Book contents
- Genome Editing and Engineering
- Genome Editing and Engineering
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Preface
- Part I Biology of Endonucleases (Zinc-Finger Nuclease, TALENs and CRISPRs) and Regulatory Networks
- Part II Genome Editing in Model Organisms
- 5 Genome Editing in the Crustacean Daphnia magna using CRISPR/Cas and TALEN Systems
- 6 Leapfrogging: A Method for Targeting Genome Editing to the Germline
- 7 Genome Editing with Desired Mutations (Knockin) with CRISPR in Model Organisms
- 8 Genetically Engineered Pig Models for Human Diseases using ZFNs, TALENs and CRISPR/Cas9
- 9 Gene Editing to Create Agricultural and Biomedical Swine Models
- 10 Generation of New Model Cell Lines using ssODN Knockin Donors and FACS-based Genome Editing
- Part III Technology Development and Screening
- Part IV Genome Editing in Stem Cells and Regenerative Biology
- Part V Genome Editing in Disease Biology
- Part VI Legal (Intellectual Property) and Bioethical Issues of Genome Editing
- Index
- Plate Section (PDF Only)
- References
6 - Leapfrogging: A Method for Targeting Genome Editing to the Germline
from Part II - Genome Editing in Model Organisms
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 July 2018
Book contents
- Genome Editing and Engineering
- Genome Editing and Engineering
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Preface
- Part I Biology of Endonucleases (Zinc-Finger Nuclease, TALENs and CRISPRs) and Regulatory Networks
- Part II Genome Editing in Model Organisms
- 5 Genome Editing in the Crustacean Daphnia magna using CRISPR/Cas and TALEN Systems
- 6 Leapfrogging: A Method for Targeting Genome Editing to the Germline
- 7 Genome Editing with Desired Mutations (Knockin) with CRISPR in Model Organisms
- 8 Genetically Engineered Pig Models for Human Diseases using ZFNs, TALENs and CRISPR/Cas9
- 9 Gene Editing to Create Agricultural and Biomedical Swine Models
- 10 Generation of New Model Cell Lines using ssODN Knockin Donors and FACS-based Genome Editing
- Part III Technology Development and Screening
- Part IV Genome Editing in Stem Cells and Regenerative Biology
- Part V Genome Editing in Disease Biology
- Part VI Legal (Intellectual Property) and Bioethical Issues of Genome Editing
- Index
- Plate Section (PDF Only)
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Genome Editing and EngineeringFrom TALENs, ZFNs and CRISPRs to Molecular Surgery, pp. 84 - 96Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2018
References
Abu-Daya, A, Sater, AK, Wells, DE, Mohun, TJ, Zimmerman, LB. 2009. Absence of heartbeat in the Xenopus tropicalis mutation muzak is caused by a nonsense mutation in cardiac myosin myh6. Dev Biol 336: 20–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aslan, Y, Tadjuidje, E, Zorn, AM, Cha, SW. 2017. High-efficiency no-mosaic CRISPR-mediated knock-in and indel mutation in F0 Xenopus. Development 144: 2852–2858.Google Scholar
Bhattacharya, D, Marfo, CA, Li, D, Lane, M, Khokha, MK. 2015. CRISPR/Cas9: an inexpensive, efficient loss of function tool to screen human disease genes in Xenopus. Dev Biol 408: 196–204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blackler, AW. 1960. Transfer of germ-cells in Xenopus laevis. Nature 185: 859–860.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blackler, AW, Fischberg, M. 1961. Transfer of primordial germ-cells in Xenopus laevis. J Embryol Exp Morph 9: 634–641.Google Scholar
Blitz, IL, Biesinger, J, Xie, X, Cho, KW. 2013. Biallelic genome modification in F0 Xenopus tropicalis embryos using the CRISPR/Cas system. Genesis 51: 827–834.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blitz, IL, Fish, MB, Cho, KW. 2016. Leapfrogging: primordial germ cell transplantation permits recovery of CRISPR/Cas9-induced mutations in essential genes. Development 143: 2868–2875.Google ScholarPubMed
Blitz, IL, Pawaiso, KD, Patsushev, I, et al. 2017 A catalogue of Xenopus tropicalis transcription factors and their regional expression in the early gastrola stage embryo. Dev Biol 426: 409–417.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brinkman, EK, Chen, T, Amendola, M, van Steensel, B. 2014. Easy quantitative assessment of genome editing by sequence trace decomposition. Nucleic Acids Res 42:e168.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chung, HA, Medina-Ruiz, S, Harland, RM. 2016. Sp8 regulates inner ear development. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111: 6329–6334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crowder, ME, Strzelecka, M, Wilbur, JD, et al. 2015. A comparative analysis of spindle morphometrics across metazoans. Curr Biol 25: 1542–1550.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geach, TJ, Zimmerman, LB. 2010. Paralysis and delayed Z-disc formation in the Xenopus tropicalis unc45b mutant dicky ticker. BMC Dev Biol 10: 75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goda, T, Abu-Daya, A, Carruthers, S, et al. 2006. Genetic screens for mutations affecting development of Xenopus tropicalis. PLoS Genet 2: e91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grammer, TC, Khokha, MK, Lane, MA, Lam, K, Harland, RM. 2005. Identification of mutants in inbred Xenopus tropicalis. Mech Dev 122: 263–272.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guo, X, Zhang, T, Hu, Z, et al. 2014. Efficient RNA/Cas9-mediated genome editing in Xenopus tropicalis. Development 141: 707–714.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hellsten, U, Harland, RM, Gilchrist, MJ, et al. 2010. The genome of the Western clawed frog Xenopus tropicalis. Science 328: 633–636.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jaffe, KM, Grimes, DT, Schottenfeld-Roames, J, et al. 2016. c210rf59/kurly controls both cilia mobility and polarization. Cell Rep 14: 1841–1849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, Z, Cheng, TT, Shi, Z, et al. 2016. Efficient genome editing of genes involved in neural crest development using the CRISPR/Cas9 system in Xenopus embryos. Cell Biosci 6: 22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Naert, T, Colpaert, R, Van Nieuwenhuysen, T, et al. 2016. CRISPR/Cas9 mediated knockout of rb1 and rbl1 leads to rapid and penetrant retinoblastoma development in Xenopus tropicalis. Sci Rep 6: 35264.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nakade, S, Tsubota, T, Sakame, Y, et al. 2014. Microhomology-mediated end-joining-dependent integration of donor DNA in cells and animals using TALENs and CRISPR/Cas9. Nat Commonun 20: 5560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakayama, T, Blitz, IL, Fish, MB, et al. 2014. Cas9-based genome editing in Xenopus tropicalis. Methods Enzymol 546: 355–375.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nakayama, T, Fish, MB, Fisher, M, et al. 2013. Simple and efficient CRISPR/Cas9-mediated targeted mutagenesis in Xenopus tropicalis. Genesis 51: 835–843.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nakayama, T, Nakajima, K, Cox, A, et al. 2017. No privacy, a Xenopus tropicalis mutant, is a model of human Hermansky-Pudlak Syndrome and allows visualization of internal organogenesis during tadpole development. Dev Biol 426(2): 472–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nieuwkoop and Faber. 1994. Normal Table of Xenopus laevis (Daudin): A Systematical and Chronological Survey of the Development from the Fertilized Egg till the End of Metomorphosis. New York: Garland Publishing Inc.Google Scholar
Noramly, S, Zimmerman, L, Cox, A, et al. 2005. A gynogenetic screen to isolate naturally occurring recessive mutations in Xenopus tropicalis. Mech Dev 122: 273–287.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ogino, H, McConnell, WB, Grainger, RM. 2006. High-throughput transgenesis in Xenopus using I-SceI meganuclease. Nat Protoc 1: 1703–1710.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Owens, ND, Blitz, IL, Lane, MA, et al. 2016. Measuring absolute RNA copy numbers at high temporal resolution reveals transcriptome kinetics in development. Cell Rep 14: 632–647.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peshkin, L, Wühr, M, Pearl, E, et al. 2015. On the relationship of protein and mRNA dynamics in vertebrate embryonic development. Dev Cell 35: 383–394.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sentmanat, MF, Peters, ST, Florian, CP, Connelly, JP, Pruett-Miller, SM. 2018. A survey of validation strategies for CRISPR-Cas9 editing. Sci Rep 8: 888.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Session, AM, Uno, Y, Kwon, T, et al. 2016. Genome evolution in the allotetraploid frog Xenopus laevis. Nature. 538: 336–343.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shi, J, Wang, E, Milazzo, JP, et al. 2015. Discovery of cancer drug targets by CRISPR-Cas9 screening of protein domains. Nat Biotechnol 33: 661–667.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shigeta, M, Sakane, Y, Iida, M, et al. 2016. Rapid and efficient analysis of gene function using CRISPR-Cas9 in Xenopus tropicalis founders. Genes Cells 21: 755–771.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sive, HL, Grainger, RM, Harland, RM. 2000. Early Development of Xenopus laevis: A Laboratory Manual. Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press.Google Scholar
Sive, HL, Grainger, RM, Harland, RM. 2007. Embryo dissection and micromanipulation tools. CSH Protoc: pdb.top7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teboul, L, Murray, SA, Nolan, PM. 2017. Phenotyping first-generation genome editing mutants: a new standard? Mamm Genome 28(7–8): 377–382.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Nieuwenhuysen, T, Naert, T, Tran, HT, et al. 2015. TALEN-mediated apc mutation in Xenopus tropicalis phenocopies familial adenomatous polyposis. Oncoscience 2: 555–566.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Varshney, GK, Pei, W, LaFave, MC, et al. 2015. High-throughput gene targeting and phenotyping in zebrafish using CRISPR/Cas9. Genome Res 25: 1030–1042.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, F, Shi, Z, Cui, Y, et al. 2015. Targeted gene disruption in Xenopus laevis using CRISPR/Cas9. Cell Biosci 5: 15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed