Activities and specificities of <scp>CRISPR</scp>/Cas9 and Cas12a nucleases for targeted mutagenesis in maize
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CRISPR/Cas9 and Cas12a (Cpf1) nucleases are two of the most powerful genome editing tools in plants. In this work, we compared their activities by targeting maize glossy2 gene coding region that has overlapping sequences recognized by both nucleases. We introduced constructs carrying SpCas9-guide RNA (gRNA) and LbCas12a-CRISPR RNA (crRNA) into maize inbred B104 embryos using Agrobacterium-mediated transformation. On-target mutation analysis showed that 90%-100% of the Cas9-edited T0 plants carried indel mutations and 63%-77% of them were homozygous or biallelic mutants. In contrast, 0%-60% of Cas12a-edited T0 plants had on-target mutations. We then conducted CIRCLE-seq analysis to identify genome-wide potential off-target sites for Cas9. A total of 18 and 67 potential off-targets were identified for the two gRNAs, respectively, with an average of five mismatches compared to the target sites. Sequencing analysis of a selected subset of the off-target sites revealed no detectable level of mutations in the T1 plants, which constitutively express Cas9 nuclease and gRNAs. In conclusion, our results suggest that the CRISPR/Cas9 system used in this study is highly efficient and specific for genome editing in maize, while CRISPR/Cas12a needs further optimization for improved editing efficiency.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".