MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

In Vivo Genome Editing in Neonatal Mouse Liver Preferentially Utilizes Homology Directed Repair

2015· article· en· W2551013397 on OpenAlexaff
Xavier M. Anguela, Rajiv P. Sharma, Yannick Doyon, Thomas Wechsler, David E. Paschon, Robert J. Davidson, Shangzhen Zhou, Philip D. Gregory, Michael C. Holmes, Katherine A. High

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCRISPR and Genetic Engineering
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCentre hospitalier universitaire de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsZinc finger nucleaseHomology (biology)Genome editingHomology directed repairBiologyGeneZinc fingerIn vivoMolecular biologyDNANucleaseCell biologyGenomeDNA repairGeneticsNucleotide excision repairTranscription factor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Genome editing has the potential to provide long-term therapeutic gene expression in vivo. We have previously demonstrated efficient editing in a mouse model of hemophilia B through liver-directed adeno-associated viral vector (AAV) delivery of a zinc finger nuclease (ZFN) pair and a corrective donor. We determined that homology is not necessary to achieve efficient levels of genome editing in adult mice, consistent with the fact that quiescent cells, including adult hepatocytes, are not thought to be amenable to homology directed repair (HDR). As a consequence of the donor containing a splice acceptor, both HDR and homology independent vector integration are capable of driving human factor 9 (hF.IX) expression. In this study we sought to determine whether hF.IX expression in mice treated as neonates, undergoing substantial hepatocyte proliferation, is predominantly the result of HDR or homology independent genome editing. Provided the efficacy is not substantially reduced, an HDR dependent approach would impose additional constraints on targeting. Treatment of neonatal hF9mut mice (harboring the ZFN target site) with 1x1011 vg AAV8-ZFN and 5x1011 vg AAV8-Donor via retro-orbital injection resulted in a drastic difference in hF.IX expression between donors with and without homology 10 weeks post injection (Homology: 1531 ± 174.5 ng/mL vs. No-homology: 146.1 ± 5.8 ng/mL; n=12 and 7, respectively). We next asked whether HDR could be stimulated even more specifically through the induction of DNA single strand breaks at the target site. We treated neonatal mice with homologous or non-homologous donors, as well as ZFNs or ZFNickases (in which one FokI nuclease domain was inactivated with the D450A mutation). ZFNickases were indeed active, resulting in ~250 ng/mL hF.IX 4 weeks post injection (Figure 1). Interestingly, we could not detect hF.IX in mice treated with ZFNickase and no-homology donor (LOD: 15ng/mL). To rule out the possibility that this was simply due to the lower efficacy of ZFNickases compared to ZFNs, we increased the ZFNickase dose 4 fold. Four weeks post treatment, we observed substantial levels of hF.IX in mice treated with homologous donor (2041 ± 269 ng/mL) and were again unable to detect hF.IX in mice treated with the non-homologous donor (n=10 and 7, respectively). These data point to homology directed repair as the primary mechanism of protein production for genome editing in neonatal mouse liver, and suggest improvements in both efficacy and specificity can be made through deeper understanding of the molecular requirements of this approach. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Anguela: Spark Therapeutics, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties. Doyon:Sangamo BioSciences: Employment. Wechsler:Sangamo BioSciences: Employment. Paschon:Sangamo BioSciences: Employment. Davidson:Spark Therapeutics: Consultancy. Gregory:Sangamo BioSciences: Employment. Holmes:Sangamo BioSciences: Employment. High:Spark Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicCRISPR and Genetic Engineering→French-language works237,207→