Back

CRISPR-Cas9 editing efficiency in fission yeast is not limited by homology search and is improved by combining gap-repair with fluoride selection

Fernandez, R.; Berro, J.

2024-03-02 cell biology
10.1101/2024.03.01.582946 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Protocols for CRISPR-Cas9 editing have been implemented in most model organisms, including fission yeast, for which some improvements have also been later described. Here, we report an improvement to the CRISPR-Cas9 protocol in fission yeast, as we combine a cloning free gap-repair method with our previously described fluoride selection marker, which speeds up genome editing. We also report a wide variability of editing efficiencies at different loci along the genome, and we demonstrate that this variability cannot be explained by the location of the edited sequences in the genome. Lastly, our attempt at improving editing efficiency by targeting the donor DNA to the cut site using a HaloTag strategy to link the donor DNA to two proteins of the homologous recombination repair machinery (Rad51 or Rad52) fell short, which shows that editing efficiency in fission yeast is likely not limited by homology search.

Published in microPublication Biology · not in our set (fewer than 10 published preprints to learn from) · training set

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS Genetics
● 862 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
14.8%
Similar papers in this journal
2
PLOS ONE
● 5266 papers in training set
Top 19%
9.6%
Similar papers in this journal
3
Nucleic Acids Research
◐ 1281 papers in training set
Top 3%
6.1%
Similar papers in this journal
4
The CRISPR Journal
○ 39 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.1%
Similar papers in this journal
5
Scientific Reports
○ 3612 papers in training set
Top 16%
5.4%
Similar papers in this journal
6
eLife
● 5828 papers in training set
Top 23%
5.4%
7
GENETICS
◐ 483 papers in training set
Top 1%
5.4%
50% of probability mass above
8
Open Biology
● 106 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.0%
9
G3 Genes|Genomes|Genetics
◐ 351 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.0%
10
Journal of Cell Science
● 393 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.1%
11
Journal of Molecular Biology
○ 232 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.0%
12
Genes to Cells
○ 25 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.9%
13
Molecular Biology of the Cell
● 311 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
14
G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics
◐ 252 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
15
Cells
○ 249 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
16
Biology Open
● 156 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.6%
17
PLOS Biology
● 486 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.3%
18
BMC Biology
○ 265 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.1%
19
Life Science Alliance
● 285 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.1%
20
Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications
○ 84 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
21
Nature Communications
○ 5641 papers in training set
Top 53%
1.0%
22
ACS Synthetic Biology
● 287 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
23
Molecular and Cellular Biology
○ 47 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.0%
24
PLOS Pathogens
● 820 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.9%
25
iScience
○ 1154 papers in training set
Top 42%
0.6%
26
EMBO Reports
○ 263 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.6%
27
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
○ 494 papers in training set
Top 18%
0.6%
28
Yeast
○ 17 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.6%
29
Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Gene Regulatory Mechanisms
○ 15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.6%
30
Current Biology
○ 665 papers in training set
Top 11%
0.6%

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.