CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 237

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Methods Favoring Homology-Directed Repair Choice in Response to CRISPR/Cas9 Induced-Double Strand Breaks

Yang, Han, Ren, Shuling, Yu, Siyuan, Pan, Haifeng, Li, Tingdong, Ge, Shengxiang, Zhang, Jun, Xia, Ningshao·2020·International Journal of Molecular Sciences
DOI 10.3390/ijms21186461PMC PMC7555059
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Precise gene editing is—or will soon be—in clinical use for several diseases, and more applications are under development. The programmable nuclease Cas9, directed by a single-guide RNA (sgRNA), can introduce double-strand breaks (DSBs) in target sites of genomic DNA, which constitutes the initial step of gene editing using this novel technology. In mammals, two pathways dominate the repair of the DSBs—nonhomologous end joining (NHEJ) and homology-directed repair (HDR)—and the outcome of gene editing mainly depends on the choice between these two repair pathways. Although HDR is attractive for its high fidelity, the choice of repair pathway is biased in a biological context. Mammalian cells preferentially employ NHEJ over HDR through several mechanisms: NHEJ is active throughout the cell cycle, whereas HDR is restricted to S/G2 phases; NHEJ is faster than HDR; and NHEJ suppresses the HDR process. This suggests that definitive control of outcome of the programmed DNA lesioning could be achieved through manipulating the choice of cellular repair pathway. In this review, we summarize the DSB repair pathways, the mechanisms involved in choice selection based on DNA resection, and make progress in the research investigating strategies that favor Cas9-mediated HDR based on the manipulation of repair pathway choice to increase the frequency of HDR in mammalian cells. The remaining problems in improving HDR efficiency are also discussed. This review should facilitate the development of CRISPR/Cas9 technology to achieve more precise gene editing.

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 · 10.3390/ijms21186461

Cites

8 of 8 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?

  • In CRISPR-gene editing, HDR requires a large amount of donor (exogenous) DNA templates containing a sequence of interest.

    “In CRISPR-gene editing, HDR requires a large amount of donor (exogenous) DNA templates containing a sequence of interest.”

    From Mechanism and Applications of CRISPR/Cas-9-Mediated Genome Editing (2021) · cites this paper as [17]

  • HDR is most active in the late S and G2 phases of the cell cycle.

    “It is most active in the late S and G2 phases of the cell cycle.”

    From Mechanism and Applications of CRISPR/Cas-9-Mediated Genome Editing (2021) · cites this paper as [17]

  • HDR executes the precise gene insertion or replacement by adding a donor DNA template with sequence homology at the predicted DSB site.

    “HDR executes the precise gene insertion or replacement by adding a donor DNA template with sequence homology at the predicted DSB site.16,17”

    From Mechanism and Applications of CRISPR/Cas-9-Mediated Genome Editing (2021) · cites this paper as [17]

  • HDR is highly precise and requires the use of a homologous DNA template.

    “HDR is highly precise and requires the use of a homologous DNA template.”

    From Mechanism and Applications of CRISPR/Cas-9-Mediated Genome Editing (2021) · cites this paper as [17]

  • NHEJ is an error-prone mechanism that may result in small random insertion or deletion (indels) at the cleavage site leading to the generation of frameshift mutation or premature stop codon.

    “It is the predominant and efficient cellular repair mechanism that is most active in the cells, but it is an error-prone mechanism that may result in small random insertion or deletion (indels) at the cleavage site leading to the generation of frameshift mutation or premature stop codon.17”

    From Mechanism and Applications of CRISPR/Cas-9-Mediated Genome Editing (2021) · cites this paper as [17]

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: 123

  1. WareJoncas, 2018, Precision gene editing technology and applications in nephrology, Nat. Rev. Nephrol., 14, 663, 10.1038/s41581-018-0047-x · DOI
  2. Cox, 2015, Therapeutic genome editing: Prospects and challenges, Nat. Med., 21, 121, 10.1038/nm.3793 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Barrangou, 2016, Applications of CRISPR technologies in research and beyond, Nat. Biotechnol., 34, 933, 10.1038/nbt.3659 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Barrera, 2020, CRISPR/Cas: From adaptive immune system in prokaryotes to therapeutic weapon against immune-related diseases, Int. Rev. Immunol., 39, 11, 10.1080/08830185.2019.1677645 · DOI
  5. Gersbach, 2019, The next generation of CRISPR-Cas technologies and applications, Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol., 20, 490, 10.1038/s41580-019-0131-5 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Terns, 2018, CRISPR-based technologies: Impact of RNA-targeting systems, Mol. Cell, 72, 404, 10.1016/j.molcel.2018.09.018 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Gupta, 2019, CRISPR-Cas9 system: A new-fangled dawn in gene editing, Life Sci., 232, 116636, 10.1016/j.lfs.2019.116636 · DOI
  8. Mojica, 2009, Short motif sequences determine the targets of the prokaryotic CRISPR defence system, Microbiology, 155 Pt 3, 733, 10.1099/mic.0.023960-0 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Jiang, 2016, Structures of a CRISPR-Cas9 R-loop complex primed for DNA cleavage, Science, 351, 867, 10.1126/science.aad8282 · DOI
  10. Peng, 2014, Making designer mutants in model organisms, Development, 141, 4042, 10.1242/dev.102186 · DOI
  11. Chang, 2017, Non-homologous DNA end joining and alternative pathways to double-strand break repair, Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol., 18, 495, 10.1038/nrm.2017.48 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Salsman, 2017, Precision genome editing in the CRISPR era, Biochem. Cell Biol., 95, 187, 10.1139/bcb-2016-0137 · DOI
  13. Dumitrache, 2011, Trex2 enables spontaneous sister chromatid exchanges without facilitating DNA double-strand break repair, Genetics, 188, 787, 10.1534/genetics.111.129833 · DOI
  14. Blackford, 2017, ATM, ATR, and DNA-PK: The trinity at the heart of the DNA damage response, Mol. Cell, 66, 801, 10.1016/j.molcel.2017.05.015 · DOI
  15. Schwertman, 2016, Regulation of DNA double-strand break repair by ubiquitin and ubiquitin-like modifiers, Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol., 17, 379, 10.1038/nrm.2016.58 · DOI
  16. Nowsheen, 2018, L3MBTL2 orchestrates ubiquitin signalling by dictating the sequential recruitment of RNF8 and RNF168 after DNA damage, Nat. Cell Biol., 20, 455, 10.1038/s41556-018-0071-x · DOI
  17. Symington, 2016, Mechanism and regulation of DNA end resection in eukaryotes, Crit. Rev. Biochem. Mol. Biol., 51, 195, 10.3109/10409238.2016.1172552 · DOI
  18. Symington, 2011, Double-strand break end resection and repair pathway choice, Annu Rev. Genet., 45, 247, 10.1146/annurev-genet-110410-132435 · DOI
  19. Huertas, 2009, Human CtIP mediates cell cycle control of DNA end resection and double strand break repair, J. Biol. Chem., 284, 9558, 10.1074/jbc.M808906200 · DOI
  20. Garcia, 2011, Bidirectional resection of DNA double-strand breaks by Mre11 and Exo1, Nature, 479, 241, 10.1038/nature10515 · DOI
  21. Daley, 2017, Enhancement of BLM-DNA2-mediated long-range DNA end resection by CtIP, Cell Rep., 21, 324, 10.1016/j.celrep.2017.09.048 · DOI
  22. Renkawitz, 2014, Mechanisms and principles of homology search during recombination, Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol., 15, 369, 10.1038/nrm3805 · DOI
  23. Bhat, 2018, RPA and RAD51: Fork reversal, fork protection, and genome stability, Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol., 25, 446, 10.1038/s41594-018-0075-z · DOI
  24. Sung, 2008, Mechanism of eukaryotic homologous recombination, Annu. Rev. Biochem., 77, 229, 10.1146/annurev.biochem.77.061306.125255 · DOI
  25. West, 2009, The search for a human Holliday junction resolvase, Biochem. Soc. Trans., 37, 519, 10.1042/BST0370519 · DOI
  26. Fell, 2015, The Ku heterodimer: Function in DNA repair and beyond, Mutat. Res. Rev. Mutat. Res., 763, 15, 10.1016/j.mrrev.2014.06.002 · DOI
  27. Kragelund, 2016, The Ku70/80 ring in Non-Homologous End-Joining: Easy to slip on, hard to remove, Front. Biosci., 21, 514, 10.2741/4406 · DOI
  28. Davis, 2014, DNA-PK: A dynamic enzyme in a versatile DSB repair pathway, DNA Repair, 17, 21, 10.1016/j.dnarep.2014.02.020 · DOI
  29. Conlin, 2017, DNA ligase IV guides end-processing choice during nonhomologous end joining, Cell Rep., 20, 2810, 10.1016/j.celrep.2017.08.091 · DOI
  30. Stinson, 2020, A mechanism to minimize errors during non-homologous end joining, Mol. Cell, 77, 1080, 10.1016/j.molcel.2019.11.018 · DOI
  31. Truong, 2013, Microhomology-mediated end joining and homologous recombination share the initial end resection step to repair DNA double-strand breaks in mammalian cells, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 110, 7720, 10.1073/pnas.1213431110 · DOI
  32. Wang, 2017, Microhomology-mediated end joining: New players join the team, Cell Biosci., 7, 6, 10.1186/s13578-017-0136-8 · DOI
  33. Cheng, 2011, Ku counteracts mobilization of PARP1 and MRN in chromatin damaged with DNA double-strand breaks, Nucleic Acids Res., 39, 9605, 10.1093/nar/gkr656 · DOI
  34. Gong, 2015, Mammalian polymerase theta promotes alternative NHEJ and suppresses recombination, Nature, 518, 254, 10.1038/nature14157 · DOI
  35. Wang, 2006, PARP-1 and Ku compete for repair of DNA double strand breaks by distinct NHEJ pathways, Nucleic Acids Res., 34, 6170, 10.1093/nar/gkl840 · DOI
  36. Sfeir, 2015, Microhomology-mediated end joining: A back-up survival mechanism or dedicated pathway?, Trends Biochem. Sci., 40, 701, 10.1016/j.tibs.2015.08.006 · DOI · Paper page
  37. Nakade, 2014, Microhomology-mediated end-joining-dependent integration of donor DNA in cells and animals using TALENs and CRISPR/Cas9, Nat. Commun., 5, 5560, 10.1038/ncomms6560 · DOI
  38. Sakuma, 2016, MMEJ-assisted gene knock-in using TALENs and CRISPR-Cas9 with the PITCh systems, Nat. Protoc., 11, 118, 10.1038/nprot.2015.140 · DOI
  39. Lee, 2018, CRISPR and target-specific DNA endonucleases for efficient DNA Knock-in in eukaryotic genomes, Mol. Cells, 41, 943
  40. Bhargava, 2016, Regulation of single-strand annealing and its role in genome maintenance, Trends Genet., 32, 566, 10.1016/j.tig.2016.06.007 · DOI
  41. Sonoda, 1998, Homologous recombination, but not DNA repair, is reduced in vertebrate cells deficient in RAD52, Mol. Cell Biol., 18, 6430, 10.1128/MCB.18.11.6430 · DOI
  42. Stone, 2014, DNA damage emergency: Cellular garbage disposal to the rescue?, Oncogene, 33, 805, 10.1038/onc.2013.60 · DOI
  43. Huertas, 2010, DNA resection in eukaryotes: Deciding how to fix the break, Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol., 17, 11, 10.1038/nsmb.1710 · DOI
  44. Hochegger, 2008, Cyclin-dependent kinases and cell-cycle transitions: Does one fit all?, Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol., 9, 910, 10.1038/nrm2510 · DOI
  45. Buis, 2012, Mre11 regulates CtIP-dependent double-strand break repair by interaction with CDK2, Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol., 19, 246, 10.1038/nsmb.2212 · DOI
  46. Yu, 1998, The C-terminal (BRCT) domains of BRCA1 interact in vivo with CtIP, a protein implicated in the CtBP pathway of transcriptional repression, J. Biol. Chem., 273, 25388, 10.1074/jbc.273.39.25388 · DOI
  47. Tomimatsu, 2014, Phosphorylation of EXO1 by CDKs 1 and 2 regulates DNA end resection and repair pathway choice, Nat. Commun., 5, 3561, 10.1038/ncomms4561 · DOI
  48. Tkac, 2016, HELB Is a feedback inhibitor of DNA end resection, Mol. Cell, 61, 405, 10.1016/j.molcel.2015.12.013 · DOI
  49. Lu, 2016, RECQL4 Promotes DNA end resection in repair of DNA double-strand breaks, Cell Rep., 16, 161, 10.1016/j.celrep.2016.05.079 · DOI
  50. Lu, 2017, Cell cycle-dependent phosphorylation regulates RECQL4 pathway choice and ubiquitination in DNA double-strand break repair, Nat. Commun., 8, 2039, 10.1038/s41467-017-02146-3 · DOI
  51. Uckelmann, 2017, Histone ubiquitination in the DNA damage response, DNA Repair, 56, 92, 10.1016/j.dnarep.2017.06.011 · DOI
  52. Chapman, 2012, Playing the end game: DNA double-strand break repair pathway choice, Mol. Cell, 47, 497, 10.1016/j.molcel.2012.07.029 · DOI
  53. Ismail, 2015, The RNF138 E3 ligase displaces Ku to promote DNA end resection and regulate DNA repair pathway choice, Nat. Cell Biol., 17, 1446, 10.1038/ncb3259 · DOI
  54. Brown, 2015, Neddylation promotes ubiquitylation and release of Ku from DNA-damage sites, Cell Rep., 11, 704, 10.1016/j.celrep.2015.03.058 · DOI
  55. Feng, 2012, The E3 ligase RNF8 regulates KU80 removal and NHEJ repair, Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol., 19, 201, 10.1038/nsmb.2211 · DOI
  56. Himmels, 2016, Controlling DNA-end resection: An emerging task for ubiquitin and SUMO, Front. Genet., 7, 152, 10.3389/fgene.2016.00152 · DOI
  57. Lafranchi, 2014, APC/C(Cdh1) controls CtIP stability during the cell cycle and in response to DNA damage, EMBO J., 33, 2860, 10.15252/embj.201489017 · DOI
  58. Steger, 2013, Prolyl isomerase PIN1 regulates DNA double-strand break repair by counteracting DNA end resection, Mol. Cell, 50, 333, 10.1016/j.molcel.2013.03.023 · DOI
  59. Kakarougkas, 2014, DNA DSB repair pathway choice: An orchestrated handover mechanism, Br. J. Radiol., 87, 20130685, 10.1259/bjr.20130685 · DOI
  60. Mirman, 2020, 53BP1: A DSB escort, Genes Dev., 34, 7, 10.1101/gad.333237.119 · DOI
  61. Panier, 2014, Double-strand break repair: 53BP1 comes into focus, Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol., 15, 7, 10.1038/nrm3719 · DOI
  62. Orthwein, 2013, A cell cycle-dependent regulatory circuit composed of 53BP1-RIF1 and BRCA1-CtIP controls DNA repair pathway choice, Mol. Cell, 49, 872, 10.1016/j.molcel.2013.01.001 · DOI
  63. Noordermeer, 2018, The shieldin complex mediates 53BP1-dependent DNA repair, Nature, 560, 117, 10.1038/s41586-018-0340-7 · DOI
  64. Setiaputra, 2019, Shieldin—The protector of DNA ends, EMBO Rep., 20, e47560, 10.15252/embr.201847560 · DOI
  65. Wang, 2014, PTIP associates with Artemis to dictate DNA repair pathway choice, Genes Dev., 28, 2693, 10.1101/gad.252478.114 · DOI
  66. Mohammadzadeh, 2019, 53BP1: A key player of DNA damage response with critical functions in cancer, DNA Repair, 73, 110, 10.1016/j.dnarep.2018.11.008 · DOI
  67. Huertas, 2014, BRCA1 accelerates CtIP-mediated DNA-end resection, Cell Rep., 9, 451, 10.1016/j.celrep.2014.08.076 · DOI
  68. Zhang, 2016, A cell cycle-dependent BRCA1-UHRF1 cascade regulates DNA double-strand break repair pathway choice, Nat. Commun., 7, 10201, 10.1038/ncomms10201 · DOI
  69. Densham, 2016, Human BRCA1-BARD1 ubiquitin ligase activity counteracts chromatin barriers to DNA resection, Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol., 23, 647, 10.1038/nsmb.3236 · DOI
  70. Isono, 2017, BRCA1 directs the repair pathway to homologous recombination by promoting 53BP1 dephosphorylation, Cell Rep., 18, 520, 10.1016/j.celrep.2016.12.042 · DOI
  71. Vartak, 2015, Inhibition of nonhomologous end joining to increase the specificity of CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing, FEBS J., 282, 4289, 10.1111/febs.13416 · DOI
  72. Beumer, 2013, Donor DNA utilization during gene targeting with zinc-finger nucleases, G3, 3, 657, 10.1534/g3.112.005439 · DOI
  73. Singh, 2015, A mouse geneticist’s practical guide to CRISPR applications, Genetics, 199, 1, 10.1534/genetics.114.169771 · DOI
  74. Chu, 2015, Increasing the efficiency of homology-directed repair for CRISPR-Cas9-induced precise gene editing in mammalian cells, Nat. Biotechnol., 33, 543, 10.1038/nbt.3198 · DOI · Paper page
  75. Zhang, 2018, An efficient platform for generating somatic point mutations with germline transmission in the zebrafish by CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing, J. Biol. Chem., 293, 6611, 10.1074/jbc.RA117.001080 · DOI
  76. Ma, 2016, Increasing the efficiency of CRISPR/Cas9-mediated precise genome editing in rats by inhibiting NHEJ and using Cas9 protein, RNA Biol., 13, 605, 10.1080/15476286.2016.1185591 · DOI
  77. Hu, 2018, Ligase IV inhibitor SCR7 enhances gene editing directed by CRISPR-Cas9 and ssODN in human cancer cells, Cell Biosci., 8, 12, 10.1186/s13578-018-0200-z · DOI
  78. Li, 2017, Small molecules enhance CRISPR/Cas9-mediated homology-directed genome editing in primary cells, Sci. Rep., 7, 8943, 10.1038/s41598-017-09306-x · DOI
  79. Song, 2016, RS-1 enhances CRISPR/Cas9- and TALEN-mediated knock-in efficiency, Nat. Commun., 7, 10548, 10.1038/ncomms10548 · DOI
  80. Gutschner, 2016, Post-translational Regulation of Cas9 during G1 enhances homology-directed repair, Cell Rep., 14, 1555, 10.1016/j.celrep.2016.01.019 · DOI
  81. Xie, 2017, Optimization of a CRISPR/Cas9-mediated Knock-in Strategy at the Porcine Rosa26 locus in porcine foetal fibroblasts, Sci. Rep., 7, 3036, 10.1038/s41598-017-02785-y · DOI
  82. Jayavaradhan, 2019, A versatile tool for the quantification of CRISPR/Cas9-induced genome editing events in human hematopoietic cell lines and hematopoietic stem/progenitor cells, J. Mol. Biol., 431, 102, 10.1016/j.jmb.2018.05.005 · DOI
  83. Canny, 2018, Inhibition of 53BP1 favors homology-dependent DNA repair and increases CRISPR-Cas9 genome-editing efficiency, Nat. Biotechnol., 36, 95, 10.1038/nbt.4021 · DOI
  84. Aird, 2018, Increasing Cas9-mediated homology-directed repair efficiency through covalent tethering of DNA repair template, Commun. Biol., 1, 54, 10.1038/s42003-018-0054-2 · DOI
  85. Greco, 2016, SCR7 is neither a selective nor a potent inhibitor of human DNA ligase IV, DNA Repair., 43, 18, 10.1016/j.dnarep.2016.04.004 · DOI
  86. Li, 2018, Suppressing Ku70/Ku80 expression elevates homology-directed repair efficiency in primary fibroblasts, Int. J. Biochem. Cell Biol., 99, 154, 10.1016/j.biocel.2018.04.011 · DOI
  87. Robert, 2015, Pharmacological inhibition of DNA-PK stimulates Cas9-mediated genome editing, Genome Med., 7, 93, 10.1186/s13073-015-0215-6 · DOI
  88. Aksoy, 2019, Chemical reprogramming enhances homology-directed genome editing in zebrafish embryos, Commun. Biol., 2, 198, 10.1038/s42003-019-0444-0 · DOI
  89. Riesenberg, 2018, Targeting repair pathways with small molecules increases precise genome editing in pluripotent stem cells, Nat. Commun., 9, 2164, 10.1038/s41467-018-04609-7 · DOI · Paper page
  90. Riesenberg, 2019, Simultaneous precise editing of multiple genes in human cells, Nucleic Acids Res., 47, e116, 10.1093/nar/gkz669 · DOI
  91. Frank, 1998, Late embryonic lethality and impaired V(D)J recombination in mice lacking DNA ligase IV, Nature, 396, 173, 10.1038/24172 · DOI
  92. Jayathilaka, 2008, A chemical compound that stimulates the human homologous recombination protein RAD51, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 105, 15848, 10.1073/pnas.0808046105 · DOI
  93. Pinder, 2015, Nuclear domain ’knock-in’ screen for the evaluation and identification of small molecule enhancers of CRISPR-based genome editing, Nucleic Acids Res., 43, 9379, 10.1093/nar/gkv993 · DOI
  94. Kurihara, 2020, DNA repair protein RAD51 enhances the CRISPR/Cas9-mediated knock-in efficiency in brain neurons, Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun., 524, 621, 10.1016/j.bbrc.2020.01.132 · DOI
  95. Haber, 1995, In vivo biochemistry: Physical monitoring of recombination induced by site-specific endonucleases, Bioessays, 17, 609, 10.1002/bies.950170707 · DOI
  96. Lok, 2012, Molecular pathways: Understanding the role of Rad52 in homologous recombination for therapeutic advancement, Clin. Cancer Res., 18, 6400, 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-3150 · DOI
  97. Galli, 2005, Potentiation of gene targeting in human cells by expression of Saccharomyces cerevisiae Rad52, Nucleic Acids Res., 33, 4639, 10.1093/nar/gki778 · DOI
  98. Shao, 2017, Enhancing CRISPR/Cas9-mediated homology-directed repair in mammalian cells by expressing Saccharomyces cerevisiae Rad52, Int. J. Biochem. Cell Biol., 92, 43, 10.1016/j.biocel.2017.09.012 · DOI
  99. Wang, L., Yang, L., Guo, Y., Du, W., Yin, Y., Zhang, T., and Lu, H. (2017). Enhancing targeted genomic DNA editing in chicken cells using the CRISPR/Cas9 system. PLoS ONE, 12. · DOI
  100. Paulsen, 2017, Ectopic expression of RAD52 and dn53BP1 improves homology-directed repair during CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing, Nat. Biomed. Eng., 1, 878, 10.1038/s41551-017-0145-2 · DOI
  101. Charpentier, 2018, CtIP fusion to Cas9 enhances transgene integration by homology-dependent repair, Nat. Commun., 9, 1133, 10.1038/s41467-018-03475-7 · DOI
  102. Tran, 2019, Enhancement of precise gene editing by the association of Cas9 With homologous recombination factors, Front. Genet., 10, 365, 10.3389/fgene.2019.00365 · DOI
  103. Reuven, N., Adler, J., Broennimann, K., Myers, N., and Shaul, Y. (2019). Recruitment of DNA repair MRN complex by intrinsically disordered protein domain fused to Cas9 improves efficiency of CRISPR-mediated genome editing. Biomolecules, 9. · DOI
  104. Yu, 2015, Small molecules enhance CRISPR genome editing in pluripotent stem cells, Cell Stem Cell, 16, 142, 10.1016/j.stem.2015.01.003 · DOI · Paper page
  105. Xie, 2007, Distinct roles of chromatin-associated proteins MDC1 and 53BP1 in mammalian double-strand break repair, Mol. Cell, 28, 1045, 10.1016/j.molcel.2007.12.005 · DOI
  106. Jayavaradhan, 2019, CRISPR-Cas9 fusion to dominant-negative 53BP1 enhances HDR and inhibits NHEJ specifically at Cas9 target sites, Nat. Commun., 10, 2866, 10.1038/s41467-019-10735-7 · DOI
  107. Nambiar, 2019, Stimulation of CRISPR-mediated homology-directed repair by an engineered RAD18 variant, Nat. Commun., 10, 3395, 10.1038/s41467-019-11105-z · DOI
  108. Lin, 2014, Enhanced homology-directed human genome engineering by controlled timing of CRISPR/Cas9 delivery, Elife, 3, e04766, 10.7554/eLife.04766 · DOI · Paper page
  109. Yang, 2016, Enrichment of G2/M cell cycle phase in human pluripotent stem cells enhances HDR-mediated gene repair with customizable endonucleases, Sci. Rep., 6, 21264, 10.1038/srep21264 · DOI
  110. Lomova, 2019, Improving gene editing outcomes in human hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells by temporal control of DNA repair, Stem Cells, 37, 284, 10.1002/stem.2935 · DOI
  111. Wienert, 2020, Timed inhibition of CDC7 increases CRISPR-Cas9 mediated templated repair, Nat. Commun., 11, 2109, 10.1038/s41467-020-15845-1 · DOI
  112. Gerlach, M., Kraft, T., Brenner, B., Petersen, B., Niemann, H., and Montag, J. (2018). Efficient Knock-in of a Point Mutation in Porcine Fibroblasts Using the CRISPR/Cas9-GMNN Fusion Gene. Genes, 9. · DOI
  113. Howden, 2016, A Cas9 variant for efficient generation of indel-free knockin or gene-corrected human pluripotent stem cells, Stem Cell Rep., 7, 508, 10.1016/j.stemcr.2016.07.001 · DOI
  114. Ye, 2018, Programmable DNA repair with CRISPRa/i enhanced homology-directed repair efficiency with a single Cas9, Cell Discov., 4, 46, 10.1038/s41421-018-0049-7 · DOI
  115. Devkota, 2018, The road less traveled: Strategies to enhance the frequency of homology-directed repair (HDR) for increased efficiency of CRISPR/Cas-mediated transgenesis, BMB Rep., 51, 437, 10.5483/BMBRep.2018.51.9.187 · DOI
  116. Abdeen, 2017, Assembly of CRISPR ribonucleoproteins with biotinylated oligonucleotides via an RNA aptamer for precise gene editing, Nat. Commun., 8, 1711, 10.1038/s41467-017-01875-9 · DOI · Paper page
  117. Ma, 2017, Efficient generation of mice carrying homozygous double-floxp alleles using the Cas9-Avidin/Biotin-donor DNA system, Cell Res., 27, 578, 10.1038/cr.2017.29 · DOI
  118. Savic, 2018, Covalent linkage of the DNA repair template to the CRISPR-Cas9 nuclease enhances homology-directed repair, Elife, 7, e33761, 10.7554/eLife.33761 · DOI
  119. Liang, 2017, Enhanced CRISPR/Cas9-mediated precise genome editing by improved design and delivery of gRNA, Cas9 nuclease, and donor DNA, J. Biotechnol., 241, 136, 10.1016/j.jbiotec.2016.11.011 · DOI
  120. Richardson, 2016, Enhancing homology-directed genome editing by catalytically active and inactive CRISPR-Cas9 using asymmetric donor DNA, Nat. Biotechnol., 34, 339, 10.1038/nbt.3481 · DOI · Paper page
  121. Song, 2017, Optimizing the DNA Donor Template for Homology-Directed Repair of Double-Strand Breaks, Mol. Ther Nucleic Acids, 7, 53, 10.1016/j.omtn.2017.02.006 · DOI
  122. Suzuki, 2016, In vivo genome editing via CRISPR/Cas9 mediated homology-independent targeted integration, Nature, 540, 144, 10.1038/nature20565 · DOI · Paper page
  123. Zhang, 2017, Efficient precise knockin with a double cut HDR donor after CRISPR/Cas9-mediated double-stranded DNA cleavage, Genome Biol., 18, 35, 10.1186/s13059-017-1164-8 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Yang, H., Ren, S., Yu, S., Pan, H., Li, T., Ge, S., Zhang, J., & Xia, N.
Affiliations
State Key Laboratory of Molecular Vaccinology and Molecular Diagnostics, National Institute of Diagnostics and Vaccine Development in Infectious Disease, Collaborative Innovation Centers of Biological Products, School of Public Health, Xiamen University, Xiamen 361102, China
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2020-09-04
Volume
21
Issue
18
Pages
6461
ISSN
1422-0067
DOI
10.3390/ijms21186461
PMC
PMC7555059
Cited by
237
References
8
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (vor)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (31971369)
  • National Key Program for Infectious Disease of China (2018ZX10732401-003-008)
  • Natural Science Foundation of Fujian Province of China (Natural Science Foundation of Fujian Province of China)

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