Literature DB >> 26056569

Flowing through the CRISPR-CAScade: Will genome editing boost cell therapies?

Uri Ben-David1.   

Abstract

Recent years have seen great advancements in genome editing technologies, allowing for efficient and specific targeting of DNA sequences into the genome. In parallel, advancements in stem cell research, and especially the ability to induce pluripotency in somatic cells, have brought stem cell-derived therapies closer to the clinic. In this commentary, I envision how groundbreaking genome editing technologies will influence stem cell biology research, paving the way to regenerative medicine with genetically engineered cells.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cell therapy; Genome editing; Stem cells

Year:  2013        PMID: 26056569      PMCID: PMC4448953          DOI: 10.1186/2052-8426-1-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mol Cell Ther        ISSN: 2052-8426


Background

The ability to edit the genome of human stem cells in an efficient and site-specific manner is essential for the development of stem cell-based gene therapies. The rapid advancements in genome engineering technologies have thus arose much interest in the cell therapy field [1, 2]. Zinc-finger nucleases (ZFNs) [3] and transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALENs) [4] fuse a DNA-binding domain to a DNA cleavage domain to create double strand breaks (DSBs) in specific genomic sequences. Both methods have been successfully applied to genome engineering in human pluripotent stem cells (hPSCs) [5, 6]. However, despite their seminal contribution to the genomic editing of human cells, the application of these methods remains relatively laborious and time consuming, as they require the engineering of specific restriction enzymes for each desired target.

Discussion

Recently, a flow of studies has reported successful genome editing of mammalian cells using the CRISPR-Cas system [7-10]. The clustered, regularly interspaced, short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) system is a component of an immunity system of prokaryotes, both bacteria and archaea. The CRISPR-associated (Cas) endonuclease is directed by small RNAs to cleave foreign sequences of nucleic acids that penetrate the prokaryotic cell (reviewed in [11, 12]). Multiple groups have now shown that the CRISPR-Cas system can be manipulated to direct cleavage of desired target sequences in mammalian cells [7–10, 13, 14]. Applying this genome editing tool, mutations could be induced into specific genes following DSB induction and non-homologous end joining; most importantly, donor sequences could also be introduced by homologous recombination, demonstrating the practicability of this method for gene correction. Detailed explanations and illustrations of the CRISPR-Cas technology can be found in [7, 8]. In contrast to ZFNs and TALENs, CRISPR-Cas based targeting requires only the design of a new RNA guide sequence and not of new enzymes, making it much easier and cheaper. In addition, the CRISPR-Cas method is remarkably efficient, and several groups have already applied it successfully to mouse and human pluripotent stem cells [9, 13, 14]. Despite the understandable excitement, however, caution is warranted; as with any new technology, there are remaining challenges that have to be addressed before CRISPR-Cas becomes the gold standard of genome editing. One concern is the potentially high frequency of off-target mutagenesis induced by the CRISPR-Cas system in human cells [15, 16]. Another constraint is that the 20-bp target sequence must be followed by a protospacer adjacent motif (PAM), which might be a barrier for mutation correction at a specific genomic location [7, 8, 16]. Therefore, CRISPR should not be regarded as a revolutionizing technology that turns all previous methods obsolete; rather, it is an important promising step in the extraordinarily rapid evolution of genome editing techniques.

Conclusions

The cascade of already-published studies prompted by the original reports (just a few months ago!) of CRISPR-Cas based genome editing in mammalian cells, suggests that genome editing will soon become a routine procedure in many stem cell laboratories. An especially promising outcome of that would be the much-desirable possibility to perform genome editing with stem cells. Stem cell scientists will now be able to easily manipulate stem cells' genomes, inserting or correcting multiple genetic mutations, and then differentiate these stem cells into relevant cell types. Future studies will most likely attempt to integrate this novel technology into modeling various genetic disorders, and to examine its safety in preclinical and clinical trials. On top of novel insights into genetic diseases, which this approach is predicted to yield, it will also bring us one step closer to one of the most ambitious goals of regenerative medicine: combined gene- and cell-therapies, i.e. regenerative medicine with genetically-modified cells (see Figure 1).
Figure 1

Advancements in genome editing facilitate stem cell-based gene therapies. In a probable scenario, human somatic cells (such as fibroblasts) will be derived from a patient and will be reprogrammed into induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells. Genetic mutations will then be corrected using one of the recent techniques for efficient and accurate genome editing: ZFN, TALEN or CRISPR. The genetically-modified iPS cells will next be differentiated into the desired cell type (for example, cardiomyocytes) and transplanted back into the patient's body.

Advancements in genome editing facilitate stem cell-based gene therapies. In a probable scenario, human somatic cells (such as fibroblasts) will be derived from a patient and will be reprogrammed into induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells. Genetic mutations will then be corrected using one of the recent techniques for efficient and accurate genome editing: ZFN, TALEN or CRISPR. The genetically-modified iPS cells will next be differentiated into the desired cell type (for example, cardiomyocytes) and transplanted back into the patient's body.
  16 in total

Review 1.  RNA-guided genetic silencing systems in bacteria and archaea.

Authors:  Blake Wiedenheft; Samuel H Sternberg; Jennifer A Doudna
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2012-02-15       Impact factor: 49.962

Review 2.  Genome editing with engineered zinc finger nucleases.

Authors:  Fyodor D Urnov; Edward J Rebar; Michael C Holmes; H Steve Zhang; Philip D Gregory
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 53.242

3.  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

4.  A TALE nuclease architecture for efficient genome editing.

Authors:  Jeffrey C Miller; Siyuan Tan; Guijuan Qiao; Kyle A Barlow; Jianbin Wang; Danny F Xia; Xiangdong Meng; David E Paschon; Elo Leung; Sarah J Hinkley; Gladys P Dulay; Kevin L Hua; Irina Ankoudinova; Gregory J Cost; Fyodor D Urnov; H Steve Zhang; Michael C Holmes; Lei Zhang; Philip D Gregory; Edward J Rebar
Journal:  Nat Biotechnol       Date:  2010-12-22       Impact factor: 54.908

Review 5.  Concise review: Human cell engineering: cellular reprogramming and genome editing.

Authors:  Prashant Mali; Linzhao Cheng
Journal:  Stem Cells       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 6.277

6.  Enhanced efficiency of human pluripotent stem cell genome editing through replacing TALENs with CRISPRs.

Authors:  Qiurong Ding; Stephanie N Regan; Yulei Xia; Leoníe A Oostrom; Chad A Cowan; Kiran Musunuru
Journal:  Cell Stem Cell       Date:  2013-04-04       Impact factor: 24.633

7.  One-step generation of mice carrying mutations in multiple genes by CRISPR/Cas-mediated genome engineering.

Authors:  Haoyi Wang; Hui Yang; Chikdu S Shivalila; Meelad M Dawlaty; Albert W Cheng; Feng Zhang; Rudolf Jaenisch
Journal:  Cell       Date:  2013-05-02       Impact factor: 41.582

8.  Efficient genome engineering in human pluripotent stem cells using Cas9 from Neisseria meningitidis.

Authors:  Zhonggang Hou; Yan Zhang; Nicholas E Propson; Sara E Howden; Li-Fang Chu; Erik J Sontheimer; James A Thomson
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2013-08-12       Impact factor: 11.205

9.  Genetic engineering of human pluripotent cells using TALE nucleases.

Authors:  Dirk Hockemeyer; Haoyi Wang; Samira Kiani; Christine S Lai; Qing Gao; John P Cassady; Gregory J Cost; Lei Zhang; Yolanda Santiago; Jeffrey C Miller; Bryan Zeitler; Jennifer M Cherone; Xiangdong Meng; Sarah J Hinkley; Edward J Rebar; Philip D Gregory; Fyodor D Urnov; Rudolf Jaenisch
Journal:  Nat Biotechnol       Date:  2011-07-07       Impact factor: 54.908

10.  CAS9 transcriptional activators for target specificity screening and paired nickases for cooperative genome engineering.

Authors:  Prashant Mali; John Aach; P Benjamin Stranges; Kevin M Esvelt; Mark Moosburner; Sriram Kosuri; Luhan Yang; George M Church
Journal:  Nat Biotechnol       Date:  2013-08-01       Impact factor: 54.908

View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  Is Malaysia Ready for Human Gene Editing: A Regulatory, Biosafety and Biosecurity Perspective.

Authors:  V Kalidasan; Kumitaa Theva Das
Journal:  Front Bioeng Biotechnol       Date:  2021-03-11

2.  Differences in the expression of chromosome 1 genes between lung telocytes and other cells: mesenchymal stem cells, fibroblasts, alveolar type II cells, airway epithelial cells and lymphocytes.

Authors:  Xiaoru Sun; Minghuan Zheng; Miaomiao Zhang; Mengjia Qian; Yonghua Zheng; Meiyi Li; Dragos Cretoiu; Chengshui Chen; Luonan Chen; Laurentiu M Popescu; Xiangdong Wang
Journal:  J Cell Mol Med       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 5.310

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.