2018
DOI: 10.21769/bioprotoc.2794
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Generating Loss-of-function iPSC Lines with Combined CRISPR Indel Formation and Reprogramming from Human Fibroblasts

Abstract: For both disease and basic science research, loss-of-function (LOF) mutations are vitally important. Herein, we provide a simple stream-lined protocol for generating LOF iPSC lines that circumvents the technical challenges of traditional gene-editing and cloning of established iPSC lines by combining the introduction of the CRISPR vector concurrently with episomal reprogramming plasmids into fibroblasts. Our experiments have produced nearly even numbers of all 3 genotypes in autosomal genes. In addition, we pr… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Manual picking of 50–100 colonies could take as much as an hour or more, especially for inexperienced users, while clonal isolation by FACS can be done in minutes. While manual passaging of hPSCs is not a common procedure anymore, manual picking of transfected clones still represents a common approach, especially for gene editing applications (Blair et al, 2016; Kwart et al, 2017; Wang et al, 2017; Howden et al, 2018; Tidball et al, 2018). By using this approach, single-cell sorting hPSCs by FACS following a transfection can be done with ease and clones may be expanded for genomic screening.…”
Section: Anticipated Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Manual picking of 50–100 colonies could take as much as an hour or more, especially for inexperienced users, while clonal isolation by FACS can be done in minutes. While manual passaging of hPSCs is not a common procedure anymore, manual picking of transfected clones still represents a common approach, especially for gene editing applications (Blair et al, 2016; Kwart et al, 2017; Wang et al, 2017; Howden et al, 2018; Tidball et al, 2018). By using this approach, single-cell sorting hPSCs by FACS following a transfection can be done with ease and clones may be expanded for genomic screening.…”
Section: Anticipated Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We used CRISPR gene editing ( Tidball et al., 2017 , Tidball et al., 2018 ) to generate a heterozygous deletion in SCN1A ( SCN1A + / − ) in a control line to ask whether Nav1.1 haploinsufficiency alone was sufficient to increase I Na in iPSC-CMs, or whether this result was dependent on genetic background. The mutant clone used in this study had a heterozygous deletion of a cytosine at position 23 of the SCN1A cDNA (c.23del in NM_001165963.2), resulting in a mutation with a proline changed to a histidine at position 8, and a frameshift resulting in a premature stop codon at position 91 (p.P8HfsTer91) ( Figure S4 ).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We have previously published methods combining CRISPR genome-editing and iPSC reprogramming (Tidball et al, 2017;Tidball et al, 2018). See Supplemental materials for further details describing the generation of the P2 rescue iPSC line.…”
Section: Crispr Genome-editing With Simultaneous Reprogrammingmentioning
confidence: 99%