| Title |
Engineering CRISPR/Cpf1 with tRNA promotes genome editing capability in mammalian systems
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00018-018-2810-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Han Wu, Qishuai Liu, Hui Shi, Jingke Xie, Quanjun Zhang, Zhen Ouyang, Nan Li, Yi Yang, Zhaoming Liu, Yu Zhao, Chengdan Lai, Degong Ruan, Jiangyun Peng, Weikai Ge, Fangbing Chen, Nana Fan, Qin Jin, Yanhui Liang, Ting Lan, Xiaoyu Yang, Xiaoshan Wang, Zhiyong Lei, Pieter A. Doevendans, Joost P. G. Sluijter, Kepin Wang, Xiaoping Li, Liangxue Lai |
| Abstract |
CRISPR/Cpf1 features a number of properties that are distinct from CRISPR/Cas9 and provides an excellent alternative to Cas9 for genome editing. To date, genome engineering by CRISPR/Cpf1 has been reported only in human cells and mouse embryos of mammalian systems and its efficiency is ultimately lower than that of Cas9 proteins from Streptococcus pyogenes. The application of CRISPR/Cpf1 for targeted mutagenesis in other animal models has not been successfully verified. In this study, we designed and optimized a guide RNA (gRNA) transcription system by inserting a transfer RNA precursor (pre-tRNA) sequence downstream of the gRNA for Cpf1, protecting gRNA from immediate digestion by 3'-to-5' exonucleases. Using this new gRNAtRNA system, genome editing, including indels, large fragment deletion and precise point mutation, was induced in mammalian systems, showing significantly higher efficiency than the original Cpf1-gRNA system. With this system, gene-modified rabbits and pigs were generated by embryo injection or somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) with an efficiency comparable to that of the Cas9 gRNA system. These results demonstrated that this refined gRNAtRNA system can boost the targeting capability of CRISPR/Cpf1 toolkits. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 60% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Scientists | 2 | 40% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 74 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 18 | 24% |
| Researcher | 10 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 11 | 15% |
| Unknown | 17 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 17 | 23% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 15 | 20% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 3% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 8% |
| Unknown | 27 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 December 2019.
All research outputs
#5,745,122
of 23,794,258 outputs
Outputs from Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences
#1,236
of 4,151 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#96,730
of 330,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences
#12
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,794,258 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,151 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,712 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.