Mark Tepfer
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Research Subjects
Mark Tepfer has a total of 8 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Anouchka Guyon-Debast
Université Paris‐Saclay, INRAE, AgroParisTech Institute Jean‐Pierre Bourgin for Plant Sciences Versailles France
1 shared publication - Cécile Collonnier
Community Plant Varieties Office (CPVO), Angers, France
1 shared publication - Delphine Charif
Université Paris-Saclay, INRAE, AgroParisTech, Institute Jean-Pierre Bourgin for Plant Sciences , Versailles
1 shared publication - Fabien Nogué
Université Paris‐Saclay, INRAE, AgroParisTech Institute Jean‐Pierre Bourgin for Plant Sciences Versailles France
1 shared publication - Florence Charlot
Institut Jean‐Pierre Bourgin INRAE AgroParisTech Université Paris‐Saclay Versailles 78000 France
1 shared publication - Kostlend Mara
CSIRO Health and Biosecurity, Australian Centre for Disease Preparedness, Geelong, Australia
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- Open Access
- 4 June 2022
- Published by Springer Nature in Scientific Reports
- Vol. 12 (1) , 1-10
Genome-wide specificity of plant genome editing by both CRISPR–Cas9 and TALEN
CRISPR and TALENs are efficient systems for gene editing in many organisms including plants. In many cases the CRISPR–Cas or TALEN modules are expressed in the plant cell only transiently. Theoretically, transient expression of the editing modules should limit unexpected effects compared to stable transformation. However, very few studies have measured the off-target and unpredicted effects of editing strategies on the plant genome, and none of them have compared these two major editing systems. We conducted, inPhyscomitrium patens, a comprehensive genome-wide investigation of off-target mutations using either a CRISPR–Cas9 or a TALEN strategy. We observed a similar number of differences for the two editing strategies compared to control non-transfected plants, with an average of 8.25 SNVs and 19.5 InDels for the CRISPR-edited plants, and an average of 17.5 SNVs and 32 InDels for the TALEN-edited plants. Interestingly, a comparable number of SNVs and InDels could be detected in the PEG-treated control plants. This shows that except for the on-target modifications, the gene editing tools used in this study did not show a significant off-target activity nor unpredicted effects on the genome, and did not lead to transgene integration. The PEG treatment, a well-established biotechnological method, in itself, was the main source of mutations found in the edited plants.
- 4 June 2022
- Published by Springer Nature in Scientific Reports
- Vol. 12 (1) , 1-10
Open AccessGenome-wide specificity of plant genome editing by both CRISPR–Cas9 and TALEN
CRISPR and TALENs are efficient systems for gene editing in many organisms including plants. In many cases the CRISPR–Cas or TALEN modules are expressed in the plant cell only transiently. Theoretically, transient expression of the editing modules should limit unexpected effects compared to stable transformation. However, very few studies have measured the off-target and unpredicted effects of editing strategies on the plant genome, and none of them have compared these two major editing systems. We conducted, inPhyscomitrium patens, a comprehensive genome-wide investigation of off-target mutations using either a CRISPR–Cas9 or a TALEN strategy. We observed a similar number of differences for the two editing strategies compared to control non-transfected plants, with an average of 8.25 SNVs and 19.5 InDels for the CRISPR-edited plants, and an average of 17.5 SNVs and 32 InDels for the TALEN-edited plants. Interestingly, a comparable number of SNVs and InDels could be detected in the PEG-treated control plants. This shows that except for the on-target modifications, the gene editing tools used in this study did not show a significant off-target activity nor unpredicted effects on the genome, and did not lead to transgene integration. The PEG treatment, a well-established biotechnological method, in itself, was the main source of mutations found in the edited plants.