MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4295094517 · doi:10.20517/jtgg.2021.49

Gene editing treatment strategies for retinitis pigmentosa assessed in Xenopus laevis carrying a mutant Rhodopsin allele

2022· article· en· W4295094517 on OpenAlexafffund
Farhad Ghaseminejad, Beatrice M. Tam, Colette N. Chiu, Joanna M. Feehan, Orson L. Moritz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Translational Genetics and Genomics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCRISPR and Genetic Engineering
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsXenopusRetinitis pigmentosaBiologyRetinal degenerationRhodopsinMutantGenome editingElectroretinographyGeneticsRetinalGeneCRISPRBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aim: To examine the utility of gene editing therapies for retinitis pigmentosa using Xenopus laevis carrying a mutation in Rhodopsin. Methods: Xenopus laevis were genetically modified using CRISPR-Cas9 based methods and characterized by Sanger sequencing, dot blot, electroretinography, and confocal microscopy. Results: We identified genetically modified Xenopus laevis carrying a net 12 base pair deletion in the Rho.L gene. These animals have a retinal degeneration that is apparent by 14 days, with abnormal or missing rod outer segments, and a reduced electroretinogram signal. We prevented the majority of this retinal degeneration via a treatment strategy using a single sgRNA to neutralize the mutant allele via non-homologous end joining, yielding long-term improvements in histology and the electroretinogram. A second strategy using two sgRNAs to generate large deletions in the mutant allele was also successful, but did not significantly improve outcomes relative to the single-guide strategy as it was less efficient. We found limited evidence of success with a third strategy dependent on homology-directed repair; this treatment was also too inefficient to generate an outcome superior to the single-guide strategy. Conclusion: Our results demonstrate the utility of this new Xenopus laevis model for rapidly assessing and comparing multiple gene-editing based treatment strategies. We conclude that it would be technically difficult to improve on the simple single-guide based strategy, as strategies requiring multiple successive events (such as cleavage followed by homology-directed repair) are likely to be less efficient.

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 score0.221
Threshold uncertainty score0.588

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Translational Genetics and GenomicsSame topicCRISPR and Genetic EngineeringFrench-language works237,207