repurposing the CRISPR-Cas9 system for targeted DNA methylation. Nucleic Acids Res. 44, 5615–5628 (2016). · DOI
  98. McDonald, J. I. et al. Reprogrammable CRISPR/Cas9-based system for inducing site-specific DNA methylation. Biol. Open 5, 866–874 (2016). · DOI
  99. Xiong, T. et al. Targeted DNA methylation in human cells using engineered dCas9-methyltransferases. Sci. Rep. 7, 6732 (2017). · DOI
  100. Morita, S. et al. Targeted DNA demethylation in vivo using dCas9-peptide repeat and scFv-TET1 catalytic domain fusions. Nat. Biotechnol. 34, 1060–1065 (2016). · DOI
  101. Xu, X. et al. A CRISPR-based approach for targeted DNA demethylation. Cell Discov. 2, 16009 (2016). · DOI
  102. Stepper, P. et al. Efficient targeted DNA methylation with chimeric dCas9-Dnmt3a-Dnmt3L methyltransferase. Nucleic Acids Res. 45, 1703–1713 (2017). · DOI
  103. Galonska, C. et al. Genome-wide tracking of dCas9-methyltransferase footprints. Nat. Commun. 9, 597 (2018). · DOI
  104. Choudhury, S. R., Cui, Y., Lubecka, K., Stefanska, B. & Irudayaraj, J. CRISPR-dCas9 mediated TET1 targeting for selective DNA demethylation at BRCA1 promoter. Oncotarget 7, 46545–46556 (2016). · DOI
  105. Strahl, B. D. & Allis, C. D. The language of covalent histone modifications. Nature 403, 41–45 (2000). · DOI · Paper page
  106. Kearns, N. A. et al. Functional annotation of native enhancers with a Cas9-histone demethylase fusion. Nat. Methods 12, 401–403 (2015). · DOI · Paper page
  107. Shi, Y. et al. Histone demethylation mediated by the nuclear amine oxidase homolog LSD1. Cell 119, 941–953 (2004). · DOI · Paper page
  108. Mendenhall, E. M. et al. Locus-specific editing of histone modifications at endogenous enhancers. Nat. Biotechnol. 31, 1133–1136 (2013). · DOI
  109. Hilton, I. B. et al. Epigenome editing by a CRISPR-Cas9-based acetyltransferase activates genes from promoters and enhancers. Nat. Biotechnol. 33, 510–517 (2015). · DOI
  110. Cano-Rodriguez, D. et al. Writing of H3K4Me3 overcomes epigenetic silencing in a sustained but context-dependent manner. Nat. Commun. 7, 12284 (2016). · DOI
  111. Braun, S. M. G. et al. Rapid and reversible epigenome editing by endogenous chromatin regulators. Nat. Commun. 8, 560 (2017). · DOI
  112. Chakraborty, S. et al. A CRISPR/Cas9-based system for reprogramming cell lineage specification. Stem Cell Rep. 3, 940–947 (2014). · DOI
  113. Balboa, D. et al. Conditionally stabilized dCas9 activator for controlling gene expression in human cell reprogramming and differentiation. Stem Cell Rep. 5, 448–459 (2015). · DOI
  114. Xiong, K. et al. Generation of induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) stably expressing CRISPR-based synergistic activation mediator (SAM). Stem Cell Res. 17, 665–669 (2016). · DOI
  115. Bialek, J. K. et al. Targeted HIV-1 latency reversal using CRISPR/Cas9-derived transcriptional activator systems. PLoS ONE 11, e0158294 (2016). · DOI
  116. Nishimura, K., Fukagawa, T., Takisawa, H., Kakimoto, T. & Kanemaki, M. An auxin-based degron system for the rapid depletion of proteins in nonplant cells. Nat. Methods 6, 917–922 (2009). · DOI · Paper page
  117. Meaburn, K. J., Misteli, T. & Soutoglou, E. Spatial genome organization in the formation of chromosomal translocations. Semin. Cancer Biol. 17, 80–90 (2007). · DOI
  118. Shachar, S., Voss, T. C., Pegoraro, G., Sciascia, N. & Misteli, T. Identification of gene positioning factors using high-throughput imaging mapping. Cell 162, 911–923 (2015). · DOI
  119. Lindhout, B. I. et al. Live cell imaging of repetitive DNA sequences via GFP-tagged polydactyl zinc finger proteins. Nucleic Acids Res. 35, e107 (2007). · DOI
  120. Miyanari, Y., Ziegler-Birling, C. & Torres-Padilla, M. E. Live visualization of chromatin dynamics with fluorescent TALEs. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 20, 1321–1324 (2013). · DOI
  121. Chen, B. et al. Dynamic imaging of genomic loci in living human cells by an optimized CRISPR/Cas system. Cell 155, 1479–1491 (2013). · DOI
  122. Ma, H. et al. Multicolor CRISPR labeling of chromosomal loci in human cells. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 3002–3007 (2015). · DOI
  123. Shao, S. et al. Long-term dual-color tracking of genomic loci by modified sgRNAs of the CRISPR/Cas9 system. Nucleic Acids Res. 44, e86 (2016). · DOI
  124. Wang, S., Su, J. H., Zhang, F. & Zhuang, X. An RNA-aptamer-based two-color CRISPR labeling system. Sci. Rep. 6, 26857 (2016). · DOI
  125. Fu, Y. et al. CRISPR-dCas9 and sgRNA scaffolds enable dual-colour live imaging of satellite sequences and repeat-enriched individual loci. Nat. Commun. 7, 11707 (2016). · DOI
  126. Ma, H. et al. Multiplexed labeling of genomic loci with dCas9 and engineered sgRNAs using CRISPRainbow. Nat. Biotechnol. 34, 528–530 (2016). · DOI
  127. Anton, T., Bultmann, S., Leonhardt, H. & Markaki, Y. Visualization of specific DNA sequences in living mouse embryonic stem cells with a programmable fluorescent CRISPR/Cas system. Nucleus 5, 163–172 (2014). · DOI
  128. Qin, P. et al. Live cell imaging of low- and non-repetitive chromosome loci using CRISPR-Cas9. Nat. Commun. 8, 14725 (2017). · DOI
  129. Liang, F. S., Ho, W. Q. & Crabtree, G. R. Engineering the ABA plant stress pathway for regulation of induced proximity. Sci. Signal. 4, rs2 (2011). · DOI
  130. Hao, N., Shearwin, K. E. & Dodd, I. B. Programmable DNA looping using engineered bivalent dCas9 complexes. Nat. Commun. 8, 1628 (2017). · DOI
  131. Wang, T., Wei, J. J., Sabatini, D. M. & Lander, E. S. Genetic screens in human cells using the CRISPR-Cas9 system. Science 343, 80–84 (2014). · DOI · Paper page
  132. Doench, J. G. Am I ready for CRISPR? A user's guide to genetic screens. Nat. Rev. Genet. 19, 67–80 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  133. Hsu, P. D., Lander, E. S. & Zhang, F. Development and applications of CRISPR-Cas9 for genome engineering. Cell 157, 1262–1278 (2014). · DOI · Paper page
  134. Pulecio, J., Verma, N., Mejia-Ramirez, E., Huangfu, D. & Raya, A. CRISPR/Cas9-based engineering of the epigenome. Cell Stem Cell 21, 431–447 (2017). · DOI · Paper page
  135. Barrangou, R. & Horvath, P. A decade of discovery: CRISPR functions and applications. Nat. Microbiol. 2, 17092 (2017). · DOI
  136. Fellmann, C., Gowen, B. G., Lin, P. C., Doudna, J. A. & Corn, J. E. Cornerstones of CRISPR-Cas in drug discovery and therapy. Nat. Rev. Drug. Discov. 16, 89–100 (2017). · DOI
  137. Wang, H., La Russa, M. & Qi, L. S. CRISPR/Cas9 in genome editing and beyond. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 85, 227–264 (2016). · DOI
  138. Gantz, V. M. & Bier, E. Genome editing. The mutagenic chain reaction: a method for converting heterozygous to homozygous mutations. Science 348, 442–444 (2015). · DOI
  139. Gantz, V. M. et al. Highly efficient Cas9-mediated gene drive for population modification of the malaria vector mosquito Anopheles stephensi. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, E6736–E6743 (2015). · DOI
  140. Hammond, A. et al. A CRISPR-Cas9 gene drive system targeting female reproduction in the malaria mosquito vector Anopheles gambiae. Nat. Biotechnol. 34, 78–83 (2016). · DOI
  141. Oye, K. A. et al. Biotechnology. Regulating gene drives. Science 345, 626–628 (2014). · DOI
  142. Esvelt, K. M., Smidler, A. L., Catteruccia, F. & Church, G. M. Concerning RNA-guided gene drives for the alteration of wild populations. Elife 3, https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.03401 (2014). · DOI
  143. Moreno, A. M. et al. Exploring protein orthogonality in immune space: a case study with AAV and Cas9 orthologs. Preprint at https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/01/10/245985 (2018). · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Adli, M.
Venue
Nature Communications
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2018-05-15
Volume
9
Issue
1
ISSN
2041-1723
DOI
10.1038/s41467-018-04252-2
PMC
PMC5953931
Cited by
1,545
References
46
Language
en
Licence

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