Literature DB >> 23979586

CRISPR/Cas9-targeted mutagenesis in Caenorhabditis elegans.

Selma Waaijers1, Vincent Portegijs, Jana Kerver, Bennie B L G Lemmens, Marcel Tijsterman, Sander van den Heuvel, Mike Boxem.   

Abstract

The generation of genetic mutants in Caenorhabditis elegans has long relied on the selection of mutations in large-scale screens. Directed mutagenesis of specific loci in the genome would greatly speed up analysis of gene function. Here, we adapt the CRISPR/Cas9 system to generate mutations at specific sites in the C. elegans genome.

Entities:  

Keywords:  CRISPR; Caenorhabditis elegans; Cas9; double-strand break; genome engineering

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23979586      PMCID: PMC3813849          DOI: 10.1534/genetics.113.156299

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Genetics        ISSN: 0016-6731            Impact factor:   4.562


CURRENT methods to generate mutations in the genome of Caenorhabditis elegans, including chemical mutagenesis and imprecise excision of transposons, all rely on recovering mutations in large-scale mutagenesis screens. Recently, several groups reported the use of the Streptococcus pyogenes CRISPR/Cas9 system to generate double-strand break (DSB)-induced mutations in specific genomic loci in model systems including yeast (Dicarlo ), flies (Bassett ; Gratz ; Yu ), mammalian cells (Cho ; Mali ), and zebrafish (Hwang ). Because of the enormous potential for targeted genome engineering, we here investigate the suitability of the CRISPR/Cas9 system for use in C. elegans. This article is one of six companion articles in this issue (Chiu ; Cho ; Katic and Grosshans 2013; Lo ; Tzur ) that present different approaches to and features of Cas9-CRISPR genome editing in C. elegans. The S. pyogenes CRISPR/Cas system effects site-specific cleavage of double-stranded DNA through a complex containing the Cas9 endonuclease and two noncoding RNAs (CRISPR RNA or crRNA, and trans-activating crRNA or tracrRNA) (Gasiunas ; Jinek ). Target site specificity is mediated by a 20-nt spacer region in the crRNA that is complementary to the target DNA and a 3-nt motif (NGG) following the target site in the DNA [termed protospacer adjacent motif (PAM)] (Gasiunas ; Jinek ). Thus a wide range of target sites can be chosen. Conveniently, a single synthetic guide RNA (sgRNA) that fuses the 3′ end of crRNA to the 5′end of tracrRNA is sufficient to target Cas9 to a specific site and generate DSBs (Jinek ) (Figure 1A).
Figure 1

Experimental design and germline Cas9 expression. (A) Cas9/sgRNA in complex with a target site. RuvC and HNH endonuclease domains together generate a double-strand break. In the sgRNA sequence, green bases are crRNA derived and red bases tracrRNA derived. (B) Schematic of the Cas9 expression vectors used in this study, placing Cas9 or Cas9::EGFP under control of the eft-3 promoter or the hsp-16.48 heat-shock promoter. Versions lacking EGFP are not shown. (C) Germline expression and nuclear localization of Cas9::EGFP expressed from the hsp-16.48 heat-shock promoter. Shown is a maximum-intensity projection of a Z-stack. Bar, 10 μm. (D) Diagrams and sequences of the U6::sgRNA and T7::sgRNA vectors. Gray background, promoter or downstream regions; orange background, sgRNA sequence downstream of the target recognition sequence; red background, BsaI recognition sites; boxed nucleotides, sequences left as 5′ overhang after BsaI digestion. (E) Example of cloning a target sequence into the U6::sgRNA vector. The 20-bp target site is outlined in blue and the PAM in yellow. The consensus sequences we used for target site selection are also indicated. Detailed materials and methods are available in File S1.

Experimental design and germline Cas9 expression. (A) Cas9/sgRNA in complex with a target site. RuvC and HNH endonuclease domains together generate a double-strand break. In the sgRNA sequence, green bases are crRNA derived and red bases tracrRNA derived. (B) Schematic of the Cas9 expression vectors used in this study, placing Cas9 or Cas9::EGFP under control of the eft-3 promoter or the hsp-16.48 heat-shock promoter. Versions lacking EGFP are not shown. (C) Germline expression and nuclear localization of Cas9::EGFP expressed from the hsp-16.48 heat-shock promoter. Shown is a maximum-intensity projection of a Z-stack. Bar, 10 μm. (D) Diagrams and sequences of the U6::sgRNA and T7::sgRNA vectors. Gray background, promoter or downstream regions; orange background, sgRNA sequence downstream of the target recognition sequence; red background, BsaI recognition sites; boxed nucleotides, sequences left as 5′ overhang after BsaI digestion. (E) Example of cloning a target sequence into the U6::sgRNA vector. The 20-bp target site is outlined in blue and the PAM in yellow. The consensus sequences we used for target site selection are also indicated. Detailed materials and methods are available in File S1. To promote expression of Cas9, we codon optimized the S. pyogenes Cas9 coding sequence for C. elegans, introduced artificial introns, and attached SV40 and nuclear localization signals to the N and C termini, respectively, of the encoded Cas9 protein (Figure 1B). To express Cas9 in the germline, we placed the Cas9 coding sequence under control of the or promoters and the 3′-UTR, each of which has been shown to be compatible with germline expression (Bessereau ; Merritt ; Frøkjær-Jensen ). To visualize expression of Cas9, we also generated Cas9::EGFP fusion vectors. We did not detect EGFP expression after injection of Peft-3::Cas9::EGFP (>20 animals examined). Injection of Phsp-16.48::Cas9::EGFP did result in visible EGFP expression, 5 hr after heat-shock induction for 1 hr at 34°. Expression did vary between experiments: one series of injections resulted in high expression in 5/5 animals examined (Figure 1C), while a second series of injections showed only weak expression in 1/12 animals examined. Because even low expression levels may provide sufficient enzymatic activity, in further experiments we tested both Peft-3- and Phsp-16.48-containing constructs for activity. To provide the sgRNA, we tested two different approaches. First, we generated a vector containing a T7 promoter upstream of the sgRNA sequence for in vitro transcription of the sgRNA. Second, we generated a vector expressing the sgRNA under control of the regulatory sequences of an RNA polymerase III transcribed U6 snRNA on chromosome III, to enable in vivo transcription (Thomas ). Both vectors contain BsaI restriction sites for simple insertion of the target recognition sequence as an oligomer linker (Figure 1, D and E). As a first test of functional activity, we generated a reporter construct carrying an out-of-frame copy of EGFP and lacZ downstream of the promoter. Imprecise repair of a DSB in a linker region between the first ATG and EGFP can result in a frameshift, leading to EGFP expression. We co-injected the reporter (15 ng/µl) with Peft-3::Cas9 or Phsp-16.48::Cas9 (50 ng/µl), a U6-driven sgRNA targeting the linker region (50 ng/µl), and a Pmyo-3::mCherry co-injection marker (5 ng/µl). We also tested injection of lower Cas9/sgRNA concentrations (20 ng/µl both) together with PstI-digested λ DNA (20 ng/µl), to promote generation of more complex extrachromosomal arrays. Per condition we injected 10 animals, and Phsp expression was induced by a 1-hr heat shock at 34° after the injection. None of the injections with Peft-3::Cas9 yielded viable transgenic F1’s. Instead, we observed mCherry-expressing dead embryos, indicating a deleterious effect of this construct. A series of test injections showed that the embryonic lethality is concentration dependent, ranging from 30% at 1 ng/µl to 100% at 20 ng/µl (see Supporting Information, Table S1). In contrast, 89% of the transgenic lines obtained from the injections with Phsp-16.48::Cas9 expressed EGFP in the pharynx, indicating the presence of an extrachromosomal array with at least one frame-shifted copy of the reporter (Table 1). The injection of a lower concentration Phsp::Cas9 diluted with λ DNA resulted in a higher number of transgenic offspring, although the fraction expressing EGFP was similar (90% and 84%, respectively, Table 1). Control injections lacking the sgRNA did not show EGFP expression, demonstrating specific Cas9/sgRNA activity (50 transgenic F1’s examined).
Table 1

Number of transgenic and EGFP-expressing F1 animals obtained using Cas9/sgRNA directed against an EGFP frameshift reporter

Results
sgRNA concentrationaPhsp-16.48::Cas9 concentrationaNo. P0 injectedTransgenic F1F1 expressing EGFP
202010126114 (90%)
5050103227 (84%)

All concentrations are in nanograms per microliter. Injections with 20 ng/µl Cas9/sgRNA are supplemented with 20 ng/µl of PstI-digested λ DNA. All injections include 5 ng/µl of the Pmyo-3::mCherry marker to identify transgenic animals and 15 ng/µl of the out-of-frame EGFP reporter.

All concentrations are in nanograms per microliter. Injections with 20 ng/µl Cas9/sgRNA are supplemented with 20 ng/µl of PstI-digested λ DNA. All injections include 5 ng/µl of the Pmyo-3::mCherry marker to identify transgenic animals and 15 ng/µl of the out-of-frame EGFP reporter. We also examined 18 stable transgenic lines obtained from EGFP-expressing F1 animals. Of these, 15 expressed EGFP in most (>90%) of the F2 transgenic animals. The small fraction of EGFP-negative transgenics could be due to mosaic inheritance of the extrachromosomal reporter array. Since Cas9 expression is induced by heat shock only in the injected P0 animals, these findings may indicate that DSBs were generated in the germline of the P0. Taken together, Cas9/sgRNA appears to efficiently generate DSBs in our plasmid-based reporter. We next wanted to determine whether Cas9/sgRNA can be used to generate heritable mutations at a specific genomic locus in C. elegans. For this purpose, we generated sgRNA constructs targeting the coding sequence near the known mutation. We injected Phsp::Cas9 together with either in vitro transcribed sgRNA or the U6::sgRNA plasmid, as well as the Pmyo-3::mCherry co-injection marker (Table 2). For each combination we injected 20 P0 animals, selected individual F1 animals expressing mCherry, and examined their F2 progeny for the presence of Lin-5 offspring. Animals injected with in vitro-produced sgRNA failed to produce mutants (Table 2). In contrast, injections with U6::sgRNA yielded a total of 10 F1 animals that produced approximately one-quarter Lin-5 offspring (Table 2). We confirmed the presence of mutations at the locus by sequence analysis, identifying several deletions and a 7-bp insertion (Figure 2). For each F1 line we sequenced two mutant F2 animals independently, and in each case both animals harbored exactly the same mutation, strongly suggesting that the mutations were inherited from the parent and were not generated de novo by somatic events. Two mutations could not be resolved: Sanger sequencing traces from both sides degrade into double peaks at the sgRNA target site. This can result from the presence of a repeated sequence, and we speculate that DSB repair resulted in the duplication of a short DNA sequence. Injections with the lower concentration of Cas9 and sgRNA expression plasmids coupled with λ DNA yielded higher numbers of transgenic F1 animals, but ultimately produced the same number of mutants (Table 2).
Table 2

Number of transgenic F1 and mutant F2 progeny produced using Cas9/sgRNA directed against genomic loci

sgRNATransgenic F1
Method/targetConcentrationaPhsp-16.48::Cas9 concentrationaNo. P0 injectedNo. selectedWith mutant progeny
U6 × lin-5202020925
U6 × lin-5505020245
T7 × lin-5105020290
T7 × lin-515050201240
U6 × rol-12020401441
U6 × rol-15050201402
U6 × dpy-11505020202
U6 × unc-119505020412

All concentrations are in nanograms per microliter. Injections with 20 ng/µl Cas9/sgRNA are supplemented with 35 ng/µl of PstI-digested λ DNA. All injections include 5 ng/µl of the Pmyo-3::mCherry marker to identify transgenic animals.

Figure 2

Genomic mutations generated by Cas9/sgRNA. Mutations are shown relative to the wild-type sequences. Three mutations could not be resolved by sequencing and may correspond to insertion of a repeated sequence. Blue indicates sgRNA target site, and yellow is the PAM motif.

All concentrations are in nanograms per microliter. Injections with 20 ng/µl Cas9/sgRNA are supplemented with 35 ng/µl of PstI-digested λ DNA. All injections include 5 ng/µl of the Pmyo-3::mCherry marker to identify transgenic animals. Genomic mutations generated by Cas9/sgRNA. Mutations are shown relative to the wild-type sequences. Three mutations could not be resolved by sequencing and may correspond to insertion of a repeated sequence. Blue indicates sgRNA target site, and yellow is the PAM motif. Finally, we targeted three additional loci—, , and —using Phsp-16.48::Cas9 and U6::sgRNA (Table 2). As for , we selected transgenic F1 animals and looked for the presence of visible mutants in the F2 generation. For and , we identified two transgenic F1’s each that segregated approximately one-quarter mutant progeny, from a total of 20 and 41 transgenic F1 animals selected, respectively (Table 2). Homozygous mutations in or were readily identified in all cases (Figure 2). For , from 284 transgenic F1’s, we observed three plates with only a single Rol F2 animal. Sequencing of these mutants did confirm the presence of mutations at the target site (Figure 2). It appears therefore that the phenotypes generated by our sgRNA are only partially penetrant. Together, these results confirm the ability of our approach to generate mutations at specific loci in the genome. Here, we adapted the CRISPR/Cas9 system for use in C. elegans and demonstrate its ability to efficiently generate genomic mutations. For , , and , we obtained on average one mutant from every 5 or 6 P0 animals injected. For , the frequency was much lower (three mutants of 60 P0 injections), but the partial penetrance of the phenotype likely caused us to miss several mutations. The approach is not only efficient but also fast: cloning, mutant isolation, and sequencing of mutations can be completed in 10 days. A recently published CRISPR/Cas9 method for C. elegans uses Peft-3 to drive Cas9 expression (Friedland ). However, we found that expression of Cas9 from the promoter causes embryonic lethality. This contrasting result may be due to differences in the exact Cas9 protein produced. While the reason for the observed lethality is unclear, use of the heat-shock promoter to provide a pulse of expression only in the injected animal circumvents this problem. Five companion articles (Chiu ; Cho ; Katic and Grosshans 2013; Lo ; Tzur ) also report the successful application of CRISPR/Cas9 in C. elegans. These groups use various approaches to provide Cas9 and sgRNA, including injection of Cas9 RNA or protein and in vitro-produced sgRNA. Thus, although in our case heat-shock-induced Cas9 coupled with U6-driven sgRNA proved most efficient, it appears that the methodology to provide these two components can be highly flexible. In addition to generating mutants, the DSBs produced by Cas9/sgRNA enable several other applications of genome engineering, including insertion of exogenous DNA through homologous recombination (Katic and Grosshans 2013; Tzur ), and are likely to become an important tool for C. elegans researchers.
  19 in total

1.  Cas9-crRNA ribonucleoprotein complex mediates specific DNA cleavage for adaptive immunity in bacteria.

Authors:  Giedrius Gasiunas; Rodolphe Barrangou; Philippe Horvath; Virginijus Siksnys
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2012-09-04       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Targeted genome engineering in human cells with the Cas9 RNA-guided endonuclease.

Authors:  Seung Woo Cho; Sojung Kim; Jong Min Kim; Jin-Soo Kim
Journal:  Nat Biotechnol       Date:  2013-01-29       Impact factor: 54.908

3.  Mobilization of a Drosophila transposon in the Caenorhabditis elegans germ line.

Authors:  J L Bessereau; A Wright; D C Williams; K Schuske; M W Davis; E M Jorgensen
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2001-09-06       Impact factor: 49.962

4.  A programmable dual-RNA-guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity.

Authors:  Martin Jinek; Krzysztof Chylinski; Ines Fonfara; Michael Hauer; Jennifer A Doudna; Emmanuelle Charpentier
Journal:  Science       Date:  2012-06-28       Impact factor: 47.728

5.  3' UTRs are the primary regulators of gene expression in the C. elegans germline.

Authors:  Christopher Merritt; Dominique Rasoloson; Darae Ko; Geraldine Seydoux
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2008-09-25       Impact factor: 10.834

6.  The spliceosomal snRNAs of Caenorhabditis elegans.

Authors:  J Thomas; K Lea; E Zucker-Aprison; T Blumenthal
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  1990-05-11       Impact factor: 16.971

7.  RNA-guided human genome engineering via Cas9.

Authors:  Prashant Mali; Luhan Yang; Kevin M Esvelt; John Aach; Marc Guell; James E DiCarlo; Julie E Norville; George M Church
Journal:  Science       Date:  2013-01-03       Impact factor: 47.728

8.  Improved Mos1-mediated transgenesis in C. elegans.

Authors:  Christian Frøkjær-Jensen; M Wayne Davis; Michael Ailion; Erik M Jorgensen
Journal:  Nat Methods       Date:  2012-01-30       Impact factor: 28.547

9.  Genome engineering in Saccharomyces cerevisiae using CRISPR-Cas systems.

Authors:  James E DiCarlo; Julie E Norville; Prashant Mali; Xavier Rios; John Aach; George M Church
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2013-03-04       Impact factor: 16.971

10.  Efficient genome editing in zebrafish using a CRISPR-Cas system.

Authors:  Woong Y Hwang; Yanfang Fu; Deepak Reyon; Morgan L Maeder; Shengdar Q Tsai; Jeffry D Sander; Randall T Peterson; J-R Joanna Yeh; J Keith Joung
Journal:  Nat Biotechnol       Date:  2013-01-29       Impact factor: 54.908

View more
  78 in total

1.  Targeted Chromosomal Translocations and Essential Gene Knockout Using CRISPR/Cas9 Technology in Caenorhabditis elegans.

Authors:  Xiangyang Chen; Mu Li; Xuezhu Feng; Shouhong Guang
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2015-10-19       Impact factor: 4.562

Review 2.  Cas9-based tools for targeted genome editing and transcriptional control.

Authors:  Tao Xu; Yongchao Li; Joy D Van Nostrand; Zhili He; Jizhong Zhou
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2014-01-03       Impact factor: 4.792

3.  Transgene-free genome editing in Caenorhabditis elegans using CRISPR-Cas.

Authors:  Hui Chiu; Hillel T Schwartz; Igor Antoshechkin; Paul W Sternberg
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2013-08-26       Impact factor: 4.562

4.  RNA-guided nucleases: a new era for engineering the genomes of model and nonmodel organisms.

Authors:  Kent G Golic
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 4.562

Review 5.  Exciting prospects for precise engineering of Caenorhabditis elegans genomes with CRISPR/Cas9.

Authors:  Christian Frøkjær-Jensen
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 4.562

6.  Streamlined Genome Engineering with a Self-Excising Drug Selection Cassette.

Authors:  Daniel J Dickinson; Ariel M Pani; Jennifer K Heppert; Christopher D Higgins; Bob Goldstein
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2015-06-03       Impact factor: 4.562

7.  Generation of genomic deletions in mammalian cell lines via CRISPR/Cas9.

Authors:  Daniel E Bauer; Matthew C Canver; Stuart H Orkin
Journal:  J Vis Exp       Date:  2015-01-03       Impact factor: 1.355

8.  Dramatic enhancement of genome editing by CRISPR/Cas9 through improved guide RNA design.

Authors:  Behnom Farboud; Barbara J Meyer
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2015-02-18       Impact factor: 4.562

Review 9.  CRISPR-Cas systems for editing, regulating and targeting genomes.

Authors:  Jeffry D Sander; J Keith Joung
Journal:  Nat Biotechnol       Date:  2014-03-02       Impact factor: 54.908

Review 10.  CRISPR-based technologies: prokaryotic defense weapons repurposed.

Authors:  Rebecca M Terns; Michael P Terns
Journal:  Trends Genet       Date:  2014-02-18       Impact factor: 11.639

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.