Genotyping Genome-Edited Founders and Subsequent Generation.
Allele QC
CRISPR-Cas9
Embryo/zygote engineering
Genetic engineering
Genome editing
Genotyping
Mouse models
Transgenesis
Journal
Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.)
ISSN: 1940-6029
Titre abrégé: Methods Mol Biol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9214969
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
medline:
3
4
2023
entrez:
30
3
2023
pubmed:
31
3
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Targeted nucleases allow the production of many types of genetic mutations directly in the early embryo. However, the outcome of their activity is a repair event of unpredictable nature, and the founder animals that are produced are generally of a mosaic nature. Here, we present the molecular assays and genotyping strategies that will support the screening of the first generation for potential founders and the validation of positive animals in the subsequent generation, according to the type of mutation generated.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36995665
doi: 10.1007/978-1-0716-2990-1_4
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
103-134Subventions
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_UP_2201/3
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Burgio G, Teboul L (2020) Anticipating and identifying collateral damage in genome editing. Trends Genet 36:905–914
doi: 10.1016/j.tig.2020.09.011
pubmed: 33039248
pmcid: 7658041
Mizuno S, Dinh TTH, Kato K et al (2014) Simple generation of albino C57BL/6J mice with G291T mutation in the tyrosinase gene by the CRISPR/Cas9 system. Mamm Genome 25:327–334
doi: 10.1007/s00335-014-9524-0
pubmed: 24879364
Renaud J-B, Boix C, Charpentier M et al (2016) Improved genome editing efficiency and flexibility using modified oligonucleotides with TALEN and CRISPR-Cas9 Nucleases. Cell Rep 14:2263–2272
doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2016.02.018
pubmed: 26923600
Mianné J, Codner GF, Caulder A et al (2017) Analysing the outcome of CRISPR-aided genome editing in embryos: screening, genotyping and quality control. Methods 121–122:68–76
doi: 10.1016/j.ymeth.2017.03.016
pubmed: 28363792
Pickar-Oliver A, Gersbach CA (2019) The next generation of CRISPR-Cas technologies and applications. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 20:490–507
doi: 10.1038/s41580-019-0131-5
pubmed: 31147612
pmcid: 7079207
Komor AC, Kim YB, Packer MS et al (2016) Programmable editing of a target base in genomic DNA without double-stranded DNA cleavage. Nature 533:420–424
doi: 10.1038/nature17946
pubmed: 27096365
pmcid: 4873371
Anzalone AV, Randolph PB, Davis JR et al (2019) Search-and-replace genome editing without double-strand breaks or donor DNA. Nature 576:149–157
doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1711-4
pubmed: 31634902
pmcid: 6907074
Shin HY, Wang C, Lee HK et al (2017) CRISPR/Cas9 targeting events cause complex deletions and insertions at 17 sites in the mouse genome. Nat Commun 8:15464–15464
doi: 10.1038/ncomms15464
pubmed: 28561021
pmcid: 5460021
Green MR, Sambrook J (2019) Agarose gel electrophoresis. Cold Spring Harb Protoc 2019(1). https://doi.org/10.1101/pdb.prot100404
McCabe CV, Codner GF, Allan AJ et al (2019) Application of long-read sequencing for robust identification of correct alleles in genome edited animals. bioRxiv preprint. https://doi.org/10.1101/838193
Fernández A, Morín M, Muñoz-Santos D et al (2020) Simple protocol for generating and genotyping genome-edited mice with CRISPR-Cas9 reagents. Curr Protoc Mouse Biol 10:e69
doi: 10.1002/cpmo.69
pubmed: 32159922
Lanza DG, Gaspero A, Lorenzo I et al (2018) Comparative analysis of single-stranded DNA donors to generate conditional null mouse alleles. BMC Biol 16:69–69
doi: 10.1186/s12915-018-0529-0
pubmed: 29925370
pmcid: 6011517