bioRxivBioengineering
Pre-existing Technological Core and Roots for the CRISPR Breakthrough
Abstract
This paper applies objective methods to explore the technological origins of the widely acclaimed CRISPR breakthrough in the technological domain of genome engineering. Previously developed patent search techniques are first used to recover a set of patents that well-represent the genome editing domain before CRISPR. Main paths are then determined from the citation network associated with this patent set allowing identification of the three major knowledge trajectories. The most significant of these trajectories for CRISPR involves the core of genome editing with less significant trajectories involving cloning and endonuclease specific developments. The major patents on the core trajectory are consistent with qualitative expert knowledge of the topical area. A second set of patents that we call the CRISPR roots are obtained by finding the patents directly cited by the recent CRISPR patents along with patents cited by that set of patents. We find that the CRISPR roots contain 8 key patents from the genome engineering main path associated with restriction endonucleases and the expected strong connection of CRISPR to prior genome editing technology such as Zn finger nucleases. Nonetheless, analysis of the full CRISPR roots shows that a very wide array of technological knowledge beyond genome engineering has contributed to achieving the CRISPR breakthrough. Such breadth in origins is not surprising since \"spillover\" is generally perceived as important and previous qualitative studies of CRISPR have shown not only technological breadth in origins but scientific breadth as well. In addition, we find that the estimated rate of functional performance improvement of the CRISPR roots set is about 9% per year compared to the genome engineering set ({small tilde}4 % per year). These estimates indicate below average rates of improvement and may indicate that CRISPR (and perhaps yet undiscovered) genome engineering developments could evolve in effectiveness over an upcoming long rather than short time period.
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Towards best-practice approaches for CRISPR/Cas9 gene engineering
Claude Van Campenhout, Pauline Cabochette, … Véronique Kruys·bioRxiv·Dec 4, 2018
- Evolution of CRISPR-associated Endonucleases as Inferred from Resurrected Proteins
B. Alonso-Lerma, Y. Jabalera, … R. Perez-Jimenez·bioRxiv·Mar 30, 2022
- Improved Genome Editing by an Engineered CRISPR-Cas12a
E. Ma, K. Chen, … J. A. Doudna·bioRxiv·Sep 2, 2022
- Plant-based biosensors for detecting CRISPR-mediated genome engineering
G. Yuan, M. M. Hassan, … X. Yang·ACS Synthetic BiologyPeer-reviewed·Dec 8, 2021
- CRISPR with independent transgenes is a safe and robust alternative to autonomous gene drives in basic research
Fillip Port, Nadine Muschalik, Simon L Bullock·G3 Genes|Genomes|GeneticsPeer-reviewed·Jul 1, 2015
- CRISPResso: sequencing analysis toolbox for CRISPR genome editing
Luca Pinello, Matthew C Canver, … Guo-Cheng Yuan·bioRxiv·Feb 7, 2016