4.8 Article

An AAV-CRISPR/Cas9 strategy for gene editing across divergent rodent species: Targeting neural oxytocin receptors as a proof of concept

期刊

SCIENCE ADVANCES
卷 9, 期 22, 页码 -

出版社

AMER ASSOC ADVANCEMENT SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.adf4950

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A major issue in neuroscience is the poor translatability of research results from preclinical studies in animals to clinical outcomes. Comparative neuroscience aims to overcome this issue by studying multiple species to differentiate between species-specific and general mechanisms of neural circuit functioning. This study developed a viral-mediated CRISPR/Cas9 strategy that can target the oxytocin receptor (Oxtr) gene in over 80 rodent species, demonstrating the potential of comparative gene editing approaches to improve the translatability of neuroscientific research.
A major issue in neuroscience is the poor translatability of research results from preclinical studies in animals clinical outcomes. Comparative neuroscience can overcome this barrier by studying multiple species to differ-entiate between species-specific and general mechanisms of neural circuit functioning. Targeted manipulation of neural circuits often depends on genetic dissection, and use of this technique has been restricted to only a few model species, limiting its application in comparative research. However, ongoing advances in genomics make genetic dissection attainable in a growing number of species. To demonstrate the potential of comparative gene editing approaches, we developed a viral-mediated CRISPR/Cas9 strategy that is predicted to target the oxytocin receptor (Oxtr) gene in >80 rodent species. This strategy specifically reduced OXTR levels in all evaluated species (n = 6) without causing gross neuronal toxicity. Thus, we show that CRISPR/Cas9-based tools can function multiple species simultaneously. Thereby, we hope to encourage comparative gene editing and improve the translatability of neuroscientific research.

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