| Literature DB >> 30356875 |
Chao Li1, Shiwei Zhou1, Yan Li1, Guanwei Li1, Yige Ding1, Lan Li1, Jing Liu1, Lei Qu2, Tad Sonstegard3, Xingxu Huang4, Yu Jiang1, Yulin Chen1, Bjoern Petersen5, Xiaolong Wang1.
Abstract
Unintended off-target mutations induced by CRISPR/Cas9 nucleases may result in unwanted consequences, which will impede the efficient applicability of this technology for genetic improvement. We have recently edited the goat genome through CRISPR/Cas9 by targeting MSTN and FGF5, which increased muscle fiber diameter and hair fiber length, respectively. Using family trio-based sequencing that allow better discrimination of variant origins, we herein generated offspring from edited goats, and sequenced the members of four family trios (gene-edited goats and their offspring) to an average of ∼36.8× coverage. This data was to systematically examined for mutation profiles using a stringent pipeline that comprehensively analyzed the sequence data for de novo single nucleotide variants, indels, and structural variants from the genome. Our results revealed that the incidence of de novo mutations in the offspring was equivalent to normal populations. We further conducted RNA sequencing using muscle and skin tissues from the offspring and control animals, the differentially expressed genes (DEGs) were related to muscle fiber development in muscles, skin development, and immune responses in skin tissues. Furthermore, in contrast to recently reports of Cas9 triggered p53 expression alterations in cultured cells, we provide primary evidence to show that Cas9-mediated genetic modification does not induce apparent p53 expression changes in animal tissues. This work provides adequate molecular evidence to support the reliability of conducting Cas9-mediated genome editing in large animal models for biomedicine and agriculture.Entities:
Keywords: CRISPR/Cas9; de novo mutation; genome editing; off-target; whole genome sequencing
Year: 2018 PMID: 30356875 PMCID: PMC6190895 DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2018.00449
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Genet ISSN: 1664-8021 Impact factor: 4.599
Summary of filtering process for SNVs and indels in the F1 progenies.
| Variants | P59 | P6 | P97 | P8 | P9 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Called by GATK | 11,809,830 | 11,863,185 | 11,764,624 | 11,649,340 | 11,665,474 |
| Called by Samtools | 12,188,260 | 12,213,943 | 12,130,082 | 12,021,749 | 12,031,956 |
| GATK+Samtools | 1404 | 1461 | 9610 | 5839 | 7099 |
| Filtering using the goat SNP databases ( | 1081 | 1174 | 3018 | 1526 | 1818 |
| Reads depth and allelic balance filtering | 136 | 166 | 166 | 139 | 127 |
| After PL scores, soft clipping, and ambiguous bases filtering | 53 | 70 | 68 | 50 | 42 |
| After manual check | 18 | 18 | 24 | 11 | 14 |
| Validated by Sanger sequencing | 11/15 | 7/9 | – | – | 5/7 |
| Mutation rate (×10-8) | 1.08 | 1.42 | 1.38 | 1.02 | 0.85 |
| Calledby GATK | 1,796,995 | 1,813,872 | 1,781,374 | 1,706,893 | 1,713,903 |
| Called by Samtools | 1,579,898 | 1,589,589 | 1,546,312 | 1,408,611 | 1,420,070 |
| GATK+Samtools | 815 | 898 | 3314 | 1198 | 1583 |
| Filtering using the goat SNP databases ( | 187 | 233 | 562 | 181 | 222 |
| Reads depth and allelic balance filtering | 20 | 29 | 26 | 16 | 22 |
| After PL scores, soft clipping, and ambiguous bases filtering | 7 | 14 | 7 | 2 | 7 |
| After manual check | 3 | 8 | 5 | 1 | 2 |
| Validated by Sanger sequencing | 1/2 | 5/8 | 4/5 | – | 2/2 |
Identified candidate CNV and SVs in the F1 progenies.
| Variants | P59 | P6 | P97 | P8 | P9 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Called by CNVcaller | 1426 | 1016 | 2835 | 418 | 307 |
| Filtering by genotype and effective window | 6 | 8 | 15 | 5 | 2 |
| Candidate | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| (1) Called by BreakDancer, and specific in F1 animals | 1570 | 1411 | 1633 | 2058 | 2107 |
| After removal of common SVs in every two animals, and the read depth <50%, manual check | 3 | 9 | 13 | 12 | 13 |
| (2) Called by Lumpy | 3609 | 3116 | 3406 | 2697 | 3082 |
| After removal of common SVs in every two animals, and the read depth <50%, manual check | 3 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 1 |