Review History

All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.

Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.

View examples of open peer review.


  • The initial submission of this article was received on February 17th, 2020 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on March 11th, 2020.
  • The first revision was submitted on April 3rd, 2020 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on April 4th, 2020.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· Apr 4, 2020 · Academic Editor


The authors carefully took into account the reviewer's comments. The current version of the article is suitable for publication in PeerJ.

[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Pedro Silva, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Mar 11, 2020 · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

Your paper has been seen by two expert reviewers and overall, they are very supportive of publication and have only minors comments. I would therefore like to invite you to respond to the referees’ comments in a form of a revised version of this manuscript.

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

This manuscript from Liu et al. aims to investigate CRISPR HDR efficiency in the generation of series of point mutations in iPSCs. To achieve this the authors transfected Px459 plasmid with various HDR templates (single stranded DNA, double stranded DNA…) and double selected the mutations via Puromycin and Digoxin selection. Overall the authors found that CRISPR HDR efficiency firstly increases with the use of longer homology arms and double stranded DNA and sequence/gene dependent.

Overall this is a very well crafted manuscript. The manuscript is well written, well structured, well referenced.

I have however noted a few spelling mistakes in the manuscript and the Figure legends. Please proofread again the manuscript

Experimental design

The hypotheses are well stated, the introduction and background shows well the context and the manuscript well structured. The methods section describes well the experiments. The results presented are well ascertained and rigorously interpreted. The methods are well described and in sufficient details.

The only comment I have for the authors is the following:

L125: 40 mm electroporation cuvette seems not correct. Do the authors refer to instead a 4 mm cuvette?

Validity of the findings

This is overall a nice study, well conducted and well performed. the data provided are statistically sound and the conclusions well stated. I do have however one additional minor comments to the authors.

My comment relates to the comparison between different donor templates (L270-290) and Figure 3B. The authors investigated the homology arms length and their types (ssODN, dsDNA…) and found the number of survival colonies increased for a donor plasmid with long homology arms. The length of the homology arms, symmetry and type of donor to improve HDR efficiency has been largely explored since the use of the Zinc Finger nucleases. While the results are sound, my main criticism is this investigation was performed on one locus only. I therefore believe the authors should add a note in the discussion section better outlining the limitations of this finding.


Basic reporting

This is an interesting study to introduce a second “silent selectable mutation” in ATP1a1. This allows to select iPSC cells where HDR editing can occur, on-target editing of the desired site increased by 35 fold.

The article is clear and the supporting data seem valid.

Experimental design

The question is well defined and testable. The methods are appropriate

Validity of the findings

The experiments are sound. It extends the findings of other groups that us ATPa1 mutations as a selection marker.

Additional comments

This is a clever technique, but the disadvantage for disease modeling, since there is a new mutation in ATPa1 could still have some other unknown consequences. For disease modeling most groups want a true isogenic line. Also with improvements in iPSC transfection, and Cas9 RNP the vast majority of edits can be isolated fairly easily.

It would be helpful to the discussion, if the authors could provide specific use-cases for needing this type of selection with ATPa1.

All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.