henhaobio
Sign in

bioRxivGeneticsPreprint

The experimental design and data interpretation in “Unexpected mutations after CRISPR–Cas9 editing in vivo” by Schaefer et al. are insufficient to support the conclusions drawn by the authors

Christopher J. WilsoniD, Tim J. FennelliD, Anne Bothmer, Morgan L. MaederiD, Deepak ReyoniD, Cecilia Cotta‐Ramusino, Cecilia A. Fernández, Eugenio MarcoiD, Luis Alberto BarreraiD, Hariharan Jayaram, Charles F. Albright, Gerald F. Cox, George McDonald ChurchiD, Vic E. MyeriD

PDFDOI

Abstract

To the Editor To the Editor Conflict of Interest Statement References References The recent correspondence to the Editor of Nature Methods by Schaefer et al.1 has garnered significant attention since its publication as a result of its strong conclusions contradicting numerous publications in the field using similar analytical approaches and methods2-4. The authors suggest that the CRISPR-Cas9 system is highly mutagenic in genomic regions not expected to be targeted by the gRNA. We believe that the conclusions drawn from this study are unsubstantiated by the disclosed experiments as they were designed and carried out. Further, it is impossible to ascribe the observed differences in the subject mice to the effects of CRISPR per se. The genetic differences seen in ...

Citations
12

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.

Similarity Map
SelectedSame fieldCross-field
THISLareau '18Wei '17Kim '18Lescarbeau '18Schaefer '18Mooney '19
81% semantic matchMolecular Biology
Caleb A. Lareau, Kendell Clement, Jonathan Y. Hsu+4 more·Nature Methods·Mar 30, 2018· 34 citations