4.7 Article

Effect of Aphidicolin, a Reversible Inhibitor of Eukaryotic Nuclear DNA Replication, on the Production of Genetically Modified Porcine Embryos by CRISPR/Cas9

期刊

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms23042135

关键词

CRISPR; Cas9; DNA replication; mosaicism; pig; aphidicolin; gene editing; knock-out; TPCN1; embryo; in vitro fertilization

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the use of reversible inhibition of DNA replication to reduce mosaicism in embryos edited by CRISPR/Cas9. The findings showed a concentration-dependent DNA replication inhibition, leading to a decrease in mosaicism but a detrimental effect on embryo development. Balancing the use of this approach is necessary considering the impact on embryo development.
Mosaicism is the most important limitation for one-step gene editing in embryos by CRISPR/Cas9 because cuts and repairs sometimes take place after the first DNA replication of the zygote. To try to minimize the risk of mosaicism, in this study a reversible DNA replication inhibitor was used after the release of CRISPR/Cas9 in the cell. There is no previous information on the use of aphidicolin in porcine embryos, so the reversible inhibition of DNA replication and the effect on embryo development of different concentrations of this drug was first evaluated. The effect of incubation with aphidicolin was tested with CRISPR/Cas9 at different concentrations and different delivery methodologies. As a result, the reversible inhibition of DNA replication was observed, and it was concentration dependent. An optimal concentration of 0.5 mu M was established and used for subsequent experiments. Following the use of this drug with CRISPR/Cas9, a halving of mosaicism was observed together with a detrimental effect on embryo development. In conclusion, the use of reversible inhibition of DNA replication offers a way to reduce mosaicism. Nevertheless, due to the reduction in embryo development, it would be necessary to reach a balance for its use to be feasible.

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