4.7 Review

Loss-of-function genetic tools for animal models: cross-species and cross-platform differences

期刊

NATURE REVIEWS GENETICS
卷 18, 期 1, 页码 24-40

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/nrg.2016.118

关键词

-

资金

  1. US National Institutes of Health (NIH) [R01HD37047, 5P01CA120964]
  2. DFG
  3. EU
  4. Max Planck Society
  5. ERC [336860]
  6. Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [F4710]
  7. Boehringer Ingelheim
  8. DOC Fellowship of the Austrian Academy of Sciences
  9. NIH NIGMS [R01 GM067761]
  10. NCI Cancer Center Support Grant [NIH 5 P30 CA06516]
  11. NIH [DP2OD008586, R01DA036865, R21DA041878, R21AR065956]
  12. European Research Council (ERC) [336860] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)
  13. Directorate For Engineering
  14. Div Of Chem, Bioeng, Env, & Transp Sys [1151035] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Our understanding of the genetic mechanisms that underlie biological processes has relied extensively on loss-of-function (LOF) analyses. LOF methods target DNA, RNA or protein to reduce or to ablate gene function. By analysing the phenotypes that are caused by these perturbations the wild-type function of genes can be elucidated. Although all LOF methods reduce gene activity, the choice of approach (for example, mutagenesis, CRISPR-based gene editing, RNA interference, morphotinos or pharmacological inhibition) can have a major effect on phenotypic outcomes. Interpretation of the LOF phenotype must take into account the biological process that is targeted by each method. The practicality and efficiency of LOF methods also vary considerably between model systems. We describe parameters for choosing the optimal combination of method and system, and for interpreting phenotypes within the constraints of each method.

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