Home › Research › Risk genes beyond APOE
Efficient introduction of specific homozygous and heterozygous mutations using CRISPR/Cas9
Paquet D, Kwart D, Chen A, Sproul A, Jacob S, Teo S, Olsen KM, Gregg A et al.. Nature, 2016-04-27
Topic: Genetics and APOE
The bacterial CRISPR/Cas9 system allows sequence-specific gene editing in many organisms and holds promise as a tool to generate models of human diseases, for example, in human pluripotent stem cells. CRISPR/Cas9 introduces targeted double-stranded breaks (DSBs) with high efficiency, which are typically repaired by non-homologous end-joining (NHEJ) resulting in nonspecific insertions, deletions or other mutations (indels). DSBs may also be repaired by homology-directed repair (HDR) using a DNA repair template, such as an introduced single-stranded oligo DNA nucleotide (ssODN), allowing knock-in of specific mutations. Although CRISPR/Cas9 is used extensively to engineer gene knockouts through NHEJ, editing by HDR remains inefficient and can be corrupted by additional indels, preventing its widespread use for modelling genetic disorders through introducing disease-associated mutations. Furthermore, targeted mutational knock-in at single alleles to model diseases caused by heterozygous mutations has not been reported. Here we describe a CRISPR/Cas9-based genome-editing framework that allows selective introduction of mono- and bi-allelic sequence changes with high efficiency and accuracy. We show that HDR accuracy is increased dramatically by incorporating silent CRISPR/Cas-blocking mutations along with pathogenic mutations, and establish a method termed 'CORRECT' for scarless genome editing. By characterizing and exploiting a stereotyped inverse relationship between a mutation's incorporation rate and its distance to the DSB, we achieve predictable control of zygosity. Homozygous introduction requires a guide RNA targeting close to the intended mutation, whereas heterozygous introduction can be accomplished by distance-dependent suboptimal mutation incorporation or by use of mixed repair templates. Using this approach, we generated human induced pluripotent stem cells with heterozygous and homozygous dominant early onset Alzheimer's disease-causing mutations in amyloid precursor protein (APP(Swe)) and presenilin 1 (PSEN1(M146V)) and derived cortical neurons, which displayed genotype-dependent disease-associated phenotypes. Our findings enable efficient introduction of specific sequence changes with CRISPR/Cas9, facilitating study of human disease.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Paquet, D., Kwart, D., Chen, A., Sproul, A., Jacob, S., Teo, S., et al. (2016). Efficient introduction of specific homozygous and heterozygous mutations using CRISPR/Cas9. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature17664
Vancouver
Paquet D, Kwart D, Chen A, Sproul A, Jacob S, Teo S, et al. Efficient introduction of specific homozygous and heterozygous mutations using CRISPR/Cas9. Nature. 2016. doi:10.1038/nature17664. PMID: 27120160.
BibTeX
@article{paquet2016-27120160,
author = {Paquet, D. and Kwart, D. and Chen, A. and Sproul, A. and Jacob, S. and Teo, S. and Olsen, K. M. and Gregg, A. and others},
title = {{Efficient introduction of specific homozygous and heterozygous mutations using CRISPR/Cas9}},
journal = {Nature},
year = {2016},
doi = {10.1038/nature17664},
pmid = {27120160},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1038/nature17664}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Our findings enable efficient introduction of specific sequence changes with CRISPR/Cas9, facilitating study of human disease.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Genetics →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 41/100
Published in a top-tier journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 24 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 41 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 10 / 10 | Tier 1 — top-tier general journal (Nature) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2016 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 27120160) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 24 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 24 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 41 out of 100. |
| Total | 41 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in Risk genes beyond APOE
Also tagged “autophagy”
240 studies in the library carry the topic tag “autophagy”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 240 tagged studies.