2015
DOI: 10.1007/s12265-015-9626-4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

2015 Guidelines for Establishing Genetically Modified Rat Models for Cardiovascular Research

Abstract: The rat has long been a key physiological model for cardiovascular research; most of the inbred strains having been previously selected for susceptibility or resistance to various cardiovascular diseases (CVD). These CVD rat models offer a physiologically relevant background on which candidates of human CVD can be tested in a more clinically translatable experimental setting. However, a diverse toolbox for genetically modifying the rat genome to test molecular mechanisms has only recently become available. Her… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
2

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 77 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Moreover, our Drd1 I116S mutant rat has an outbred Wistar background, which might substantially alter Drd1 epistatic effects and approach human genetic heterogeneity to a larger extent. Finally, with the current expansion of genetic tools to manipulate the rat genome, including zinc finger nuclease, transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALEN) and CRISPR/CAS9, ENU mutagenesis as a technology to generate mutant rat models might seem outdated (Flister et al, 2015; Parker et al, 2014). Although these more recent technologies, unlike ENU mutagenesis, allow targeted mutations, the advantage brought about by ENU mutagenesis is that it induces random mutations, not only premature stop codons and thereby knockout rats, but also hypothesis-free point mutations causing amino acid exchanges (Smits et al, 2006).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, our Drd1 I116S mutant rat has an outbred Wistar background, which might substantially alter Drd1 epistatic effects and approach human genetic heterogeneity to a larger extent. Finally, with the current expansion of genetic tools to manipulate the rat genome, including zinc finger nuclease, transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALEN) and CRISPR/CAS9, ENU mutagenesis as a technology to generate mutant rat models might seem outdated (Flister et al, 2015; Parker et al, 2014). Although these more recent technologies, unlike ENU mutagenesis, allow targeted mutations, the advantage brought about by ENU mutagenesis is that it induces random mutations, not only premature stop codons and thereby knockout rats, but also hypothesis-free point mutations causing amino acid exchanges (Smits et al, 2006).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the past two decades, to uncover the molecular mechanisms of cardiac aging, many transgenic, gene knockout, pro-aging, and anti-aging mouse models have been generated, and the research of cardiac aging has been much improved with the help of these whole mouse models [13]. In contrast, the progress of senescence models of mouse cardiac myocytes in cultured cells in vitro is still very slow, although the cell models are critical for the mechanistic studies of cardiac aging.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This additional sequence tag, typically 5′-NGG-3′, ensures that in bacteria the system recognises invading PAM-containing DNA, but not host CRISPR-associated protospacer DNA that lacks adjacent PAMs. Since the frequency of 5′-NGG-3′ PAM sequence in the AT-rich rat genome occurs on average every 16–18 bp, much of the rat genome is accessible to CRISPR/Cas-directed gene editing, although in some instances this may prove limiting for knock-in strategies which require the cut site to be less than 20 bp from the intended insertion site (Flister et al 2015 ). Furthermore, the short recognition sequence of the CRISPR/Cas system may restrict the targeting of repetitive sequences and closely related genes containing similar sequences.…”
Section: Crispr/cas Gene Editingmentioning
confidence: 99%