TABLE 1.
CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing in animals.
| Animal | Targeted gene | Mutation or disruption efficiency | Other | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rat | Tet1 | 36% | Tet1 and Tet2 with biallelic mutations in both genes with an efficiency of 80% | Li et al. (2013); Wang et al. (2013) |
| Tet2 | 48% | |||
| Tet3 | 36% | |||
| Goat | MSTN | 32% | Potential off-target but no unwanted mutation occurred | Ni et al. (2014) |
| MSTN/Prp | 20% | |||
| MSTN/BLG/PrP/NUP | 4% | |||
| Rabbit | Tyrosinase CR2 | 3% | No off-target mutation | Honda et al. (2015) |
| GJA8 | 98.7% | — | Yuan et al. (2016) | |
| Dog | MSTN | Monoallelic mutation: 22.7% | Biallelic mutation: 36.4%; no mutation: 40.9% | Zou et al. (2015) |
| Pig | TYR | 49.4% | Double homozygous (PAPK2 and PINK1): 38.1% | Zhou et al. (2015) |
| PAPK2 | 66.7% | |||
| PINK1 | 69.9% | |||
| Monkey | DMD (exon 4 and exon 46) | Mosaic mutations: 87% | — | Chen et al. (2015) |
| Ppar-γ | 10%–25% | No authentic mutation was detected | Niu et al. (2014) | |
| Rag1 | 23.80% | |||
| NrOb1 | ∼20% | |||
| Zebrafish | bpt1, bplt4, C9t2, and C9t3 | 86%, heritable | Mutation rates at potential off-target sites are 1.1∼2.5% | Hruscha et al. (2013) |