MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281623662 · doi:10.3390/ijms23116160

Prime Editing Permits the Introduction of Specific Mutations in the Gene Responsible for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy

2022· article· en· W4281623662 on OpenAlexafffund
Cédric Happi Mbakam, Joël Rousseau, Guillaume Tremblay, Pouiré Yaméogo, Jacques P. Tremblay

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Molecular Sciences · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCRISPR and Genetic Engineering
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Québec
KeywordsDuchenne muscular dystrophyExonPoint mutationDystrophinExon skippingMolecular biologyBiologyGeneGeneticsMutationAlternative splicing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Prime editing technique derived from the CRISPR/Cas9 discovery permits the modification of selected nucleotides in a specific gene. We used it to insert specific point mutations in exons 9, 20, 35, 43, 55 and 61 of the Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD) gene coding for the dystrophin protein, which is absent in DMD patients. Up to 11% and 21% desired mutations of the DMD gene in HEK293T cells were obtained with the PRIME Editor 2 (PE2) and PE3, respectively. Three repeated treatments increased the percentage of specific mutations with PE2 to 16%. An additional mutation in the protospacer adjacent motif (PAM) sequence improved the PE3 result to 38% after a single treatment. We also carried out the correction of c.428 G>A point mutation in exon 6 of the DMD gene in a patient myoblast. Myoblast electroporation showed up to 8% and 28% modifications, respectively, for one and three repeated treatments using the PE3 system. The myoblast correction led to dystrophin expression in myotubes detected by Western blot. Thus, prime editing can be used for the correction of point mutations in the DMD gene.

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)0.001
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 score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.147

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.294 · 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

Citations37
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Molecular SciencesSame topicCRISPR and Genetic EngineeringFrench-language works237,207