Research institution
Rockefeller University
US
3 researchers0 verified2 linked papers16,020 indexed citations
Researchers
Public research profiles associated with Rockefeller University.
Research from this institution
Publications linked through researcher authorship records.
2013 · Science · 15,889 citations
Multiplex Genome Engineering Using CRISPR/Cas Systems
Functional elucidation of causal genetic variants and elements requires precise genome editing technologies. The type II prokaryotic CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats)/Cas adaptive immune system has been shown to facilitate RNA-guided site-specific DNA cleavage. We engineered two different type II CRISPR/Cas systems and demonstrate that Cas9 nucleases can be directed by short RNAs to induce precise cleavage at endogenous genomic loci in human and mouse cells. Cas9 can also be converted into a nicking enzyme to facilitate homology-directed repair with minimal mutagenic activity. Lastly, multiple guide sequences can be encoded into a single CRISPR array to enable simultaneous editing of several sites within the mammalian genome, demonstrating easy programmability and wide applicability of the RNA-guided nuclease technology.
2021 · Biological reviews/Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 131 citations
The naked truth: a comprehensive clarification and classification of current ‘myths’ in naked mole‐rat biology
The naked mole-rat (Heterocephalus glaber) has fascinated zoologists for at least half a century. It has also generated considerable biomedical interest not only because of its extraordinary longevity, but also because of unusual protective features (e.g. its tolerance of variable oxygen availability), which may be pertinent to several human disease states, including ischemia/reperfusion injury and neurodegeneration. A recent article entitled 'Surprisingly long survival of premature conclusions about naked mole-rat biology' described 28 'myths' which, those authors claimed, are a 'perpetuation of beautiful, but falsified, hypotheses' and impede our understanding of this enigmatic mammal. Here, we re-examine each of these 'myths' based on evidence published in the scientific literature. Following Braude et al., we argue that these 'myths' fall into four main categories: (i) 'myths' that would be better described as oversimplifications, some of which persist solely in the popular press; (ii) 'myths' that are based on incomplete understanding, where more evidence is clearly needed; (iii) 'myths' where the accumulation of evidence over the years has led to a revision in interpretation, but where there is no significant disagreement among scientists currently working in the field; (iv) 'myths' where there is a genuine difference in opinion among active researchers, based on alternative interpretations of the available evidence. The term 'myth' is particularly inappropriate when applied to competing, evidence-based hypotheses, which form part of the normal evolution of scientific knowledge. Here, we provide a comprehensive critical review of naked mole-rat biology and attempt to clarify some of these misconceptions.