In Vivo Validation of CRISPR Reagents in Preimplantation Mouse Embryos

  • Melissa A. Larson
  • Katelin A. Gibson
  • Jay L. VivianEmail author
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 2066)


The CRISPR/Cas9 system has enjoyed enormous success and has now become the standard method of generating gene-modified mouse models. The tools for predicting the activity of CRISPR reagents in the mouse embryo are currently limited and not particularly accurate in predicting if a given reagent will be active. Given the time and cost of generating genetically modified mice, it is highly desirable to use CRISPR reagents that are known to be active in the mouse embryo. In this chapter, we provide a detailed procedure for empirically testing the activity of CRISPR reagents via electroporation into cultured preimplantation mouse embryos. This platform has proven to be rapid, efficient, and applicable to a variety of mouse strains, and can be used for assessing on- and off-target activity through a variety of molecular assays.

Key words

CRISPR Validation crRNA gRNA Indels Cas9 Electroporation NEPA21 Embryo Zygote 


  1. 1.
    Singh P, Schimenti JC, Bolcun-Filas E (2015) A mouse geneticist’s practical guide to CRISPR applications. Genetics 199:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Labun K, Montague TG, Gagnon JA, Thyme SB, Valen E (2016) CHOPCHOP v2: a web tool for the next generation of CRISPR genome engineering. Nucleic Acids Res 44:W272–W276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Concordet JP, Haeussler M (2018) CRISPOR: intuitive guide selection for CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing experiments and screens. Nucleic Acids Res 46:W242–WW45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Doench JG, Fusi N, Sullender M, Hegde M, Vaimberg EW, Donovan KF, Smith I, Tothova Z, Wilen C, Orchard R, Virgin HW, Listgarten J, Root DE (2016) Optimized sgRNA design to maximize activity and minimize off-target effects of CRISPR-Cas9. Nat Biotechnol 34:184–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sentmanat MF, Peters ST, Florian CP, Connelly JP, Pruett-Miller SM (2018) A survey of validation strategies for CRISPR-Cas9 editing. Sci Rep 8:888CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kaneko T, Mashimo T (2015) Simple genome editing of rodent intact embryos by electroporation. PLoS One 10:e0142755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Anderson KR, Haeussler M, Watanabe C, Janakiraman V, Lund J, Modrusan Z, Stinson J, Bei Q, Buechler A, Yu C, Thamminana SR, Tam L, Sowick MA, Alcantar T, O’Neil N, Li J, Ta L, Lima L, Roose-Girma M, Rairdan X, Durinck S, Warming S (2018) CRISPR off-target analysis in genetically engineered rats and mice. Nat Methods 15:512–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Luo C, Zuniga J, Edison E, Palla S, Dong W, Parker-Thornburg J (2011) Superovulation strategies for 6 commonly used mouse strains. J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci 50:471–478PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Melissa A. Larson
    • 1
    • 2
  • Katelin A. Gibson
    • 1
  • Jay L. Vivian
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Transgenic and Gene-Targeting Institutional FacilityUniversity of Kansas Medical CenterKansas CityUSA
  2. 2.Department of Molecular and Integrative PhysiologyUniversity of Kansas Medical CenterKansas CityUSA
  3. 3.Department of Pathology and Laboratory MedicineUniversity of Kansas Medical CenterKansas CityUSA

Personalised recommendations