It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
The core components of CRISPR-based gene drives, Cas9 and guide RNA (gRNA), either can be linked within a self-contained single cassette (full gene-drive, fGD) or be provided in two separate elements (split gene-drive, sGD), the latter offering greater control options. We previously engineered split systems that could be converted genetically into autonomous full drives. Here, we examine such dual systems inserted at the spo11 locus that are recoded to restore gene function and thus organismic fertility. Despite minimal differences in transmission efficiency of the sGD or fGD drive elements in single generation crosses, the reconstituted spo11 fGD cassette surprisingly exhibits slower initial drive kinetics than the unlinked sGD element in multigenerational cage studies, but then eventually catches up to achieve a similar level of final introduction. These unexpected kinetic behaviors most likely reflect differing transient fitness costs associated with individuals co-inheriting Cas9 and gRNA transgenes during the drive process.
CRISPR-based gene-drives can carry the Cas9 and guide RNA (gRNA) components in a single-linked cassette or in separate elements inserted into different genomic loci. Here the authors genetically transform and compare full versus split drives, with the former performing less efficiently than predicted.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details



1 University of California, San Diego, Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, La Jolla, USA (GRID:grid.266100.3) (ISNI:0000 0001 2107 4242); University of California, San Diego, Tata Institute for Genetics and Society, La Jolla, USA (GRID:grid.266100.3) (ISNI:0000 0001 2107 4242); The Pennsylvania State University, Department of Entomology, The Center for Infectious Disease Dynamics, and the Huck Institutes for the Life Sciences, University Park, USA (GRID:grid.29857.31) (ISNI:0000 0001 2097 4281)
2 University of California, Biophysics Graduate Group, Division of Biological Sciences, College of Letters and Science, Berkeley, USA (GRID:grid.47840.3f) (ISNI:0000 0001 2181 7878)
3 University of California, San Diego, Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, La Jolla, USA (GRID:grid.266100.3) (ISNI:0000 0001 2107 4242); University of California, San Diego, Tata Institute for Genetics and Society, La Jolla, USA (GRID:grid.266100.3) (ISNI:0000 0001 2107 4242)
4 University of California, Divisions of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Berkeley, USA (GRID:grid.47840.3f) (ISNI:0000 0001 2181 7878); Innovative Genomics Institute, Berkeley, USA (GRID:grid.510960.b) (ISNI:0000 0004 7798 3869)