Literature DB >> 27610605

Efficient production of biallelic GGTA1 knockout pigs by cytoplasmic microinjection of CRISPR/Cas9 into zygotes.

Bjoern Petersen1, Antje Frenzel2, Andrea Lucas-Hahn2, Doris Herrmann2, Petra Hassel2, Sabine Klein2, Maren Ziegler2, Klaus-Gerd Hadeler2, Heiner Niemann3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Xenotransplantation is considered to be a promising solution to the growing demand for suitable donor organs for transplantation. Despite tremendous progress in the generation of pigs with multiple genetic modifications thought to be necessary to overcoming the severe rejection responses after pig-to-non-human primate xenotransplantation, the production of knockout pigs by somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) is still an inefficient process. Producing genetically modified pigs by intracytoplasmic microinjection of porcine zygotes is an alluring alternative. The porcine GGTA1 gene encodes for the α1,3-galactosyltransferase that synthesizes the Gal epitopes on porcine cells which constitute the major antigen in a xenotransplantation setting. GGTA1-KO pigs have successfully been produced by transfecting somatic cells with zinc-finger nucleases (ZFNs), transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALENs), or CRISPR/Cas targeting GGTA1, followed by SCNT.
METHODS: Here, we microinjected a CRISPR/Cas9 vector coding for a single-guide RNA (sgRNA) targeting exon 8 of the GGTA1 gene into the cytoplasm of 97 in vivo-derived porcine zygotes and transferred 86 of the microinjected embryos into three hormonally synchronized recipients. Fetuses and piglets were analyzed by flow cytometry for remaining Gal epitopes. DNA was sequenced to detect mutations at the GGTA1 locus.
RESULTS: Two of the recipients remained pregnant as determined by ultrasound scanning on day 25 of gestation. One pregnancy was terminated on day 26, and six healthy fetuses were recovered. The second pregnancy was allowed to go to term and resulted in the birth of six healthy piglets. Flow cytometry analysis revealed the absence of Gal epitopes in four of six fetuses (66%), indicating a biallelic KO of GGTA1. Additionally, three of the six live-born piglets (50%) did not express Gal epitopes on their cell surface. Two fetuses and two piglets showed a mosaicism with a mixed population of Gal-free and Gal-expressing cells. Only a single piglet did not have any genomic modifications. Genomic sequencing revealed indel formation at the GGTA1 locus ranging from +17 bp to -20 bp.
CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate the efficacy of CRISPR/Cas to generate genetic modifications in pigs by simplified technology, such as intracytoplasmic microinjection into zygotes, which would significantly facilitate the production of genetically modified pigs suitable for xenotransplantation. Importantly, this simplified injection protocol avoids the penetration of the vulnerable pronuclear membrane, and is thus compatible with higher survival rates of microinjected embryos, which in turn facilitates production of genetically modified piglets.
© 2016 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  CRISPR/Cas; GGTA1; GTKO; cytoplasmic microinjection; xenotransplantation

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27610605     DOI: 10.1111/xen.12258

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Xenotransplantation        ISSN: 0908-665X            Impact factor:   3.907


  39 in total

1.  The ethics of genome editing in non-human animals: a systematic review of reasons reported in the academic literature.

Authors:  Nienke de Graeff; Karin R Jongsma; Josephine Johnston; Sarah Hartley; Annelien L Bredenoord
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2019-05-13       Impact factor: 6.237

Review 2.  Genome editing and genetic engineering in livestock for advancing agricultural and biomedical applications.

Authors:  Bhanu P Telugu; Ki-Eun Park; Chi-Hun Park
Journal:  Mamm Genome       Date:  2017-07-15       Impact factor: 2.957

Review 3.  Applications of CRISPR/Cas9 in retinal degenerative diseases.

Authors:  Ying-Qian Peng; Luo-Sheng Tang; Shigeo Yoshida; Ye-Di Zhou
Journal:  Int J Ophthalmol       Date:  2017-04-18       Impact factor: 1.779

Review 4.  Messenger RNA Delivery for Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine Applications.

Authors:  Siddharth Patel; Avathamsa Athirasala; Paula P Menezes; N Ashwanikumar; Ting Zou; Gaurav Sahay; Luiz E Bertassoni
Journal:  Tissue Eng Part A       Date:  2018-06-07       Impact factor: 3.845

Review 5.  Solid organ transplantation in the 21st century.

Authors:  Cara K Black; Kareem M Termanini; Oswaldo Aguirre; Jason S Hawksworth; Michael Sosin
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2018-10

6.  Porcine germline genome engineering.

Authors:  Luhan Yang; George Church; Hong-Ye Zhao; Lusheng Huang; Yangbin Gao; Hong-Jiang Wei; Geoffrey Yang
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2021-04-30       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 7.  Xenotransplantation: past, present, and future.

Authors:  Burcin Ekser; Ping Li; David K C Cooper
Journal:  Curr Opin Organ Transplant       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 2.640

8.  LIVER TRANSPLANTATION: WILL XENOTRANSPLANTATION BE THE ANSWER TO THE DONOR ORGAN SHORTAGE?

Authors:  Robert L Carithers
Journal:  Trans Am Clin Climatol Assoc       Date:  2020

9.  Transgenic expression of human CD47 reduces phagocytosis of porcine endothelial cells and podocytes by baboon and human macrophages.

Authors:  Shunichiro Nomura; Yuichi Ariyoshi; Hironosuke Watanabe; Thomas Pomposelli; Kazuhiro Takeuchi; Gabriela Garcia; Masayuki Tasaki; David Ayares; Megan Sykes; David Sachs; Richard Johnson; Kazuhiko Yamada
Journal:  Xenotransplantation       Date:  2019-09-08       Impact factor: 3.907

Review 10.  Emerging approaches and technologies in transplantation: the potential game changers.

Authors:  Anil Dangi; Shuangjin Yu; Xunrong Luo
Journal:  Cell Mol Immunol       Date:  2019-02-13       Impact factor: 11.530

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.