4.7 Article

Targeted disruption of sp7 and myostatin with CRISPR-Cas9 results in severe bone defects and more muscular cells in common carp

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 6, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/srep22953

关键词

-

资金

  1. National High Technology Research and Development Program of China (863 Program) [2011AA100402-2]
  2. National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program) [2012CB947600]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [31030062, 31271356, 81070455]
  4. Jiangsu Distinguished Professorship Program [SR13400111]
  5. Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province [BK2012052]
  6. Priority Academic Program Development (PAPD) of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions [YX13400214]
  7. 333 project of Jiangsu Province [BRA2015328]
  8. High-Level Innovative Team of Jiangsu Province

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The common carp (Cyprinus carpio) as one of the most important aquaculture fishes produces over 3 million metric tones annually, approximately 10% the annual production of the all farmed freshwater fish worldwide. However, the tetraploidy genome and long generation-time of the common carp have made its breeding and genetic studies extremely difficult. Here, TALEN and CRISPR-Cas9, two versatile genome-editing tools, are employed to target common carp bone-related genes sp7, runx2, bmp2a, spp1, opg, and muscle suppressor gene mstn. TALEN were shown to induce mutations in the target coding sites of sp7, runx2, spp1 and mstn. With CRISPR-Cas9, the two common carp sp7 genes, sp7a and sp7b, were mutated individually, all resulting in severe bone defects; while mstnba mutated fish have grown significantly more muscle cells. We also employed CRISPR-Cas9 to generate double mutant fish of sp7a; mstnba with high efficiencies in a single step. These results demonstrate that both TALEN and CRISPR-Cas9 are highly efficient tools for modifying the common carp genome, and open avenues for facilitating common carp genetic studies and breeding.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据