Detection of CRISPR-Cas-induced mutations in Daphnia

preprint OA: closed
Full text JSON View at publisher

Abstract

CRISPR-Cas9 has established itself as a robust tool for conducting loss of function gene research in emerging model species including the freshwater zooplankton Daphnia . However, sensitive detection of mutations, especially in genetic mosaic and pooled samples, remains a challenge. In this study we evaluate two of the most widely used mutation screening techniques, the T7 Endonuclease I (T7EI) assay and Fragment Analysis (FA) for their sensitivity, accuracy, and practical use in detecting CRISPR-induced indels in four targeted genes, DNMT3A , DNMT3B , PERIOD2 , and DMRT1 in Daphnia magna . Here, we show that T7EI, although it offers a quick and cost-effective screening method, often produces false positives, especially when examining pooled samples. Conversely, FA facilitates detecting allele size differences at a fine resolution, reproducibility in detecting indels, and distinguishing zygosity and is more reliable as a method to detect mutation. Our comparative analyses convey the importance of carefully selecting the appropriate screening methods depending on research questions.
Full text 1,180 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · click to expand
Abstract CRISPR-Cas9 has established itself as a robust tool for conducting loss of function gene research in emerging model species including the freshwater zooplankton Daphnia. However, sensitive detection of mutations, especially in genetic mosaic and pooled samples, remains a challenge. In this study we evaluate two of the most widely used mutation screening techniques, the T7 Endonuclease I (T7EI) assay and Fragment Analysis (FA) for their sensitivity, accuracy, and practical use in detecting CRISPR-induced indels in four targeted genes, DNMT3A, DNMT3B, PERIOD2, and DMRT1 in Daphnia magna. Here, we show that T7EI, although it offers a quick and cost-effective screening method, often produces false positives, especially when examining pooled samples. Conversely, FA facilitates detecting allele size differences at a fine resolution, reproducibility in detecting indels, and distinguishing zygosity and is more reliable as a method to detect mutation. Our comparative analyses convey the importance of carefully selecting the appropriate screening methods depending on research questions. Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest.

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2025) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00