Back

Combining Cas9 and dCas9 facilitates genome editing in genes associated with viability or welfare issues, or within paralogous gene clusters

Christou-Smith, S.; Macfarlane, C.; Caulder, A.; Codner, G. F.; Dowding, S. N.; Mackenzie, M.; Desjardins, J.; Liu, K. J.; Isles, A. R.; Stewart, M. E.; Wells, S.; Teboul, L.

2026-05-07 molecular biology
10.64898/2026.05.05.721005 bioRxiv
Show abstract

The high efficiency of genome editing presents a challenge when modifying genes associated with viability, welfare, or fertility issues, as implementation of the technology frequently results in mosaic animals with bi-allelic mutations. Combining deactivated Cas9 (dCas9) with Cas9 has been proposed as a strategy to protect one of the two target alleles from editing. We piloted this strategy with 11 genes that are reported as homozygous lethal or associated with welfare issues. We showed that the viability of founders was significantly increased when using 80:20 or 90:10 dCas9:Cas9 ratios, whereas the 70:30 ratio did not yield an equivalent protective effect. The associated overall production rate of mutated founder per manipulated embryo was significantly higher for the 80:20 ratio. Concomitantly, an increased proportion of dCas9 was associated with a significant increase in retention of unedited target alleles but, importantly, did not hinder germline transmission. In addition, editing genes in a paralog cluster with a combination of dCas9 and Cas9 reduced unwanted off-target editing, illustrating a further potential applicability of this approach. This study defines the optimal ratio between dCas9 and Cas9 for strategies aimed at achieving mono-allelic mutations within mosaic founders and proposes a means to reduce the incidence of off-target effects in experiments with limited gRNA options.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
19.1%
2
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
453 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
6.5%
3
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 30%
5.0%
4
Open Biology
95 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.0%
5
BMC Genomics
328 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
5.0%
6
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
88 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
4.3%
7
Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology
218 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.1%
8
BMC Biology
248 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.7%
50% of probability mass above
9
Frontiers in Genetics
197 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.8%
10
Biology
43 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.7%
11
Nucleic Acids Research
1128 papers in training set
Top 8%
2.4%
12
BMC Biotechnology
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.1%
13
Biology Open
130 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
2.1%
14
Biology Methods and Protocols
53 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.1%
15
Genomics
60 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.7%
16
The CRISPR Journal
33 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
17
Cells
232 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
18
Genes
126 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
19
G3 Genes|Genomes|Genetics
351 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
20
The Plant Genome
53 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.1%
21
BMC Bioinformatics
383 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.0%
22
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 25%
0.9%
23
Frontiers in Plant Science
240 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
24
PLOS Genetics
756 papers in training set
Top 13%
0.8%
25
Development, Growth & Differentiation
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
0.8%
26
Aquaculture
29 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
27
The EMBO Journal
267 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.7%
28
Insect Molecular Biology
19 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.7%
29
ACS Synthetic Biology
256 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
30
Bioengineering
24 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%