4.8 Article

A simple and effective F0 knockout method for rapid screening of behaviour and other complex phenotypes

期刊

ELIFE
卷 10, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

eLIFE SCIENCES PUBL LTD
DOI: 10.7554/eLife.59683

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Wellcome Trust [217150/Z/19/Z, 095722/Z/11/Z, 204708/Z/16/Z]
  2. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/T001844/1]
  3. ARUK Interdisciplinary Research Grant
  4. Medical Research Council Programme [MR/L003775/1]
  5. Wolfson Foundation
  6. Medical Research Council [MR/T020164/1]
  7. Wellcome Trust [217150/Z/19/Z, 095722/Z/11/Z, 204708/Z/16/Z] Funding Source: Wellcome Trust
  8. BBSRC [BB/T001844/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  9. MRC [MR/T020164/1, MR/L003775/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A new method has been developed to rapidly knockout genes and shorten the experimental time from gene to behavioral phenotype in zebrafish from months to one week.
Hundreds of human genes are associated with neurological diseases, but translation into tractable biological mechanisms is lagging. Larval zebrafish are an attractive model to investigate genetic contributions to neurological diseases. However, current CRISPR-Cas9 methods are difficult to apply to large genetic screens studying behavioural phenotypes. To facilitate rapid genetic screening, we developed a simple sequencing-free tool to validate gRNAs and a highly effective CRISPR-Cas9 method capable of converting >90% of injected embryos directly into F0 biallelic knockouts. We demonstrate that F0 knockouts reliably recapitulate complex mutant phenotypes, such as altered molecular rhythms of the circadian clock, escape responses to irritants, and multi-parameter day-night locomotor behaviours. The technique is sufficiently robust to knockout multiple genes in the same animal, for example to create the transparent triple knockout crystal fish for imaging. Our F0 knockout method cuts the experimental time from gene to behavioural phenotype in zebrafish from months to one week.

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

4.8
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