↓ Skip to main content

Efficient Multiplex Genome Editing Induces Precise, and Self-Ligated Type Mutations in Tomato Plants

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Plant Science, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
70 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Efficient Multiplex Genome Editing Induces Precise, and Self-Ligated Type Mutations in Tomato Plants
Published in
Frontiers in Plant Science, July 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpls.2018.00916
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ryosuke Hashimoto, Risa Ueta, Chihiro Abe, Yuriko Osakabe, Keishi Osakabe

Abstract

Several expression systems for multiple guide RNA (gRNAs) have been developed in the CRISPR/Cas9 (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats/CRISPR associated protein 9) system to induce multiple-gene modifications in plants. Here, we evaluated mutation efficiencies in the tomato genome using multiplex CRISPR/Cas9 vectors consisting of various Cas9 expression promoters with multiple gRNA expression combinations. In transgenic tomato calli induced with these vectors, mutation patterns varied depending on the promoters used to express Cas9. By using the tomato ELONGATION FACTOR-1α (SlEF1α) promoter to drive Cas9, occurrence of various types of mutations with high efficiency was detected in the tomato genome. Furthermore, sequence analysis showed that the majority of mutations using the multiplex system with the SlEF1α promoter corresponded to specific mutation pattern of deletions produced by self-ligation at two target sites of CRISPR/Cas9 with low mosaic mutations. These results suggest that optimizing the Cas9 expression promoter used in CRISPR/Cas9-mediated mutation improves multiplex genome editing, and could be used effectively to disrupt functional domains precisely in the tomato genome.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 89 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 21 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 12%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 8%
Student > Master 6 7%
Other 14 16%
Unknown 23 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 48 54%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 16%
Computer Science 1 1%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 1%
Chemistry 1 1%
Other 1 1%
Unknown 23 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 July 2018.
All research outputs
#18,641,800
of 23,094,276 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Plant Science
#14,075
of 20,707 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#253,189
of 327,912 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Plant Science
#363
of 481 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,094,276 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 20,707 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,912 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 481 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.