| Literature DB >> 26089199 |
Rong-Fang Xu1, Hao Li1, Rui-Ying Qin1, Juan Li1, Chun-Hong Qiu1, Ya-Chun Yang1, Hui Ma1, Li Li1, Peng-Cheng Wei1, Jian-Bo Yang1.
Abstract
The CRISPR/Cas9 system is becoming an important genome editing tool for crop breeding. Although it has been demonstrated that target mutations can be transmitted to the next generation, their inheritance pattern has not yet been fully elucidated. Here, we describe the CRISPR/Cas9-mediated genome editing of four different rice genes with the help of online target-design tools. High-frequency mutagenesis and a large percentage of putative biallelic mutations were observed in T0 generations. Nonetheless, our results also indicate that the progeny genotypes of biallelic T0 lines are frequently difficult to predict and that the transmission of mutations largely does not conform to classical genetic laws, which suggests that the mutations in T0 transgenic rice are mainly somatic mutations. Next, we followed the inheritance pattern of T1 plants. Regardless of the presence of the CRISPR/Cas9 transgene, the mutations in T1 lines were stably transmitted to later generations, indicating a standard germline transmission pattern. Off-target effects were also evaluated, and our results indicate that with careful target selection, off-target mutations are rare in CRISPR/Cas9-mediated rice gene editing. Taken together, our results indicate the promising production of inheritable and "transgene clean" targeted genome-modified rice in the T1 generation using the CRISPR/Cas9 system.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26089199 PMCID: PMC5155577 DOI: 10.1038/srep11491
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Identification of CRISPR/Cas9-induced target mutations in T0 generations.
| Target Gene | Line# | Genotype | Zygosity | Copy Number |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 4d2d5,5d11a | Com-He | 2 | |
| 2 | 7d44,3d29 | Com-He | 1 | |
| 3 | 8d11b | Ho | 1 | |
| 4 | 2d3,5d6 | Com-He | 1 | |
| 5 | 9WT | WT | 1 | |
| 6 | WT | WT | 2 | |
| 7 | WT | WT | 1 | |
| 8 | WT | WT | ≥3 | |
| 1 | 9d2,3d4 | Com-He | 1 | |
| 2 | 4d3,4d69 | Com-He | 2 | |
| 3 | 6d1,1d31 | Com-He | 1 | |
| 4 | 9d1,2d4 | Com-He | 1 | |
| 5 | WT | WT | 1 | |
| 6 | WT | WT | 2 | |
| 7 | WT | WT | 1 | |
| 1 | 8d2 | Ho | 1 | |
| 2 | 4d2 | Ho | ≥3 | |
| 3 | 7i1a | Ho | 1 | |
| 4 | 9i1b | Ho | 2 | |
| 5 | 5s1,4WT | He | 2 | |
| 6 | 8i1c,3WT | He | 1 | |
| 7 | 6d10,5WT | He | 1 | |
| 8 | 7i1b,3s1 | Com-He | 1 | |
| 9 | 5d5,3d3 | Com-He | 1 | |
| 10 | WT | WT | 2 | |
| 11 | 6WT | WT | 1 | |
| 12 | WT | WT | ≥3 | |
| 1 | 10d12 | Ho | ≥3 | |
| 2 | 11d4 | Ho | 2 | |
| 3 | 9d1 | Ho | 1 | |
| 4 | 12d1 | Ho | 1 | |
| 5 | 5d1,5WT | He | 2 | |
| 6 | 4d6,3WT | He | 2 | |
| 7 | 6d4,6WT | He | 1 | |
| 8 | 2d1,2d2,2d3a,4WT | Ch | 2 | |
| 9 | 3d1,5d2,3WT | Ch | 1 | |
| 10 | 7d1,3i1 | Com-He | 2 | |
| 11 | 8d1,2d4 | Com-He | 2 | |
| 12 | 5d1,5d8 | Com-He | 1 | |
| 13 | WT | WT | 1 | |
| 14 | WT | WT | 1 |
*WT, wild-type sequence with no mutation detected; d#, # of bp deleted from the target site; d#a, the same number of deletions at one site; d#b, the same number of deletions at other sites; s#, # of bp substituted from the target site. i#, # of bp inserted at the target site; i#a, the same number of insertions at one site; i#b, the same number of insertions at other sites; i#c, the same number of insertions at the third site.
#The zygosity of homozygote (Ho), compound heterozygote (Com-He), heterozygote (He) and chimera (Ch) in T0 plants is putative.
Segregation patterns of CRISPR/Cas9-transgenic plants during the T0 to T1 generation.
| Line | T0 | T1Segregation ratio | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Genotype | Zygosity | Targeted mutation | T-DNA | |
| d2d5,d11a | Com-He | 24d11ad11a | 23+:1− | |
| d44,d29 | Com-He | 17d44d44 | 13+:4− | |
| d11bd11b | Ho | 20d11bd11b:3He:1d8d11b | 20+:4− | |
| d3,d6 | Com-He | 8d6d6: 3d3d6:13He | 15+:9− | |
| WT | WT | 24WT | 18+:6− | |
| d2,d4 | Com-He | 13d2d2:7d2d4:4d4d4 | 17+:7− | |
| d3,d69 | Com-He | 19d69d69 | 16+:3− | |
| d1,d31 | Com-He | 24d31d31 | 19+:5− | |
| d1,d4 | Com-He | 2d1d1: 6d1d4:3d4d4 | 8+:3− | |
| WT | WT | 16WT | 10+:6− | |
| WT | WT | 18WT | 18+ | |
| d2d2 | Ho | 5d1d1:3d2d2:14d1d2 | 16+:6− | |
| i1ai1a | Ho | 6i1ai1a:4He | 7+:3− | |
| i1bi1b | Ho | 2i1ai1a:3i1bi1b:1i1ci1c:4He:7WT | 16+:1− | |
| i1c,WT | He | 6i1ci1c:3i1bi1c:5He#1:2He#2:3WT | 13+:6− | |
| d10,WT | He | 2d10d10:1d10d52:3He#1:3He#2:5WT | 9+:5− | |
| d5,1d3 | Com-He | 1d5d5:5ch:10He:2WT | 15+:3− | |
| WT | WT | 19WT | 19+ | |
| d12d12 | Ho | 12d12d12 | 12+ | |
| d4d4 | Ho | 5d4d4:4d4d1:2d4d25:6He | 13+:4− | |
| d1d1 | Ho | 16d1d1 | 15+:1− | |
| d6,WT | He | 5d6d6:3He:16WT | 20+:4− | |
| d4,WT | He | 7d4d4:2d4d3b:5d1d1:4He:1Ch | 14+:5− | |
| d1,d2,d3a,WT | Ch | 2d1d1:5d1s1d1s1:1Ch | 7+:1− | |
*The zygosity of homozygote (Ho), compound heterozygote (Com-He), heterozygote (He) and chimera (Ch) in T0 plants is putative.
#The genotypes in the T1 generation were as follows: OsAOX1a#3 He (d11b, WT); OsAOX1a#4 He (d3, WT); OsAOX1c#3 He (i1a, WT); OsAOX1c#4 He (i1b, WT); OsAOX1c#6 He#1 (i1c, WT); OsAOX1c#6 He#2 (i1b, WT); OsAOX1c#7 He#1 (d10, WT); OsAOX1c#7 He#2 (d52, WT); OsAOX1c#9 He (d5, WT); OsAOX1c#9 Ch (d2, d3, d5); OsBEL#2 He (d4, WT); OsBEL#6 He (d6, WT); OsBEL#7 He (d1, WT); OsBEL#7 Ch (d1, d3b, d20); OsBEL#8 Ch (d1, d4, d45, WT).
$+, The number of T-DNA regions that were detected; -, the number of T-DNA regions that were not detected.
Segregation patterns of CRISPR/Cas9 modifications during the T1 to T2 generation in the absence of the transgene region.
| Line | T1 | T2 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Genotype | Zygosity | T-DNA | Segregation ratio | T-DNA | ||
| d11ad11a | Ho | — | 24d11ad11a | 24— | ||
| d44d44 | Ho | — | 21d44d44 | 21— | ||
| d44d44 | Ho | — | 24d44d44 | 24— | ||
| d11bd11b | Ho | — | 18d11bd11b | 18— | ||
| d4d4 | Ho | — | 20d4d4 | 20— | ||
| d69d69 | Ho | — | 22d69d69 | 22— | ||
| d31d31 | Ho | — | 24d31d31 | 24— | ||
| d1d1 | Ho | — | 20d1d1 | 20— | ||
| d8,d11b | Com-He | — | 5d8d8:13d8d11b:4d11bd11b | 22— | ||
| d3,d6 | Com-He | — | 7d3d3:11d3d6:6d6d6 | 24— | ||
| d1,d4 | Com-He | — | 3d1d1:8d1d4:6d4d4 | 17— | ||
| d3,WT | He | — | 5d3d3:11He:7WT | 23— | ||
*The genotype of the
OsAOX1a#4-12 He plant in the T2 generation was (d3, WT).
Segregation patterns of CRISPR/Cas9 modifications during the T1 to T2 generation in the presence of the transgene region.
| Line | T1 | T2 Segregation ratio | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Genotype | Zygosity | T-DNA | ||
| d11ad11a | Ho | + | 12d11ad11a | |
| d6d6 | Ho | + | 12d6d6 | |
| d69d69 | Ho | + | 10d69d69 | |
| d1d1 | Ho | + | 12d1d1 | |
| d3d6 | Com-He | + | 2d3d3:5d3d6:3d6d6 | |
| d1d4 | Com-He | + | 1d1d1:8d1d4:3d4d4 | |
| d11b,WT | He | + | 2d11bd11b:7He:3WT | |
| d3,WT | He | + | 1d3d3:5He:1Ch:2WT | |
| d3,WT | He | + | 3d3d3:4He:4WT | |
| d3,WT | He | + | 5d3d3:3He:2WT | |
*The genotypes in the T2 generation were as follows: OsAOX1a#3–14 He (d11b, WT); OsAOX1a#4–1 He (d3, WT); OsAOX1a#4–1 Ch (d3, d5, WT); OsAOX1a#4–2 He (d3, WT); OsAOX1a#4–18 He (d3, WT).
Detection of mutations on the putative off-target sites.
| Target | Name of putative off-target site | Putative off-target locus | Sequence of the putative off-target site | No. of mismatching bases | No. of plants with mutations | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OFF1 | Chr6:8886912-8886890 | GAGTCGTGGTCAACAGCTAGGGG | 4 | 50 | 0 | |
| OFF2 | Chr6:13427405-13427383 | AGGTGGTGGCCACCAGCTCCTGG | 3 | 50 | 0 | |
| OFF3 | Chr8:22659044-22659066 | CAGCGAGGTGAGCTCGCGAAAGG | 3 | 49 | 0 | |
| OFF4 | Chr11:6535738-6535715 | CTCAGCGATGAGCTCCTGAAGGG | 4 | 49 | 0 | |
| OFF5 | Chr10:20144706-20144728 | GGAGGAGGCGGCCGCGTCCTCGG | 2 | 60 | 0 | |
| OFF6 | Chr2:15363651-15363629 | GGCGGAGGCGGCCGCGTCCTGGG | 3 | 60 | 0 | |
| OFF7 | Chr3:31436831-31436853 | GCGAGGTGCGCGCCATGGTGCGG | 1 | 89 | 2 | |
| OFF8 | Chr4:23949393-23949415 | GAGAGGTGGGCGCCATGGTGGGG | 3 | 89 | 0 |
The PAM motif (NGG) is marked by a box; mismatching bases are shown in red.
*For targets of OsAOX1a, OsAOX1b and OsAOX1c, all of the T0 plants, all of the T-DNA-negative T1 plants generated from mutated T0 lines, and 24 randomly selected lines of T-DNA-positive T1 plants with on-target mutation were used. For OsBEL targets, all of the T0 plants, all of the T-DNA-negative T1 plants generated from mutated T0 lines, and 60 randomly selected lines of T-DNA-positive T1 plants with on-target mutation were used.
Figure 1Production of rice plants with inheritable desired mutations.
A, Schematic of the procedure for the generation and analysis of targeted mutated plants. The target site was selected using CRISPR-P or CRISPR-Plant tools and inserted into a binary vector to express sgRNA and Cas9. T0 plants were regenerated by Agrobacterium-mediated transformation, and later generations were produced by strict self-pollination. In each generation, the targeted mutations were examined by site-specific PCR and sequential sequencing. B, The overview of the major inheritance patterns of transgene-positive T1 plants. A circle indicates that the plant carries the transgene in the genome. Green indicates the targeted regions. Yellow and red indicate different mutations on the target site. The indicated zygosity of homozygote (Ho), compound heterozygote (Com-He) and heterozygote (He) is putative.