4.2 Letter

Unexpected mutations were expected and unrelated to CRISPR-Cas9 activity

Journal

TRANSGENIC RESEARCH
Volume 27, Issue 4, Pages 315-319

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11248-018-0081-2

Keywords

Off target mutations; CRISPR; Cas9; Safety; Genome editing applications; Safety; Gene therapy

Funding

  1. Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (MINECO) [BIO2015-70978]
  2. Spanish Biomedical Research Networking Centre on Rare Diseases (CIBERER) from National Institute of Heath Carlos III (Instituto de Salud Carlos III, ISCIII)
  3. Biotechnology and Biological Research Council (BBSRC) through ISP
  4. BBSRC [BB/P003966/1, BBS/E/D/10002071, BBS/E/D/20221658, BB/L007371/1, BB/M018342/1, BB/M028313/1, BBS/E/D/05251442, BB/N015339/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The scientific journal Nature Methods have just retracted a publication that reported numerous unexpected mutations after a CRISPR-Cas9 experiment based on collecting whole genome sequencing information from one control and two experimental genome edited mice. In the intervening 10 months since publication the data presented have been strongly contested and criticized by the scientific and biotech communities, through publications, open science channels and social networks. The criticism focused on the animal used as control, which was derived from the same mouse strain as the experimental individuals but from an unrelated sub-colony, hence control and experimental mice were genetically divergent. The most plausible explanation for the vast majority of the reported unexpected mutations were the expected underlying genetic polymorphisms that normally accumulate in two different colonies of the same mouse strain which occur as a result of spontaneous mutations and genetic drift. Therefore, the reported mutations were most likely not related to CRISPR-Cas9 activity.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available