Genetic confounds of transgenerational epigenetic inheritance in mice

References

• van Otterdijk SD, Michels KB. Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance in mammals: how good is the evidence? FASEB J. 2016;30(7):2457–10. doi: 10.1096/fj.201500083
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Takahashi Y, Morales Valencia M, Yu Y, et al. Transgenerational inheritance of acquired epigenetic signatures at CpG islands in mice. Cell. 2023;186(4):715–731.e19. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2022.12.047
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zeng J, Li G. Tfmapper: a tool for searching putative factors regulating gene expression using ChIP-seq data. Int J Biol Sci. 2018;14(12):1724–1731. doi: 10.7150/ijbs.28850
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noris P, Perrotta S, Seri M, et al. Mutations in ANKRD26 are responsible for a frequent form of inherited thrombocytopenia: analysis of 78 patients from 21 families. Blood. 2011;117(24):6673–80. doi: 10.1182/blood-2011-02-336537
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pippucci T, Savoia A, Perrotta S, et al. Mutations in the 5' UTR of ANKRD26, the ankirin repeat domain 26 gene, cause an autosomal-dominant form of inherited thrombocytopenia, THC2. Am J Hum Genet. 2011;88(1):115–120. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2010.12.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skelly DA, Czechanski A, Byers C, et al. Mapping the effects of genetic variation on chromatin state and gene expression reveals loci that control ground state pluripotency. Cell Stem Cell. 2020;27(3):459–469.e8. doi: 10.1016/j.stem.2020.07.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Onos KD, Uyar A, Keezer KJ, et al. Enhancing face validity of mouse models of Alzheimer’s disease with natural genetic variation. PLoS Genet. 2019;15(5):e1008155. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1008155
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Westra HJ, Franke L. From genome to function by studying eQtls. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2014;1842(10):1896–1902. doi: 10.1016/j.bbadis.2014.04.024
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhou W, Hinoue T, Barnes B, et al. DNA methylation dynamics and dysregulation delineated by high-throughput profiling in the mouse. Cell Genom. 2022;2(7):100144. doi: 10.1016/j.xgen.2022.100144
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fu Y, Foden JA, Khayter C, et al. High-frequency off-target mutagenesis induced by CRISPR-Cas nucleases in human cells. Nat Biotechnol. 2013;31(9):822–6. doi: 10.1038/nbt.2623
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chung CH, Allen AG, Sullivan NT, et al. Computational analysis concerning the impact of DNA accessibility on CRISPR-Cas9 cleavage efficiency. Mol Ther. 2020;28(1):19–28. doi: 10.1016/j.ymthe.2019.10.008
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Papathanasiou S, Markoulaki S, Blaine LJ, et al. Whole chromosome loss and genomic instability in mouse embryos after CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing. Nat Commun. 2021;12(1):5855. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-26097-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsuchida CA, Brandes N, Bueno R, et al. Mitigation of chromosome loss in clinical CRISPR-Cas9-engineered T cells. Cell. 2023;186(21):4567–4582. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2023.08.041
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cullot G, Boutin J, Toutain J, et al. CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing induces megabase-scale chromosomal truncations. Nat Commun. 2019;10(1):1136. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-09006-2
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Przewrocka J, Rowan A, Rosenthal R, et al. Unintended on-target chromosomal instability following CRISPR/Cas9 single gene targeting. Ann Oncol. 2020;31(9):1270–1273. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.04.480
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lazar NH, Celik S, Chen L, et al. High-resolution genome-wide mapping of chromosome-arm-scale truncations induced by CRISPR-Cas9 editing. bioRxiv. 2023. 2023.04.15.537038
   Google Scholar
• Kuijk E, Jager M, van der Roest B, et al. The mutational impact of culturing human pluripotent and adult stem cells. Nat Commun. 2020;11(1):2493. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-16323-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laurent LC, Ulitsky I, Slavin I, et al. Dynamic changes in the copy number of pluripotency and cell proliferation genes in human ESCs and iPscs during reprogramming and time in culture. Cell Stem Cell. 2011;8(1):106–18. doi: 10.1016/j.stem.2010.12.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kwon EM, Connelly JP, Hansen NF, et al. iPscs and fibroblast subclones from the same fibroblast population contain comparable levels of sequence variations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2017;114(8):1964–1969. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1616035114
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ben-David U, Mayshar Y, Benvenisty N. Large-scale analysis reveals acquisition of lineage-specific chromosomal aberrations in human adult stem cells. Cell Stem Cell. 2011;9(2):97–102. doi: 10.1016/j.stem.2011.06.013
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taapken SM, Nisler BS, Newton MA, et al. Karyotypic abnormalities in human induced pluripotent stem cells and embryonic stem cells. Nat Biotechnol. 2011;29(4):313–314. doi: 10.1038/nbt.1835
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ben-David U, Siranosian B, Ha G, et al. Genetic and transcriptional evolution alters cancer cell line drug response. Nature. 2018;560(7718):325–330. doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0409-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quevedo R, Smirnov P, Tkachuk D, et al. Assessment of Genetic Drift in Large Pharmacogenomic Studies. Cell Systems. 2020;11(4):393–401.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.cels.2020.08.012
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Albalat R, Canestro C. Evolution by gene loss. Nat Rev Genet. 2016;17(7):379–91. doi: 10.1038/nrg.2016.39
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abyzov A, Urban AE, Snyder M, et al. Cnvnator: an approach to discover, genotype, and characterize typical and atypical CNVs from family and population genome sequencing. Genome Res. 2011;21(6):974–84. doi: 10.1101/gr.114876.110
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vojta A, Dobrinić P, Tadić V, et al. Repurposing the CRISPR-Cas9 system for targeted DNA methylation. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016;44(12):5615–28. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkw159
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Love MI, Huber W, Anders S. Moderated estimation of fold change and dispersion for RNA-seq data with DESeq2. Genome Biol. 2014;15(12):550. doi: 10.1186/s13059-014-0550-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Langmead B, Salzberg SL. Fast gapped-read alignment with bowtie 2. Nat Methods. 2012;9(4):357–9. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.1923
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li H, Handsaker B, Wysoker A, et al. The sequence Alignment/Map format and SAMtools. Bioinformatics. 2009;25(16):2078–9. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp352
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKenna A, Hanna M, Banks E, et al. The genome analysis toolkit: a MapReduce framework for analyzing next-generation DNA sequencing data. Genome Res. 2010;20(9):1297–303. doi: 10.1101/gr.107524.110
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen K, Wallis JW, McLellan MD, et al. BreakDancer: an algorithm for high-resolution mapping of genomic structural variation. Nat Methods. 2009;6(9):677–81. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.1363
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bae S, Park J, Kim JS. Cas-OFFinder: a fast and versatile algorithm that searches for potential off-target sites of Cas9 RNA-guided endonucleases. Bioinformatics. 2014;30(10):1473–5. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu048
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quinlan AR, Hall IM. Bedtools: a flexible suite of utilities for comparing genomic features. Bioinformatics. 2010;26(6):841–2. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btq033
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar