Targeted genome editing in vivo corrects a Dmd duplication restoring wild‐type dystrophin expression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tandem duplication mutations are increasingly found to be the direct cause of many rare heritable diseases, accounting for up to 10% of cases. Unfortunately, animal models recapitulating such mutations are scarce, limiting our ability to study them and develop genome editing-based therapies. Here, we describe the generation of the Dup18-30 mouse model, harbouring a multi-exonic tandem duplication in the Dmd gene which recapitulates a human mutation. Duplication correction of this mouse was achieved by implementing a single-guide RNA (sgRNA) CRISPR/Cas9 approach. This strategy precisely removed a duplication mutation in vivo, restored full-length dystrophin expression, and was accompanied by improvements in both histopathological and clinical phenotypes. We conclude that CRISPR/Cas9 represents a powerful tool to accurately model and treat tandem-duplication mutations. This dataset includes the deep amplicon sequencing analysis performed to detect single-sgRNA/Cas9 off-target and on-target effects in the Dup18-30 mice after treatment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.018 |
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".