4.4 Article

Gene correction by 5′-tailed duplexes with short editor oligodeoxyribonucleotides

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOSCIENCE AND BIOENGINEERING
卷 132, 期 6, 页码 552-559

出版社

SOC BIOSCIENCE BIOENGINEERING JAPAN
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiosc.2021.08.012

关键词

Gene correction; Gene editing; 5 '-tailed duplex; Single-stranded DNA; copGFP gene

资金

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science KAKENHI [JP 17K19491]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that 5'-TDs with 100-base ss editor DNAs were as effective in gene correction as those with longer editor DNAs. Additionally, the antisense strand was more effective as the editor than the sense strand. These results suggest that 5'-TD fragments with shorter editor strands are useful for gene correction.
September Various diseases, including cancer, are caused by genetic mutations. A 5'-tailed duplex (TD) DNA, consisting of a long single-stranded (ss) editor DNA and a short (35-base) ss assistant oligodeoxyribonucleotide, can introduce a base substitution in living cells and thus correct mutated genes. Previously, several hundred-base DNAs were employed as the editor DNAs. In this study, 5'-TDs were prepared from various editor DNAs with different lengths and examined for their gene correction abilities, using plasmid DNA bearing a mutated copepod green fluorescent protein (copGFP) gene, in human cells. High-throughput analysis was performed by the reactivated fluorescence of the wild-type protein encoded by the corrected gene as the indicator. The analysis revealed that 5'-TDs with 100-base ss editor DNAs enabled gene editing at least as efficiently as those with longer editor DNAs. Moreover, the antisense strand was more effective as the editor than the sense strand, in contrast to the 5'-TDs with longer editor strands. These results indicated that the 5'-TD fragments with shorter editor strands than those used in previous studies are useful nucleic acids for gene correction. (C) 2021, The Society for Biotechnology, Japan. All rights reserved.

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

4.4
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