| Literature DB >> 29423214 |
Junghyun Ryu1, Randall S Prather2,3, Kiho Lee1.
Abstract
Pigs are an important resource in agriculture and serve as a model for human diseases. Due to their physiological and anatomical similarities with humans, pigs can recapitulate symptoms of human diseases, making them a useful model in biomedicine. However, in the past pig models have not been widely used partially because of the difficulty in genetic modification. The lack of true embryonic stem cells in pigs forced researchers to utilize genetic modification in somatic cells and somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) to generate genetically engineered (GE) pigs carrying site-specific modifications. Although possible, this approach is extremely inefficient and GE pigs born through this method often presented developmental defects associated with the cloning process. Advancement in the gene-editing systems such as Zinc-Finger Nucleases (ZFNs), Transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALENs), and the Clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeat (CRISPR)/CRISPR-associated 9 (Cas9) system have dramatically increased the efficiency of producing GE pigs. These gene-editing systems, specifically engineered endonucleases, are based on inducing double-stranded breaks (DSBs) at a specific location, and then site-specific modifications can be introduced through one of the two DNA repair pathways: non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) or homology direct repair (HDR). Random insertions or deletions (indels) can be introduced through NHEJ and specific nucleotide sequences can be introduced through HDR, if donor DNA is provided. Use of these engineered endonucleases provides a higher success in genetic modifications, multiallelic modification of the genome, and an opportunity to introduce site-specific modifications during embryogenesis, thus bypassing the need of SCNT in GE pig production. This review will provide a historical prospective of GE pig production and examples of how the gene-editing system, led by engineered endonucleases, have improved GE pig production. We will also present some of our current progress related to the optimal use of CRISPR/Cas9 system during embryogenesis.Entities:
Keywords: CRISPR/Cas9; Gene-editing; Genetic engineering; Knock-in; Knockout; Pig; TALEN; ZFN
Year: 2018 PMID: 29423214 PMCID: PMC5787920 DOI: 10.1186/s40104-017-0228-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Anim Sci Biotechnol ISSN: 1674-9782
Fig. 1Strategy of inducing HDR during embryogenesis to disrupt RAG2. Two black bars indicate target sites by CRISPR/Cas9 system on RAG2 exon. Red bar on the donor DNA shows the location of sequences introduced through HDR; yellow sequences are stop codons and green sequences are restriction enzyme sites (NheI and SmaI). Red arrows indicate the location of primers used to amplify the region for genotyping. Blue arrow was used as a primer for Sanger sequencing
Fig. 2Genotyping results from single blastocysts injected with CRISPR/Cas9 system. All PCR products were digested with NheI. PCR product size from wild-type genomic DNA was 1.1 kb. If the embryo carried modified allele through HDR, we expected to see two fragments (950 bp and 160 bp) after digestion with NheI. Genomic DNA from an embryo carrying homozygous HDR mutation was served as a positive control (P). * indicates embryos carrying knock-in events. L is a molecular ladder
Fig. 3Chromatogram of genotyping results from (a) wild-type control and (b) embryo carrying knock-in sequence. Direct sequencing of PCR product indicates that this embryo (b) contains homozygous HDR alleles; introduced stop codons and restriction enzyme sequences are highlighted
A summary of HDR-derived gene-editing on RAG2 locus. This is a summary of three independent replicates. A total of 154 embryos were injected and 28 embryos reached blastocysts on d 7. From 23 blastocysts genotyped, two embryos presented homozygous HDR-derived alleles (8.69%) and seven embryos carried heterozygous HDR-derived alleles (30.4%)
| Type of gene-editing events | Frequency, % |
|---|---|
| Homozygous HDR | 8.69 |
| Heterozygous HDR | 30.4 |
| No HDR | 60.8 |