The mission of the Genome Editing Research Group is to collect and disseminate the fast-evolving knowledge in designer nuclease technologies, to undertake pilot research projects and to provide/publish the streamlined processes that could be used as guidelines by the interested Core Facilities to initiate Genome Editing technologies as services in their labs.
Kym Delventhal (Co-Chair) - Stowers Institute
Elizabeth Sergison (Co-Chair)- Dartmouth College
Channabasavaiah Gurumurthy - University of Nebraska Medical Center
Timothy J. Dahlem - Recursion Pharmaceuticals
Gerald Marsischky – Independent Consultant
Rich Cole (EB Liaison) - Wadsworth Center and School of Public Health State University of New York
GERG 2018 Reproducibility Study
In 2018, GERG initiated a study to evaluate the reproducibility of indel formation rates by comparing guideRNA format and cell delivery methods across multiple labs. Various configurations of guideRNA and Cas9 components can be used for editing cells. A few options include: a plasmid expressing both the guideRNA and Cas9, Cas9 protein combined with a synthetic single guideRNA, and Cas9 combined with a synthetic 2-part guideRNA. In addition, delivering these components to cells can be done using lipofection or nucleofection transfection methods. In the GERG 2017 survey (CRISPR/Cas9 Methods: Preferences from the Field), plasmid format and lipofection delivery were favored among cell culture users. Meanwhile, RNP format for the guideRNA and Cas9 is gaining in popularity in combination with nucleofection delivery. This study aims to evaluate cutting efficiency at 3 different guideRNA targets based on the guideRNA format and delivery method across multiple labs. Determining which method or format is the most reproducible will be beneficial. Core facilities or research labs getting started with genome editing could use these results as a benchmark for optimizing their own protocols.
GERG Survey 2017
The Genome Editing Research Group surveyed users of the CRISPR/Cas9 technology to help establish an understanding of preferred methods being used. As new core facilities are being formed to support the CRISPR/Cas9 technology, or existing cores have adapted their services to fit the technology into their workflows, considering what other cores are using is important. Questions regarding preferred guideRNA design tools, format of reagents, mutation analysis methods, and other relevant topics were included.
The collected data can be viewed here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-ZBM5L6768/
Results were summarized in a poster and presented at ABRF 2018: CRISPR/Cas9 Methods: Preferences from the Field
|Channabasavaiah Gurumurthy||University of Nebraska Medical Center||03-15||03-15 to 04-17|
|Kym Delventhal||Stowers Institute for Medical Research||03-15||04-17|