4.2 Article

Rational Design of ssODN to Correct Mutations by Gene Editing

期刊

BIOCHEMISTRY-MOSCOW
卷 87, 期 5, 页码 464-471

出版社

MAIK NAUKA/INTERPERIODICA/SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1134/S0006297922050078

关键词

CRISPR-Cas9; single-strand template repair; single-stranded oligodeoxyribonucleotides; EGFP; flow cytometry

资金

  1. State Budget Project of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation for Research Centre for Medical Genetics - Russian Foundation for Basic Research [19~29~04044]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Gene editing allows targeted changes in the genome, potentially treating hereditary diseases. However, the effectiveness of gene editing methods in correcting mutations is still low. This study proposes the design of single-stranded oligodeoxyribonucleotides to improve the efficiency of gene editing, providing insights for developing gene therapy for hereditary diseases.
Gene editing allows to make a variety of targeted changes in genome, which can potentially be used to treat hereditary human diseases. Despite numerous studies in this area, effectiveness of gene editing methods for correcting mutations is still low, so these methods are not allowed in routine practice. It has been shown that rational design of genome editing components can significantly increase efficiency of mutation correction. In this work, we propose design of single-stranded oligodeoxyribonucleotides (ssODNs) to increase efficiency of gene editing. Using a model system to repair knocked out EGFP that is integrated into the genome of HEK293T cell culture, we have shown that only a small part of ssODN (about 20 nucleotides: from the 15th nucleotide at 3 '-end to the 4th nucleotide at 5 '-end), a donor molecule for repairing double-stranded DNA breaks, is integrated into the site of the break. Based on the obtained data, it is possible to rationally approach the design of ssODNs to correct mutations using CRISPR-Cas9 method for the development of gene therapy for hereditary human diseases.

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

4.2
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