Controlling morpholino experiments: don't stop making antisense

By J. Eisen, James C. Smith. Development, 2008

693 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Zebrafish as a model to study cardiac development and human cardiac disease (2011, background): “To address whether the observed phenotypes after morpholino injection are due to knock-down of the gene of interest, proper control experiments must be performed.(83) As zebrafish have a partly duplicated genome, it often contains two paralogous genes when the mouse or human genome contains a single”
Reverse genetic screening reveals poor correlation between Morpholino-induced and mutant phenotypes in zebrafish (2014, background): “…community of problematic p53-independent off-target effects and variability due to different preparations of the same MO. Based on these reports, Drs. Judith Eisen and James Smith (Eisen and Smith, 2008) published a list of guidelines for the reliable application of MOs in frog and zebrafish.”
Loss-of-function approaches in comparative physiology: is there a future for knockdown experiments in the era of genome editing? (2019, background): “Guidelines for morpholino use have since been established (Ekker and Larson, 2001; Eisen and Smith, 2008; Bill et al., 2009; Stainier et al., 2017; Xin and Duan, 2018).”