Chengzu Long1, Leonela Amoasii1, Rhonda Bassel-Duby1, Eric N Olson1. 1. Department of Molecular Biology, Senator Paul D. Wellstone Muscular Dystrophy Cooperative Research Center and Hamon Center for Regenerative Science and Medicine, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Muscle weakness, the most common symptom of neuromuscular disease, may result from muscle dysfunction or may be caused indirectly by neuronal and neuromuscular junction abnormalities. To date, more than 780 monogenic neuromuscular diseases, linked to 417 different genes, have been identified in humans. Genome-editing methods, especially the CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats)-Cas9 (CRISPR-associated protein 9) system, hold clinical potential for curing many monogenic disorders, including neuromuscular diseases such as Duchenne muscular dystrophy, spinal muscular atrophy, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and myotonic dystrophy type 1. OBJECTIVES: To provide an overview of genome-editing approaches; to summarize published reports on the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of current genome-editing methods as they relate to the potential correction of monogenic neuromuscular diseases; and to highlight scientific and clinical opportunities and obstacles toward permanent correction of disease-causing mutations responsible for monogenic neuromuscular diseases by genome editing. EVIDENCE REVIEW: PubMed and Google Scholar were searched for articles published from June 30, 1989, through June 9, 2016, using the following keywords: genome editing, CRISPR-Cas9, neuromuscular disease, Duchenne muscular dystrophy, spinal muscular atrophy, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and myotonic dystrophy type 1. The following sources were reviewed: 341 articles describing different approaches to edit mammalian genomes; 330 articles describing CRISPR-Cas9-mediated genome editing in cell culture lines (in vitro) and animal models (in vivo); 16 websites used to generate single-guide RNA; 4 websites for off-target effects; and 382 articles describing viral and nonviral delivery systems. Articles describing neuromuscular diseases, including Duchenne muscular dystrophy, spinal muscular atrophy, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and myotonic dystrophy type 1, were also reviewed. FINDINGS: Multiple proof-of-concept studies reveal the feasibility and efficacy of genome-editing-meditated correction of monogenic neuromuscular diseases in cultured cells and animal models. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Genome editing is a rapidly evolving technology with enormous translational potential once efficacy, delivery, and safety issues are addressed. The clinical impact of this technology is that genome editing can permanently correct disease-causing mutations and circumvent the hurdles of traditional gene- and cell-based therapies.
IMPORTANCE: Muscle weakness, the most common symptom of neuromuscular disease, may result from muscle dysfunction or may be caused indirectly by neuronal and neuromuscular junction abnormalities. To date, more than 780 monogenic neuromuscular diseases, linked to 417 different genes, have been identified in humans. Genome-editing methods, especially the CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats)-Cas9 (CRISPR-associated protein 9) system, hold clinical potential for curing many monogenic disorders, including neuromuscular diseases such as Duchenne muscular dystrophy, spinal muscular atrophy, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and myotonic dystrophy type 1. OBJECTIVES: To provide an overview of genome-editing approaches; to summarize published reports on the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of current genome-editing methods as they relate to the potential correction of monogenic neuromuscular diseases; and to highlight scientific and clinical opportunities and obstacles toward permanent correction of disease-causing mutations responsible for monogenic neuromuscular diseases by genome editing. EVIDENCE REVIEW: PubMed and Google Scholar were searched for articles published from June 30, 1989, through June 9, 2016, using the following keywords: genome editing, CRISPR-Cas9, neuromuscular disease, Duchenne muscular dystrophy, spinal muscular atrophy, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and myotonic dystrophy type 1. The following sources were reviewed: 341 articles describing different approaches to edit mammalian genomes; 330 articles describing CRISPR-Cas9-mediated genome editing in cell culture lines (in vitro) and animal models (in vivo); 16 websites used to generate single-guide RNA; 4 websites for off-target effects; and 382 articles describing viral and nonviral delivery systems. Articles describing neuromuscular diseases, including Duchenne muscular dystrophy, spinal muscular atrophy, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and myotonic dystrophy type 1, were also reviewed. FINDINGS: Multiple proof-of-concept studies reveal the feasibility and efficacy of genome-editing-meditated correction of monogenic neuromuscular diseases in cultured cells and animal models. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Genome editing is a rapidly evolving technology with enormous translational potential once efficacy, delivery, and safety issues are addressed. The clinical impact of this technology is that genome editing can permanently correct disease-causing mutations and circumvent the hurdles of traditional gene- and cell-based therapies.
Authors: F Ann Ran; Patrick D Hsu; Chie-Yu Lin; Jonathan S Gootenberg; Silvana Konermann; Alexandro E Trevino; David A Scott; Azusa Inoue; Shogo Matoba; Yi Zhang; Feng Zhang Journal: Cell Date: 2013-08-29 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: Bin Shen; Wensheng Zhang; Jun Zhang; Jiankui Zhou; Jianying Wang; Li Chen; Lu Wang; Alex Hodgkins; Vivek Iyer; Xingxu Huang; William C Skarnes Journal: Nat Methods Date: 2014-03-02 Impact factor: 28.547
Authors: Christopher E Nelson; Chady H Hakim; David G Ousterout; Pratiksha I Thakore; Eirik A Moreb; Ruth M Castellanos Rivera; Sarina Madhavan; Xiufang Pan; F Ann Ran; Winston X Yan; Aravind Asokan; Feng Zhang; Dongsheng Duan; Charles A Gersbach Journal: Science Date: 2015-12-31 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Jerry R Mendell; Chris Shilling; Nancy D Leslie; Kevin M Flanigan; Roula al-Dahhak; Julie Gastier-Foster; Kelley Kneile; Diane M Dunn; Brett Duval; Alexander Aoyagi; Cindy Hamil; Maha Mahmoud; Kandice Roush; Lauren Bird; Chelsea Rankin; Heather Lilly; Natalie Street; Ram Chandrasekar; Robert B Weiss Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 10.422
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
Authors: Ignazio Maggio; Luca Stefanucci; Josephine M Janssen; Jin Liu; Xiaoyu Chen; Vincent Mouly; Manuel A F V Gonçalves Journal: Nucleic Acids Res Date: 2016-01-13 Impact factor: 16.971
Authors: Hao Yin; Chun-Qing Song; Joseph R Dorkin; Lihua J Zhu; Yingxiang Li; Qiongqiong Wu; Angela Park; Junghoon Yang; Sneha Suresh; Aizhan Bizhanova; Ankit Gupta; Mehmet F Bolukbasi; Stephen Walsh; Roman L Bogorad; Guangping Gao; Zhiping Weng; Yizhou Dong; Victor Koteliansky; Scot A Wolfe; Robert Langer; Wen Xue; Daniel G Anderson Journal: Nat Biotechnol Date: 2016-02-01 Impact factor: 54.908
Authors: Yu Zhang; Chengzu Long; Hui Li; John R McAnally; Kedryn K Baskin; John M Shelton; Rhonda Bassel-Duby; Eric N Olson Journal: Sci Adv Date: 2017-04-12 Impact factor: 14.136