MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3000693105 · doi:10.1002/cpmo.67

Efficient Generation of Large‐Fragment Knock‐In Mouse Models Using 2‐Cell (2C)‐Homologous Recombination (HR)‐CRISPR

2020· article· en· W3000693105 on OpenAlexafffund
Bin Gu, Eszter Pósfai, Marina Gertsenstein, Janet Rossant

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Protocols in Mouse Biology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCRISPR and Genetic Engineering
Canadian institutionsToronto Centre for PhenogenomicsHospital for Sick Children
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchOntario Genomics Institute
KeywordsCRISPRBiologyComputational biologyGene knockinHomologous recombinationCas9Guide RNAGenome editingGeneticsDNAGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Generating large‐fragment knock‐ins, such as reporters, conditional alleles, or humanized alleles, directly in mouse embryos is still a challenging feat. We have developed 2C‐HR‐CRISPR, a technology that allows highly efficient (10‐50%) and rapid (generating founders in 2 months) targeting of large DNA fragments. Key to this strategy is the delivery of CRISPR reagents into 2‐cell‐stage mouse embryos, taking advantage of the high homologous recombination activity during the long G 2 cell cycle phase at this stage. Furthermore, by exploiting a Cas9–monomeric streptavidin (Cas‐mSA) and biotinylated PCR template (BioPCR) system to localize the repair template to specific double strand breaks, the efficiency can be further improved to up to 95%. Here we provide a procedure to generate large‐fragment knock‐in mouse models using 2C‐HR‐CRISPR. We first describe the principles for designing single guide RNAs and repair templates but refer to published manuscripts and protocols for molecular cloning methods or commercial sources for these reagents. We then describe two unique aspects of 2C‐HR‐CRISPR that are critical for success: (1) production of the CRISPR reagents for 2C‐HR‐CRISPR, particularly for applying the Cas9‐mSA/BioPCR method, and (2) microinjection of mouse embryos at the 2‐cell stage. © 2020 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Basic Protocol 1 : Single guide RNA and repair template design Basic Protocol 2 : Preparing reagents for 2C‐HR‐CRISPR Basic Protocol 3 : Microinjecting 2‐cell‐stage mouse embryos

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.125
Threshold uncertainty score0.946

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.330 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations46
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Protocols in Mouse BiologySame topicCRISPR and Genetic EngineeringFrench-language works237,207