Systematic Evaluation of Drosophila CRISPR Tools Reveals Safe and Robust Alternatives to Autonomous Gene Drives in Basic Research
Open accessPublished 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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Improving CRISPR-Cas nuclease specificity using truncated guide RNAs
Fu, Y., Sander, J. D., Reyon, D., Cascio, V. M., & Joung, J. K. (2014) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt.2808 · Cited by 1,993 · see citing works
Port, F., Chen, H.-M., Lee, T., & Bullock, S. L. (2014) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1405500111 · Cited by 1,046 · see citing works
Self-citationSecretion of Wnt Ligands Requires Evi, a Conserved Transmembrane Protein
Bartscherer, K., Pelte, N., Ingelfinger, D., & Boutros, M. (2006) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2006.04.009 · Cited by 580 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Functional unknomics: Systematic screening of conserved genes of unknown function
Rocha, J. J., Jayaram, S. A., Stevens, T. J., Muschalik, N., Shah, R. D., Emran, S., Robles, C., Freeman, M., & Munro, S. (2023) · PLOS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3002222 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
Self-citation
- 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
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2015-07-01
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1493-1502
- ISSN
- 2160-1836 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4502383
- 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
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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