Cited by 87CRISPR and Genetic EngineeringInsect Resistance and GeneticsRNA Interference and Gene Delivery

Systematic Evaluation of Drosophila CRISPR Tools Reveals Safe and Robust Alternatives to Autonomous Gene Drives in Basic Research

Open access
Port, Fillip, Muschalik, Nadine, Bullock, Simon L·2015·G3 Genes|Genomes|Genetics

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

The Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeat/CRISPR associated (CRISPR/Cas) technology allows rapid, site-specific genome modification in a wide variety of organisms . Proof-of-principle studies in Drosophila melanogaster have used various CRISPR/Cas tools and experimental designs, leading to significant uncertainty in the community about how to put this technology into practice. Moreover, it is unclear what proportion of genomic target sites can be modified with high efficiency. Here, we address these issues by systematically evaluating available CRISPR/Cas reagents and methods in Drosophila. Our findings allow evidence-based choices of Cas9 sources and strategies for generating knock-in alleles. We perform gene editing at a large number of target sites using a highly active Cas9 line and a collection of transgenic gRNA strains. The vast majority of target sites can be mutated with remarkable efficiency using these tools. We contrast our method to recently developed autonomous gene drive technology for somatic and germline genome engineering and conclude that optimized CRISPR with independent transgenes is as efficient, more versatile, and does not represent a biosafety risk.

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 · 10.1534/g3.115.019083

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Port, F., Muschalik, N., & Bullock, S. L.
Affiliations
MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology (GB)
Corresponding author
  • Port, Fillip
  • Bullock, Simon L
Venue
G3 Genes|Genomes|Genetics
Published
2015-07-01
Volume
5
Issue
7
Pages
1493-1502
ISSN
2160-1836 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2205349645
Cited by
87
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 4
FWCI
3.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • G3 Genes Genomes Genetics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust (095927, 095927/B/11/A)
  • Medical Research Council (U105178790)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › CRISPR and Genetic Engineering
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Insect Resistance and Genetics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › RNA Interference and Gene Delivery
Keywords
CRISPR-Cas, Drosophila melanogaster, guide RNA, genome editing efficiency, knock-in allele, biosafety
MeSH terms
RNA, Guide, CRISPR-Cas Systems, Alleles, Animals, Drosophila, Embryo, Nonmammalian, Germ Cells, Mutagenesis, Animals, Genetically Modified, Gene Knock-In Techniques, Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats, CRISPR-Cas Systems

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