The Cas9 nuclease from Streptococcus pyogenes (SpCas9) is the most popular enzyme for CRISPR technologies. However, considering the wide diversity of microorganisms (discovered and still unknown), a massive number of CRISPR effectors are being and will be identified and characterized in the search of optimal Cas variants for each of the many applications of CRISPR. In this context, a versatile and efficient multicellular system for CRISPR editing such as Caenorhabditis elegans would be of great help in the development of these effectors. Here, we highlight the benefits of using C. elegans for the rapid evaluation of new CRISPR effectors, and for optimizing CRISPR efficiency in animals in several ways such as by modulating the balance between repair pathways, modifying chromatin accessibility, or controlling the expression and activity of nucleases and guide RNAs.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
KiontkeKC, FélixMA, AilionM, et al.A phylogeny and molecular barcodes for Caenorhabditis, with numerous new species from rotting fruits. BMC Evol Biol, 2011; 11:339. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2148-11-339.
2.
BrennerS.The genetics of Caenorhabditis elegans. Genetics, 1974; 77:71–94. DOI: 10.1002/cbic.200300625.
3.
FireA, XuS, MontgomeryMK, et al.Potent and specific genetic interference by double-stranded RNA in Caenorhabditis elegans. Nature, 1998; 391:806–811. DOI: 10.1038/35888.
4.
SulstonJE, HorvitzHR. Post-embryonic cell lineages of the nematode, Caenorhabditis elegans. Dev Biol, 1977; 56:110–156. DOI: 10.1016/0012-1606(77)90158-0.
5.
SulstonJE, SchierenbergE, WhiteJG, et al.The embryonic cell lineage of the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans. Dev Biol, 1983; 100:64–119. DOI: 10.1016/0012-1606(83)90201-4.
6.
ChalfieM, TuY, EuskirchenG, et al.Green fluorescent protein as a marker for gene expression. Science, 1994; 263:802–805. DOI: 10.1126/science.8303295.
RualJ, CeronJ, KorethJ, et al.Toward improving Caenorhabditis elegans phenome mapping with an ORFeome-based RNAi library. Genome Res, 2004; 14:2162–2168. DOI: 10.1101/gr.2505604.7.
9.
StiernagleT. Maintenance of C. elegans. In: The C. elegans Research Community (ed.). WormBook. 2006. DOI: 10.1895/wormbook.1.101.1.
10.
Caenorhabditis Genetics Center (CGC). Available online at: https://cgc.umn.edu/ (last accessed July28, 2020).
11.
CorsiAK, WightmanB, ChalfieM. A transparent window into biology: a primer on Caenorhabditis elegans. In: The C. elegans Research Community (ed.). WormBook. 2015. DOI: 10.1895/wormbook.1.177.1.
EvansT. Transformation and microinjection. In: The C. elegans Research Community (ed.). WormBook. 2006. DOI: 10.1895/wormbook.1.108.1.
15.
BerkowitzLA, KnightAL, CaldwellGA, et al.Generation of stable transgenic C. elegans using microinjection. J Vis Exp, 2008; 18:e833. DOI: 10.3791/833.
16.
KadandaleP, ChatterjeeI, SingsonA. Germline transformation of C. elegans by injection. Methods Mol Biol, 2009; 518:122–133. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-59745-202-1_10.
17.
RieckherM, TavernarakisN. Generation of Caenorhabditis elegans transgenic animals by DNA microinjection. Bio Protoc, 2017; 7:e2565. DOI: 10.21769/bioprotoc.2565.
18.
Porta-de-la-RivaM, FontrodonaL, VillanuevaA, et al.Basic Caenorhabditis elegans methods: synchronization and observation. J Vis Exp, 2012; 64:e4019. DOI: 10.3791/4019.
19.
BoulinT, EtchbergerJF, HobertO. Reporter gene fusions. In: The C. elegans Research Community (ed.). WormBook. 2006. DOI: 10.1895/wormbook.1.106.1.
20.
HirshD, OppenheimD, KlassM. Development of the reproductive system of Caenorhabditis elegans. Dev Biol, 1976; 49:200–219. DOI: 10.1016/0012-1606(76)90267-0.
21.
KimbleJE, WhiteJG. On the control of germ cell development in Caenorhabditis elegans. Dev Biol, 1981; 81:208–219. DOI: 10.1016/0012-1606(81)90284-0.
22.
HubbardEJA, GreensteinD. Introduction to the germ line. In: The C. elegans Research Community (ed.). WormBook. 2005. DOI: 10.1895/wormbook.1.18.1.
MelloCC, KramerJM, StinchcombD, et al.Efficient gene transfer in C.elegans: extrachromosomal maintenance and integration of transforming sequences. EMBO J, 1991; 10:3959–3970. DOI: 10.1002/j.1460-2075.1991.tb04966.x.
25.
MelloCC, FireAZ. DNA Transformation. In: EpsteinHF, ShakesDC (eds). Methods in Cell Biology. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press, 1995, 451–482.
26.
VicencioJ, Martínez-FernándezC, SerratX, et al.Efficient generation of endogenous fluorescent reporters by nested CRISPR in Caenorhabditis elegans. Genetics, 2019; 211:1143–1154. DOI: 10.1534/genetics.119.301965.
27.
ClejanI, BoerckelJ, AhmedS. Developmental modulation of nonhomologous end joining in Caenorhabditis elegans. Genetics, 2006; 173:1301–1317. DOI: 10.1534/genetics.106.058628.
28.
LemmensBBLG, JohnsonNM, TijstermanM. COM-1 promotes homologous recombination during Caenorhabditis elegans meiosis by antagonizing ku-mediated non-homologous end joining. PLoS Genet, 2013; 9:1003276. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1003276.
29.
ChenC, FenkLA, de BonoM. Efficient genome editing in Caenorhabditis elegans by CRISPR-targeted homologous recombination. Nucleic Acids Res, 2013; 41:e193. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkt805.
30.
van SchendelR, RoerinkSF, PortegijsV, et al.Polymerase θ is a key driver of genome evolution and of CRISPR/Cas9-mediated mutagenesis. Nat Commun, 2015; 6:7394. DOI: 10.1038/ncomms8394.
31.
RoerinkSF, van SchendelR, TijstermanM. Polymerase theta-mediated end joining of replication-associated DNA breaks in C. elegans. Genome Res, 2014; 24:954–962. DOI: 10.1101/gr.170431.113.
32.
KooleW, van SchendelR, KarambelasAE, et al.A polymerase theta-dependent repair pathway suppresses extensive genomic instability at endogenous G4 DNA sites. Nat Commun, 2014; 5:3216. DOI: 10.1038/ncomms4216.
33.
ZhaoP, ZhangZ, KeH, et al.Oligonucleotide-based targeted gene editing in C. elegans via the CRISPR/Cas9 system. Cell Res, 2014; 24:247–250. DOI: 10.1038/cr.2014.9.
34.
PaixA, FolkmannA, RasolosonD, et al.High efficiency, homology-directed genome editing in Caenorhabditis elegans using CRISPR-Cas9 ribonucleoprotein complexes. Genetics, 2015; 201:47–54. DOI: 10.1534/genetics.115.179382.
35.
WardJD.Rapid and precise engineering of the Caenorhabditis elegans genome with lethal mutation co-conversion and inactivation of NHEJ repair. Genetics, 2015; 199:363–377. DOI: 10.1534/genetics.114.172361.
36.
KimH, IshidateT, GhantaKS, et al.A Co-CRISPR strategy for efficient genome editing in Caenorhabditis elegans. Genetics, 2014; 197:1069–1080. DOI: 10.1534/genetics.114.166389.
37.
PriorH, JawadAK, MacConnachieL, et al.Highly efficient, rapid and Co-CRISPR-independent genome editing in Caenorhabditis elegans. G3 (Bethesda), 2017; 7:3693–3698. DOI: 10.1534/g3.117.300216.
38.
WaaijersS, PortegijsV, KerverJ, et al.CRISPR/Cas9-targeted mutagenesis in Caenorhabditis elegans. Genetics, 2013; 195:1187–1191. DOI: 10.1534/genetics.113.156299.
39.
KramerJM, FrenchRP, ParkEC, et al.The Caenorhabditis elegans rol-6 gene, which interacts with the sqt-1 collagen gene to determine organismal morphology, encodes a collagen. Mol Cell Biol, 1990; 10:2081–2089. DOI: 10.1128/mcb.10.5.2081.
40.
ArribereJA, BellRT, FuBXH, et al.Efficient marker-free recovery of custom genetic modifications with CRISPR/Cas9 in Caenorhabditis elegans. Genetics, 2014; 198:837–846. DOI: 10.1534/genetics.114.169730.
41.
FarboudB, SeversonAF, MeyerBJ. Strategies for efficient genome editing using CRISPR-Cas9. Genetics, 2019; 211:431–457. DOI: 10.1534/genetics.118.301775.
42.
ZhangD, GlotzerM.Efficient site-specific editing of the C. elegans genome. bioRxiv, 2014. DOI: 10.1101/007344.
43.
SchwartzML, JorgensenEM. SapTrap, a toolkit for high-throughput CRISPR/Cas9 gene modification in Caenorhabditis elegans. Genetics, 2016; 202:1277–1288. DOI: 10.1534/genetics.115.184275.
44.
NorrisAD, KimHM, ColaiácovoMP, et al.Efficient genome editing in Caenorhabditis elegans with a toolkit of dual-marker selection cassettes. Genetics, 2015; 201:449–458. DOI: 10.1534/genetics.115.180679.
45.
DickinsonDJ, PaniAM, HeppertJK, et al.Streamlined genome engineering with a self-excising drug selection cassette. Genetics, 2015; 200:1035–1049. DOI: 10.1534/genetics.115.178335.
46.
ZhangF.Development of CRISPR-Cas systems for genome editing and beyond. Q Rev Biophys, 2019; 52:e6. DOI: 10.1017/s0033583519000052.
47.
SavageDF.Cas14: Big advances from small CRISPR proteins. Biochemistry, 2019; 58:1024–1025. DOI: 10.1021/acs.biochem.9b00035.
48.
LiuJJ, OrlovaN, OakesBL, et al.CasX enzymes comprise a distinct family of RNA-guided genome editors. Nature, 2019; 566:218–223. DOI: 10.1038/s41586-019-0908-x.
49.
KarvelisT, BigelyteG, YoungJK, et al.PAM recognition by miniature CRISPR-Cas12f nucleases triggers programmable double-stranded DNA target cleavage. Nucleic Acids Res, 2020; 48:5016–5023. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkaa208.
50.
Moreno-MateosMA, FernandezJP, RouetR, et al.CRISPR-Cpf1 mediates efficient homology-directed repair and temperature-controlled genome editing. Nat Commun, 2017; 8:2024. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-017-01836-2.
51.
BolognesiB, LehnerB. Reaching the limit. Elife, 2018; 7:e39804. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.39804.
52.
EguchiY, MakanaeK, HasunumaT, et al.Estimating the protein burden limit of yeast cells by measuring the expression limits of glycolytic proteins. Elife, 2018; 7:e34595. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.34595.
53.
DokshinGA, GhantaKS, PiscopoKM, et al.Robust genome editing with short single-stranded and long, partially single-stranded DNA donors in Caenorhabditis elegans. Genetics, 2018; 210:781–787. DOI: 10.1534/genetics.118.301532.
54.
SahaC, MohanrajuP, StubbsA, et al.Guide-free Cas9 from pathogenic Campylobacter jejuni bacteria causes severe damage to DNA. Sci Adv, 2020; 6:eaaz4849. DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aaz4849.
55.
LantB, DerryWB. Methods for detection and analysis of apoptosis signaling in the C. elegans germline. Methods, 2013; 61:174–182. DOI: 10.1016/j.ymeth.2013.04.022.
56.
KouryE, HarrellK, SmolikoveS. Differential RPA-1 and RAD-51 recruitment in vivo throughout the C. elegans germline, as revealed by laser microirradiation. Nucleic Acids Res, 2018; 46:748–764. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkx1243.
57.
ChiuH, SchwartzHT, AntoshechkinI, et al.Transgene-free genome editing in Caenorhabditis elegans using CRISPR-Cas. Genetics, 2013; 195:1167–1171. DOI: 10.1534/genetics.113.155879.
58.
PaixA, WangY, SmithHE, et al.Scalable and versatile genome editing using linear DNAs with microhomology to Cas9 Sites in Caenorhabditis elegans. Genetics, 2014; 198:1347–1356. DOI: 10.1534/genetics.114.170423.
59.
AuV, Li-legerE, RaymantG, et al.CRISPR/Cas9 methodology for the generation of knockout deletions in Caenorhabditis elegans. G3 (Bethesda), 2019; 9:135–144. DOI: 10.1534/g3.118.200778.
60.
DickinsonDJ, WardJD, ReinerDJ, et al.Engineering the Caenorhabditis elegans genome using Cas9-triggered homologous recombination. Nat Methods, 2013; 10:1028–1034. DOI: 10.1038/nmeth.2641.
61.
FriedlandAE, TzurYB, EsveltKM, et al.Heritable genome editing in C. elegans via a CRISPR-Cas9 system. Nat Methods, 2013; 10:741–743. DOI: 10.1038/nmeth.2532.
62.
CuiL, VigourouxA, RoussetF, et al.A CRISPRi screen in E. coli reveals sequence-specific toxicity of dCas9. Nat Commun, 2018; 9:1912. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-04209-5.
63.
KamathRS, FraserAG, DongY, et al.Systematic functional analysis of the Caenorhabditis elegans genome using RNAi. Nature, 2003; 421:231–237. DOI: 10.1038/nature01278.
64.
TimmonsL, CourtDL, FireA. Ingestion of bacterially expressed dsRNAs can produce specific and potent genetic interference in Caenorhabditis elegans. Gene, 2001; 263:103–112. DOI: 10.1016/s0378-1119(00)00579-5.
65.
KemphuesK. Essential genes. In: The C. elegans Research Community (ed.). WormBook. 2005. DOI: 10.1895/wormbook.1.57.1.
66.
StemmerM, ThumbergerT, del Sol KeyerM, et al.CCTop: an intuitive, flexible and reliable CRISPR/Cas9 target prediction tool. PLoS One, 2015; 10:e0124633. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0124633.
67.
LabunK, MontagueTG, KrauseM, et al.CHOPCHOP v3: expanding the CRISPR web toolbox beyond genome editing. Nucleic Acids Res, 2019; 47:171–174. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkz365.
68.
LabuhnM, AdamsFF, NgM, et al.Refined sgRNA efficacy prediction improves large and small-scale CRISPR-Cas9 applications. Nucleic Acids Res, 2018; 46:1375–1385. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkx1268.
69.
SilaoFGS, WardM, RymanK, et al.Mitochondrial proline catabolism activates Ras1/CAMP/PKA-induced filamentation in Candida albicans. PLoS Genet, 2019; 15:e1007976. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1007976.
70.
DemuyserL, PalmansI, VandecruysP, et al.Molecular elucidation of riboflavin production and regulation in Candida albicans, toward a novel antifungal drug target. mSphere, 2020; 5Le00714-20. DOI: 10.1128/mSphere.00714-20.
71.
GrahlN, DemersEG, CrockerAW, et al.Use of RNA–protein complexes for genome editing in non-albicans Candida species. mSphere, 2017; 2. DOI: 10.1128/mSphere.00217-17.
72.
ShenH, StrunksGD, KlemannBJPM, et al.CRISPR/Cas9-induced double-strand break repair in Arabidopsis nonhomologous end-joining mutants. G3 (Bethesda), 2017; 7:193–202. DOI: 10.1534/g3.116.035204.
73.
De PaterS, KlemannBJPM, HooykaasPJJ. True gene-targeting events by CRISPR/Cas-induced DSB repair of the PPO locus with an ectopically integrated repair template. Sci Rep, 2018; 8:2–11. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-21697-z.
74.
PyottDE, SheehanE, MolnarA. Engineering of CRISPR/Cas9-mediated potyvirus resistance in transgene-free Arabidopsis plants. Mol Plant Pathol, 2016; 17:1276–1288. DOI: 10.1111/mpp.12417.
75.
ButlerNM, AtkinsPA, VoytasDF, et al.Generation and inheritance of targeted mutations in potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) using the CRISPR/Cas system. PLoS One, 2015; 10:e0144591. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0144591.
76.
ItakuraY, InagakiS, WadaH, et al.Trynity controls epidermal barrier function and respiratory tube maturation in Drosophila by modulating apical extracellular matrix nano-patterning. PLoS One, 2018; 13:e0209058. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0209058.
77.
GeDT, TippingC, BrodskyMH, et al.Rapid screening for CRISPR-directed editing of the Drosophila genome using white coconversion. G3 (Bethesda), 2016; 6:3197–3206. DOI: 10.1534/g3.116.032557.
78.
PauloDF, WilliamsonME, ArpAP, et al.Specific gene disruption in the major livestock pests Cochliomyia hominivorax and Lucilia cuprina using CRISPR/Cas9. G3 (Bethesda), 2019; 9:3045–3055. DOI: 10.1534/g3.119.400544.
79.
MiyataH, CastanedaJM, FujiharaY, et al.Genome engineering uncovers 54 evolutionarily conserved and testis-enriched genes that are not required for male fertility in mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2016; 113:7704–7710. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1608458113.
ChenB, ZouW, XuH, et al.Efficient labeling and imaging of protein-coding genes in living cells using CRISPR-Tag. Nat Commun, 2018; 9. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-07498-y.
82.
SymingtonLS, GautierJ. Double-strand break end resection and repair pathway choice. Annu Rev Genet, 2011; 45:247–271. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-genet-110410-132435.
83.
HeyerW, EhmsenKT. Regulation of homologous recombination in eukaryotes. Annu Rev Genet, 2010; 44:113–139. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-genet-051710-150955.
84.
LiuM, RehmanS, TangX, et al.Methodologies for improving HDR efficiency. Front Genet, 2019; 9:691. DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2018.00691.
85.
IwataS, YoshinaS, SuehiroY, et al.Engineering new balancer chromosomes in C. elegans via CRISPR/Cas9. Sci Rep, 2016; 6:33840. DOI: 10.1038/srep33840.
86.
LinS, StaahlBT, AllaRK, et al.Enhanced homology-directed human genome engineering by controlled timing of CRISPR/Cas9 delivery. Elife, 2014; 3:e04766. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.04766.
87.
CharpentierM, KhedherAHY, MenoretS, et al.CtIP fusion to Cas9 enhances transgene integration by homology-dependent repair. Nat Commun, 2018; 9:1133. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-03475-7.
PaixA, SchmidtH, SeydouxG. Cas9-assisted recombineering in C. elegans: genome editing using in vivo assembly of linear DNAs. Nucleic Acids Res, 2016; 44:e128. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkw502.
90.
PhilipNS, EscobedoF, BahrLL, et al.Mos1 element-mediated CRISPR integration of transgenes in Caenorhabditis elegans. G3 (Bethesda), 2019; 9:2629–2635. DOI: 10.1534/g3.119.400399.
91.
McDiarmidTA, AuV, LoewenA, et al.CRISPR-Cas9 human gene replacement and phenomic characterization in Caenorhabditis elegans to understand the functional conservation of human genes and decipher variants of uncertain significance. Dis Model Mech, 2018; 11:dmm036517. DOI: 10.1242/dmm.036517.
92.
PiovesanA, AntonarosF, VitaleL, et al.Human protein-coding genes and gene feature statistics in 2019. BMC Res Notes, 2019; 12:315. DOI: 10.1186/s13104-019-4343-8.
93.
KnightSC, XieL, DengW, et al.Dynamics of CRISPR-Cas9 genome interrogation in living cells. Science, 2015; 350:823–827. DOI: 10.1126/science.aac6572.
94.
YarringtonRM, VermaS, SchwartzS, et al.Nucleosomes inhibit target cleavage by CRISPR-Cas9 in vivo. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2018; 115:9351–9358. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1810062115.
95.
Uusi-MäkeläMIE, BarkerHR, BaCA, et al.Chromatin accessibility is associated with CRISPR-Cas9 efficiency in the zebrafish (Danio rerio). PLoS One, 2018; 13:e0196238. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0196238.
96.
LiuB, ChenS, Rose ALa, et al.Inhibition of histone deacetylase 1 (HDAC1) and HDAC2 enhances CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing. Nucleic Acids Res, 2020; 48:517–532. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkz1136.
97.
LiG, ZhangX, WangH, et al.Increasing CRISPR/Cas9-mediated homology-directed DNA repair by histone deacetylase inhibitors. Int J Biochem Cell Biol, 2020; 125:105790. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocel.2020.105790.
98.
LiuG, YinK, ZhangQ, et al.Modulating chromatin accessibility by transactivation and targeting proximal dsgRNAs enhances Cas9 editing efficiency in vivo. Genome Biol, 2019; 20:145. DOI: 10.1186/s13059-019-1762-8.
99.
DingX, SeebeckT, FengY, et al.Improving CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing efficiency by fusion with chromatin-modulating peptides. CRISPR J, 2019; 2:51–64. DOI: 10.1089/crispr.2018.0036.
100.
KellyWG.Transgenerational epigenetics in the germline cycle of Caenorhabditis elegans. Epigenetics Chromatin, 2014; 7:6. DOI: 10.1186/1756-8935-7-6.
101.
WangX, ZhaoY, WongK, et al.Identification of genes expressed in the hermaphrodite germ line of C. elegans using SAGE. BMC Genomics, 2009; 10:213. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2164-10-213.
102.
TzurYB, WinterE, GaoJ, et al.Spatiotemporal gene expression analysis of the Caenorhabditis elegans germline uncovers a syncytial expression switch. Genetics, 2018; 210:587–605. DOI: 10.1534/genetics.118.301315.
103.
SchanerCE, KellyWG. Germline chromatin. In: The C. elegans Research Community (ed.). WormBook. 2006. DOI: 10.1895/wormbook.1.73.1.
104.
The C. elegans Sequencing Consortium. Genome sequence of the nematode C. elegans: a platform for investigating biology. Science, 1998; 282:2012–2018. DOI: 10.1126/science.282.5396.2012.
105.
JänesJ, DongY, SchoofM, et al.Chromatin accessibility dynamics across C. elegans development and ageing. Elife, 2018; 7:e37344. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.37344.
106.
ZuckermannM, HlevnjakM, YazdanparastH, et al.A novel cloning strategy for one-step assembly of multiplex CRISPR vectors. Sci Rep, 2018; 8:17499. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-35727-3.
107.
ReisAC, HalperSM, VezeauGE, et al.Simultaneous repression of multiple bacterial genes using nonrepetitive extra-long sgRNA arrays. Nat Biotechnol, 2019; 37:1294–1301. DOI: 10.1038/s41587-019-0286-9.
108.
YangB, SchwartzM, McJunkinK. In vivo CRISPR screening for phenotypic targets of the mir-35-42 family in C. elegans. Genes Dev, 2020; 34:1227–1238. DOI: 10.1101/gad.339333.120.
109.
ChoSW, LeeJ, CarrollD, et al.Heritable gene knockout in Caenorhabditis elegans by direct injection of Cas9-sgRNA ribonucleoproteins. Genetics, 2013; 195:1177–1180. DOI: 10.1534/genetics.113.155853.
110.
LambieEJ.Cell proliferation and growth in C. elegans. BioEssays, 2002; 24:38–53. DOI: 10.1002/bies.10019.
111.
AnzaloneAV, RandolphPB, DavisJR, et al.Search-and-replace genome editing without double-strand breaks or donor DNA. Nature, 2019; 576:149–157. DOI: 10.1038/s41586-019-1711-4.
112.
ShenZ, ZhangX, ChaiY, et al.Conditional knockouts generated by engineered CRISPR-Cas9 endonuclease reveal the roles of coronin in C. elegans neural development. Dev Cell, 2014; 30:625–636. DOI: 10.1016/j.devcel.2014.07.017.
TianD, DiaoM, JiangY, et al.Anillin regulates neuronal migration and neurite growth by linking RhoG to the actin cytoskeleton. Curr Biol, 2015; 25:1135–1145. DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2015.02.072.
115.
Silva-GarcíaCG, LanjuinA, HeintzC, et al.Single-copy knock-in loci for defined gene expression in Caenorhabditis elegans. G3 (Bethesda), 2019; 9:2195–2198. DOI: 10.1534/g3.119.400314.
116.
AbudayyehOO, GootenbergJS, KonermannS, et al.C2c2 is a single-component programmable RNA-guided RNA-targeting CRISPR effector. Science, 2016; 353:aaf5573. DOI: 10.1126/science.aaf5573.
117.
East-SeletskyA, ConnellMRO, KnightSC, et al.Two distinct RNase activities of CRISPR-C2c2 enable guide-RNA processing and RNA detection. Nature, 2016; 538:270–273. DOI: 10.1038/nature19802.
118.
TimmonsL, FireAZ. Specific interference by ingested dsRNA. Nature, 1998; 395:854. DOI: 10.1038/27579.
119.
GönczyP, EcheverriC, OegemaK, et al.Functional genomic analysis of cell division in C. elegans using RNAi of genes on chromosome III. Nature, 2000; 408:331–336. DOI: 10.1038/35042526.
120.
ParrishS, FleenorJ, XuS, et al.Functional anatomy of a dsRNA trigger: differential requirement for the two trigger strands in RNA interference. Mol Cell, 2000; 6:1077–1087. DOI: 10.1016/S1097-2765(00)00106-4.
121.
ScacheriPC, Rozenblatt-RosenO, CaplenNJ, et al.Short interfering RNAs can induce unexpected and divergent changes in the levels of untargeted proteins in mammalian cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2004; 101:1892–1897. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0308698100.
122.
AbudayyehOO, GootenbergJS, EssletzbichlerP, et al.RNA targeting with CRISPR–Cas13. Nature, 2017; 550:280–284. DOI: 10.1038/nature24049.
123.
CoxDBT, GootenbergJS, AbudayyehOO, et al.RNA editing with CRISPR-Cas13. Science, 2017; 1027:1019–1027. DOI: 10.1126/science.aaq0180.
124.
KonermannS, LotfyP, BrideauNJ, et al.Transcriptome engineering with RNA-targeting article transcriptome engineering with RNA-targeting type VI-D CRISPR effectors. Cell, 2018; 173:665–676. DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2018.02.033.
125.
KushawahG, PradoJA, JuanR, et al.CRISPR-Cas13d induces efficient mRNA knock-down in animal embryos. bioRxiv, 2020. DOI: 10.1101/2020.01.13.904763.
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
