Follow genetic findings back to the exact experiments and reported results behind them.Know what the science actually supports before you trust the answer.
Press Enter β΅ to search claims
Explore by Goal
"The diversity of the phenomena of nature is so great, and the treasures hidden in the heavens so rich, precisely in order that the human mind shall never be lacking in fresh nourishment."
- Johannes Kepler
Quick Explanation
Copied
HDR/precise-editing fractions (only where explicitly reported in the provided raw-extracts)
Using the numbers explicitly present in the provided papers (e.g., mouse Tyr HDR %, insect G0 mosaic HDR %, and Drosophila HDR target success rates, plus a rat β% edited alleles in tumorsβ summary), the cross-species landscape below compares *reported* precise-editing/edited-allele fractions. These are not all strictly equivalent measures of βHDR efficiency under CRISPR saturation editingβ because the provided excerpts do not include saturation-editing protocols or harmonized denominators.
If you want a *true saturation HDR meta-analysis*, we need papers that explicitly vary guide/RNP concentration to saturation and report HDR fractions with consistent definitions.
Long Explanation
Meta-analysis dashboard: reported βHDR/precise-editingβ fractions across species (from provided extracts)
Critical scope check (skeptical): Your prompt asks for βHDR efficiencies across species under CRISPR saturation editing,β but the provided excerpts do not include saturation editing conditions or harmonized HDR-efficiency definitions. So the plots below compare only explicitly reported fractions that are closest to HDR/precise editing in the given data.
What is βmeasuredβ here? Examples include HDR in zygotes (mouse Tyr), HDR mosaic rate (insect G0), targeted HDR edit rate from ssODN-based HDR screens (Drosophila), and % edited alleles in tumors (rat tumors), each with different biology and denominators.
Quick data map (what numbers exist in your provided extracts)
Mouse (Mus musculus): For Tyr editing, 100% bi-allelic editing and 62.5% HDR in C57BL/6J were explicitly reported.
Insect (Spodoptera exigua): HDR mosaic rate in G0 was 14.3%; inherited HDR in G1 was 13.6% for the G275E knock-in line.
Drosophila (D. melanogaster): HDR with ssODN donors produced targeted edit rates of 2.6β8.6% across Ham (4.1%), Dpn (2.6%), and Mg (8.6%).
Rat (Rattus norvegicus): For tumor-derived alleles, the excerpt states approximate fractions of edited alleles in tumors (e.g., Tp53 ~60%, Nf1 ~80%, Pik3caH1047R ~40%).
Drosophila endogenous tagging platform (HDR-based): ExTaSy overall transgenic success (not HDR efficiency) and tag/excision/swap efficiencies are also reported, but they are not directly expressed as HDR efficiencies in the provided excerpt.
1) Reported precise-editing/HDR-like fractions by species (as extracted)
Skeptical note: The y-axis is labeled βfraction (%)β because the excerpt provides different denominators (zygote HDR vs mosaic vs targeted edit screens). The figure is for directional comparison only, not for claiming a universal species effect.
These rates are explicitly reported for HDR with ssODN donors in Drosophila for Ham/Dpn/Mg targets.
3) Mouse CRISPR-EZ: HDR vs bi-allelic editing (for Tyr)
The excerpt explicitly reports 100% bi-allelic editing and 62.5% HDR for Tyr editing in C57BL/6J.
4) Insect knock-in: G0 HDR mosaic vs G1 inherited HDR
The excerpt explicitly reports 14.3% HDR mosaic in G0 and 13.6% inherited HDR in G1.
5) Rat tumors: approximate % edited alleles (not explicitly framed as HDR efficiency)
The excerpt provides approximate % edited alleles in tumors for Tp53 (~60%), Nf1 (~80%), and Pik3caH1047R (~40%).
Why this matters for your original question: βedited alleles in tumorsβ is not automatically equivalent to βHDR efficiency under saturation editing,β because (i) tumors are multicellular and can include non-edited cells, and (ii) the excerpt doesnβt explicitly define HDR vs NHEJ inside βedited alleles.β
What you can (and canβt) conclude from the provided extracts
Known from provided extracts:
Precise-editing/HDR-like fractions span orders of magnitude across systems: mouse Tyr HDR 62.5% , insect G0 HDR mosaic 14.3% , and Drosophila ssODN targeted HDR rates 2.6β8.6% .
The rat excerpt provides tumor-level edited-allele fractions (~60% Tp53, ~80% Nf1, ~40% Pik3caH1047R), which suggests substantial editing in vivo but does not directly identify HDR efficiency.
Not supported by the provided extracts:
A clean meta-analytic estimate of βHDR efficiency under CRISPR saturation editing,β because the provided excerpts donβt describe saturation editing designs nor provide HDR fractions measured under such conditions.
A fair cross-species βranking,β because the readouts are not harmonized (zygote HDR vs mosaic HDR vs targeted HDR screen vs tumor edited allele fractions). The apparent differences may reflect assay definition, developmental stage, delivery mode, locus biology, and denominator effects.
Directed knowledge graph (conceptual, from the supplied excerpt topics)
Next step: build a true βsaturation HDRβ meta-analysis
To do exactly what your prompt asks, we need studies that (i) explicitly drive editing to a saturation regime (e.g., varying guide/RNP concentrations or occupancy) and (ii) report HDR efficiency with a consistent definition across species. The provided extracts here do not include those saturation-design details.
It organizes the provided per-paper HDR/precise-editing fractions into a harmonized table, then generates Plotly comparisons by species and by readout type (z y gote, G0 mosaic, targeted screen, tumor allele fraction).
Get emailed when your analysis is done!
We'll email you the results when your analysis is finished.
Hypothesis Graveyard
A simple βspecies intrinsic HDR capacityβ ranking explains the data: rejected because denominators/readouts are not harmonized in the provided extracts (zygote HDR vs mosaic vs targeted screens vs tumor allele fractions).
Drosophilaβs lower ssODN-targeted HDR rates directly imply intrinsically lower HDR pathway competence: rejected since delivery architecture, locus context, and screening strategy differ across systems in the provided excerpts.
Science Art
Science Movie
Make a narrated HD Science movie for this answer ($32 per minute)
Explore by Goal
Quick Explanation
Long Explanation
Top Data Sources
Ask a Follow-Up
Key Insight
Analysis 
Hypothesis Graveyard
Discussion