| Literature DB >> 27652340 |
Fuminori Tanihara1, Tatsuya Takemoto2, Eri Kitagawa3, Shengbin Rao3, Lanh Thi Kim Do4, Akira Onishi5, Yukiko Yamashita2, Chisato Kosugi2, Hitomi Suzuki2, Shoichiro Sembon6, Shunichi Suzuki6, Michiko Nakai6, Masakazu Hashimoto7, Akihiro Yasue8, Munehide Matsuhisa9, Sumihare Noji10, Tatsuya Fujimura3, Dai-Ichiro Fuchimoto6, Takeshige Otoi4.
Abstract
Genetically modified pigs for biomedical applications have been mainly generated using the somatic cell nuclear transfer technique; however, this approach requires complex micromanipulation techniques and sometimes increases the risks of both prenatal and postnatal death by faulty epigenetic reprogramming of a donor somatic cell nucleus. As a result, the production of genetically modified pigs has not been widely applied. We provide a simple method for CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats)/Cas9 gene editing in pigs that involves the introduction of Cas9 protein and single-guide RNA into in vitro fertilized zygotes by electroporation. The use of gene editing by electroporation of Cas9 protein (GEEP) resulted in highly efficient targeted gene disruption and was validated by the efficient production of Myostatin mutant pigs. Because GEEP does not require the complex methods associated with micromanipulation for somatic reprogramming, it has the potential for facilitating the genetic modification of pigs.Entities:
Keywords: Somatic cell; gmo; somatic cell nuclear transfer
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27652340 PMCID: PMC5023319 DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1600803
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Adv ISSN: 2375-2548 Impact factor: 14.136
Fig. 1Comparison of the SCNT and the GEEP method.
In vitro matured pig oocytes are used for SCNT, and in vitro fertilized zygotes are used for GEEP. SCNT involves the removal of oocyte nuclei (enucleation), the transfer of mutant somatic cell nuclei (nuclear transfer), and the activation of the reconstructed embryos after electrofusion, all of which takes ~5 hours. SCNT also requires the generation of mutant donor cells, which takes ~2 weeks. On the other hand, GEEP takes ~10 min to transfer the genome editing system into the zygotes by electroporation. The total manipulation times represent the estimated time required to produce 100 mutant embryos by each method. Mutant embryos are transferred into recipient sows, resulting in the generation of mutant piglets.
Fig. 2Optimization of electroporation conditions for efficient genome editing in pig zygotes.
(A) Genomic structure of the FGF10 locus and the sgRNA target sequence in the third FGF10 exon. Nucleotides in blue represent the target sequence, and nucleotides in red represent the protospacer adjacent motif (PAM) sequence. (B) Genomic sequences of blastocysts formed after electroporation with Cas9 mRNA and FGF10 sgRNA. Various pulsing conditions were tested (shown on the left) using a fixed voltage (30 V). The arrowhead indicates the Cas9 cleavage sites. (C) Frequency of mutations in the FGF10 target region detected in PCR amplicons. (D) Blastocyst formation rates of the electroporated zygotes. (E to G) Comparison of the genome editing efficiency and blastocyst formation rates between Cas9 mRNA– and Cas9 protein–electroporated zygotes. (E) Direct sequencing of PCR amplicons from the blastocysts after electroporation. (F) Frequency of indels in the FGF10 target region. (G) Blastocyst formation rates of the electroporated zygotes. *P < 0.05 using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Error bars, means ± SEM.
Fig. 3Genome editing of the MSTN gene.
(A) Genomic structure of the MSTN locus and sgRNA sequences targeting the first MSTN exon. (B) Representative genomic sequences of blastocysts formed after zygote electroporation with Cas9 protein and MSTN sgRNAs (sgRNA1, sgRNA6, and sgRNA7; see also fig. S2). Arrowheads indicate the Cas9 cleavage sites. (C) Frequency of mutations in the PCR amplicons of each target region. (D) Alignment of sequences from each blastocyst after electroporation. Nucleotides in blue indicate target sequences, and nucleotides in red indicate PAM sequences. Nucleotides in green indicate inserted sequences. WT, wild type.
Fig. 4Generation of MSTN mutant piglets.
(A) Representative target region sequences in MSTN mutant piglets (see also table S1). Nucleotides in blue represent target sequences, and nucleotides in red represent PAM sequences. (B). Expression of MSTN protein in the longissimus thoracis muscle. (C) Phenotypic analysis of the biallelic mutant piglet showed enlarged muscle mass, compared with the WT control (arrowheads). (D) Hematoxylin and eosin staining of the longissimus thoracis muscle. Scale bars, 200 μm. (E and F) Immunohistochemical analysis of fast and slow myosin expression in the muscle. Scale bars, 100 μm. (G) Quantification of slow myofibers in the muscle. (H) Analysis of the genome sequence of F1 blastocysts of piglets #3 and #4. *P < 0.01 using Student’s t test. Error bars, means ± SEM.