CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 175

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Validation of microinjection methods for generating knockout mice by CRISPR/Cas-mediated genome engineering

Horii, Takuro, Arai, Yuji, Yamazaki, Miho, Morita, Sumiyo, Kimura, Mika, Itoh, Masahiro, Abe, Yumiko, Hatada, Izuho·2014·Scientific Reports
DOI 10.1038/srep04513PMC PMC5380110
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The CRISPR/Cas system, in which the Cas9 endonuclease and a guide RNA complementary to the target are sufficient for RNA-guided cleavage of the target DNA, is a powerful new approach recently developed for targeted gene disruption in various animal models. However, there is little verification of microinjection methods for generating knockout mice using this approach. Here, we report the verification of microinjection methods of the CRISPR/Cas system. We compared three methods for injection: (1) injection of DNA into the pronucleus, (2) injection of RNA into the pronucleus and (3) injection of RNA into the cytoplasm. We found that injection of RNA into the cytoplasm was the most efficient method in terms of the numbers of viable blastocyst stage embryos and full-term pups generated. This method also showed the best overall knockout efficiency.

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/srep04513

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 The Cas9/gRNA-targeting site in mouse Tet1 and validation of its targeting efficiency. (a) The Cas9/gRNA-targeting sites in mouse Tet1. The gRNA-targeting sequence is underlined and the PAM sequences are indicated in red. Exons are indicated by closed boxes and the boxed sequence indicates the Sac I restriction site in the target region. (b) Validation of targeting efficiency of the Tet1 gene using mouse embryonic stem cells. PCR products were digested with the restriction enzyme Sac I that cleaves at the Cas9 endonuclease target site and then analyzed by gel electrophoresis. PCR products generated from DNA containing successfully targeted Tet1 were uncleaved and, therefore, larger than the product generated from the control DNA. The intensity of each fragment was measured and the targeting efficiency was calculated.
Figure 1 The Cas9/gRNA-targeting site in mouse Tet1 and validation of its targeting efficiency. (a) The Cas9/gRNA-targeting sites in mouse Tet1. The gRNA-targeting sequence is underlined and the PAM sequences are indicated in red. Exons are indicated by closed boxes and the boxed sequence indicates the Sac I restriction site in the target region. (b) Validation of targeting efficiency of the Tet1 gene using mouse embryonic stem cells. PCR products were digested with the restriction enzyme Sac I that cleaves at the Cas9 endonuclease target site and then analyzed by gel electrophoresis. PCR products generated from DNA containing successfully targeted Tet1 were uncleaved and, therefore, larger than the product generated from the control DNA. The intensity of each fragment was measured and the targeting efficiency was calculated.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Viability of the Tet1 targeted mice. (a) Percentage of viable blastocysts per injected embryos. *, P < 0.05. (b) Percentage of pups per transferred embryos. *, P < 0.05.
Figure 2 Viability of the Tet1 targeted mice. (a) Percentage of viable blastocysts per injected embryos. *, P < 0.05. (b) Percentage of pups per transferred embryos. *, P < 0.05.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Newborn mice generated by the CRISPR method. Five pups generated by each injection method are shown. Tet1 genotypes are indicated in each image.
Figure 3 Newborn mice generated by the CRISPR method. Five pups generated by each injection method are shown. Tet1 genotypes are indicated in each image.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 Knockout efficiencies of each injection method. (a) Percent of each Tet1 genotype among all newborn mice generated by each injection method. (b) Overall efficiencies of generating knockout mice (+/− or −/−) by each of the three injection methods. Numbers of knockout mice per transferred embryos are presented. *, P < 0.05.
Figure 4 Knockout efficiencies of each injection method. (a) Percent of each Tet1 genotype among all newborn mice generated by each injection method. (b) Overall efficiencies of generating knockout mice (+/− or −/−) by each of the three injection methods. Numbers of knockout mice per transferred embryos are presented. *, P < 0.05.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 5 Analysis of mutations generated by CRISPR. Genotyping of newborn mice generated by the CRISPR method. The two Tet1 alleles are presented for each mouse. The PAM sequences are shown in red. Deletions are indicated in grey letters. Lower case letters indicate insertion mutations and arrows indicate the sites of insertions. Micro-homology flanking the cleavage site is underlined in the sequence.
Figure 5 Analysis of mutations generated by CRISPR. Genotyping of newborn mice generated by the CRISPR method. The two Tet1 alleles are presented for each mouse. The PAM sequences are shown in red. Deletions are indicated in grey letters. Lower case letters indicate insertion mutations and arrows indicate the sites of insertions. Micro-homology flanking the cleavage site is underlined in the sequence.CC BY · 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

Show all 4 references

Research works printed but not linked: 20

  1. Porteus, M. H. & Carroll, D. Gene targeting using zinc finger nucleases. Nat Biotechnol 23, 967–973 (2005). · DOI · Paper page
  2. Miller, J. C. et al. A TALE nuclease architecture for efficient genome editing. Nat Biotechnol 29, 143–148 (2011). · DOI · Paper page
  3. Jinek, M. et al. A programmable dual-RNA-guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity. Science 337, 816–821 (2012). · DOI · Paper page
  4. Cong, L. et al. Multiplex genome engineering using CRISPR/Cas systems. Science 339, 819–823 (2013). · DOI · Paper page
  5. Yang, H. et al. One-step generation of mice carrying reporter and conditional alleles by CRISPR/Cas-mediated genome engineering. Cell 154, 1370–1379 (2013). · DOI · Paper page
  6. Tahiliani, M. et al. Conversion of 5-methylcytosine to 5-hydroxymethylcytosine in mammalian DNA by MLL partner TET1. Science 324, 930–935 (2009). · DOI · Paper page
  7. Dawlaty, M. M. et al. Tet1 is dispensable for maintaining pluripotency and its loss is compatible with embryonic and postnatal development. Cell Stem Cell 9, 166–175 (2011). · DOI · Paper page
  8. Bassett, A. R., Tibbit, C., Ponting, C. P. & Liu, J. L. Highly efficient targeted mutagenesis of Drosophila with the CRISPR/Cas9 system. Cell Rep 4, 220–228 (2013). · DOI
  9. Hwang, W. Y. et al. Heritable and precise zebrafish genome editing using a CRISPR-Cas system. PLoS One 8, e68708 (2013). · DOI
  10. Shan, Q. et al. Targeted genome modification of crop plants using a CRISPR-Cas system. Nat Biotechnol 31, 686–688 (2013). · DOI · Paper page
  11. Jiang, W. et al. Demonstration of CRISPR/Cas9/sgRNA-mediated targeted gene modification in Arabidopsis, tobacco, sorghum and rice. Nucleic Acids Res 41, e188 (2013). · DOI
  12. Upadhyay, S. K., Kumar, J., Alok, A. & Tuli, R. RNA Guided Genome Editing for Target Gene Mutations in Wheat. G3 (Bethesda) 3, 2233–2238 (2013). · DOI
  13. Blitz, I. L., Biesinger, J., Xie, X. & Cho, K. W. Biallelic genome modification in F0 Xenopus tropicalis embryos using the CRISPR/Cas system. Genesis, 1–8 (2013). · DOI
  14. Wang, Y. et al. The CRISPR/Cas System mediates efficient genome engineering in Bombyx mori. Cell Res (2013). · DOI
  15. McVey, M. & Lee, S. E. MMEJ repair of double-strand breaks (director's cut): deleted sequences and alternative endings. Trends Genet 24, 529–538 (2008). · DOI
  16. Symington, L. S. & Gautier, J. Double-strand break end resection and repair pathway choice. Annu Rev Genet 45, 247–271 (2011). · DOI
  17. Tesson, L. et al. Knockout rats generated by embryo microinjection of TALENs. Nat Biotechnol 29, 695–696 (2011). · DOI
  18. Horii, T., Tamura, D., Morita, S., Kimura, M. & Hatada, I. Generation of an ICF syndrome model by efficient genome editing of human induced pluripotent stem cells using the CRISPR system. Int J Mol Sci 14, 19774–19781 (2013). · DOI · Paper page
  19. Mashiko, D. et al. Generation of mutant mice by pronuclear injection of circular plasmid expressing Cas9 and single guided RNA. Sci Rep 3, 3355 (2013). · DOI
  20. Horii, T. et al. Genome engineering of mammalian haploid embryonic stem cells using the Cas9/RNA system. Peer J 1, e230 (2013). · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Horii, T., Arai, Y., Yamazaki, M., Morita, S., Kimura, M., Itoh, M., Abe, Y., & Hatada, I.
Venue
Scientific Reports
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2014-03-28
Volume
4
Issue
1
ISSN
2045-2322
DOI
10.1038/srep04513
PMC
PMC5380110
Cited by
175
References
4
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