Literature DB >> 30368519

CRISPR/Cas9 can mediate high-efficiency off-target mutations in mice in vivo.

Neeraj K Aryal1,2, Amanda R Wasylishen1, Guillermina Lozano3.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30368519      PMCID: PMC6204134          DOI: 10.1038/s41419-018-1146-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cell Death Dis            Impact factor:   8.469


× No keyword cloud information.
The CRISPR/Cas system has revolutionized the field of genome-editing as it is easier, faster, less expensive, and more efficient than traditional methods. In a very short time, its applications have become very diverse and widely used. Recently, this technology has been applied in human embryos to correct pathogenic mutations and has re-ignited the ethical debate of germ-line editing[1,2]. Besides the ethical considerations, the possibility of creating off-target mutations with unknown consequences is a concern. There are many reports of high-frequency off-target mutations in human and mouse cell-lines[3,4], but unwanted errors in mammalian embryo editing have been deemed as a rarity[5-9]. In a study with human embryo editing, one embryo was profiled for off-target mutations by whole-genome sequencing[2]. Even though they report no off-target mutations, the number is too small (n = 1) for statistical significance and the on-target locus has 1 mismatch with the sgRNA used. Previous studies with mouse embryos have reported rare and low-frequency mutations at sites with >1 mismatches[8,10]. Here we report high-frequency mutations at an off-target site with three mismatches using this gene editing technology in the mouse embryo. We targeted Dicer1 to introduce a mutation at a Serine residue by pronuclear injection of sgRNA (7.5 ng/µl), spCas9 mRNA (10 ng/µl), and a 123 base single-stranded donor oligo (20 ng/µl) into mouse embryos using previously described methodology[11]. The sgRNA has a quality score of 76 (out of 100) with 124 potential off-target sites according to the crispr.mit.edu site. In all 38 mice from 200 injected zygotes, we used the polymerase chain reaction to amplify and Sanger sequence a 1 Kbp region of the on-target and the top two candidate off-target sites that contain a proto-spacer adjacent motif (PAM) site. We observed the on-target efficiency of 40% (15/38 animals) with non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) being the predominant repair mechanism (Fig. 1a). Only 5% of the mice (2/38) had the intended mutation introduced by homologous recombination (both were mosaic based on sequencing and validated by genotyping of F1 progeny). Surprisingly, at the top predicted off-target site (intergenic) with 3 mismatches at positions 1, 4, and 8 (where 1 is farthest from the PAM site), we observed mutations in 29% (11/38) of mice (Fig. 1b). Off-target mutations at this site were observed in 3 mice (#1, #2, and #3) that did not have mutations at the on-target site. Additionally, bi-allelic off-target mutations were observed in 2 mice (#4 and #5). At the second candidate off-target site with 4 mismatches at positions 1, 2, 5, and 8 followed by a PAM, sequencing results did not reveal mutations in any of the 38 mice. We further evaluated 3 additional off-target sites in six animals (with on-target mutations) and identified no additional mutations. Since Dicer1 is an essential gene, bi-allelic mutations may result in embryonic lethality. As a result, we may have missed additional on- and off-target mutations.
Fig. 1

On- and off-target changes observed for all 38 mice born from CRISPR/Cas9 targeted embryos.

a Allelic description for all mice at both on- and off-target sites. *, mosaic at on-target site; #, mosaic at off-target site; WT, wild-type; NHEJ, non-homologous end-joining; HR, homologous recombination. b List of all mutations observed at an off-target site with three mismatches. Off-target site is in blue, mismatches are bolded and underlined, PAM is in green, deletions are highlighted as X in red, and insertions are in red letters. Note: For mouse # 4 in (b), the whole deletion is not depicted (to fit the figure)

On- and off-target changes observed for all 38 mice born from CRISPR/Cas9 targeted embryos.

a Allelic description for all mice at both on- and off-target sites. *, mosaic at on-target site; #, mosaic at off-target site; WT, wild-type; NHEJ, non-homologous end-joining; HR, homologous recombination. b List of all mutations observed at an off-target site with three mismatches. Off-target site is in blue, mismatches are bolded and underlined, PAM is in green, deletions are highlighted as X in red, and insertions are in red letters. Note: For mouse # 4 in (b), the whole deletion is not depicted (to fit the figure) We have generated six other alleles in the laboratory using six additional sgRNAs by injection of zygotes, and found no other mutations upon screening the top 5 off-target candidates for each sgRNA in all mice with the intended on-target mutation. In contrast to the off-target site with mutations in this study (where all mismatches are outside of the seed region), candidate off-target sites with a PAM for all other sgRNAs –contained ≥3 mismatches with ≥1 mismatches in the seed region. Our results, while rare, provide important and compelling evidence that high-efficiency off-target mutations can occur in mammalian embryos. Our data are consistent with previous observations that this system is more tolerant when mismatches are away from the seed region. Combined, these data underscore the need to identify and screen potential off-target events when engineering genetic models, with an emphasis on sites that have ≤3 mismatches outside of the seed region. Importantly, unlike cell-lines, mice can be backcrossed to remove inter-chromosomal off-target mutations. Finally, this observation needs to be considered as the technology advances for therapeutic purposes. List of candidate off-target sites for the selected sgRNA
  11 in total

1.  One-step generation of mice carrying reporter and conditional alleles by CRISPR/Cas-mediated genome engineering.

Authors:  Hui Yang; Haoyi Wang; Chikdu S Shivalila; Albert W Cheng; Linyu Shi; Rudolf Jaenisch
Journal:  Cell       Date:  2013-08-29       Impact factor: 41.582

2.  Correction of a pathogenic gene mutation in human embryos.

Authors:  Hong Ma; Nuria Marti-Gutierrez; Sang-Wook Park; Jun Wu; Yeonmi Lee; Keiichiro Suzuki; Amy Koski; Dongmei Ji; Tomonari Hayama; Riffat Ahmed; Hayley Darby; Crystal Van Dyken; Ying Li; Eunju Kang; A-Reum Park; Daesik Kim; Sang-Tae Kim; Jianhui Gong; Ying Gu; Xun Xu; David Battaglia; Sacha A Krieg; David M Lee; Diana H Wu; Don P Wolf; Stephen B Heitner; Juan Carlos Izpisua Belmonte; Paula Amato; Jin-Soo Kim; Sanjiv Kaul; Shoukhrat Mitalipov
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2017-08-02       Impact factor: 49.962

3.  CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing in human zygotes using Cas9 protein.

Authors:  Lichun Tang; Yanting Zeng; Hongzi Du; Mengmeng Gong; Jin Peng; Buxi Zhang; Ming Lei; Fang Zhao; Weihua Wang; Xiaowei Li; Jianqiao Liu
Journal:  Mol Genet Genomics       Date:  2017-03-01       Impact factor: 3.291

4.  Efficient genome modification by CRISPR-Cas9 nickase with minimal off-target effects.

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

5.  DNA targeting specificity of RNA-guided Cas9 nucleases.

Authors:  Patrick D Hsu; David A Scott; Joshua A Weinstein; F Ann Ran; Silvana Konermann; Vineeta Agarwala; Yinqing Li; Eli J Fine; Xuebing Wu; Ophir Shalem; Thomas J Cradick; Luciano A Marraffini; Gang Bao; Feng Zhang
Journal:  Nat Biotechnol       Date:  2013-07-21       Impact factor: 54.908

6.  Off-target mutations are rare in Cas9-modified mice.

Authors:  Vivek Iyer; Bin Shen; Wensheng Zhang; Alex Hodgkins; Thomas Keane; Xingxu Huang; William C Skarnes
Journal:  Nat Methods       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 28.547

7.  High-frequency off-target mutagenesis induced by CRISPR-Cas nucleases in human cells.

Authors:  Yanfang Fu; Jennifer A Foden; Cyd Khayter; Morgan L Maeder; Deepak Reyon; J Keith Joung; Jeffry D Sander
Journal:  Nat Biotechnol       Date:  2013-06-23       Impact factor: 54.908

8.  Loss of digestive organ expansion factor (Diexf) reveals an essential role during murine embryonic development that is independent of p53.

Authors:  Neeraj K Aryal; Amanda R Wasylishen; Vinod Pant; Maurisa Riley-Croce; Guillermina Lozano
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2017-10-26

9.  No unexpected CRISPR-Cas9 off-target activity revealed by trio sequencing of gene-edited mice.

Authors:  Vivek Iyer; Katharina Boroviak; Mark Thomas; Brendan Doe; Laura Riva; Edward Ryder; David J Adams
Journal:  PLoS Genet       Date:  2018-07-09       Impact factor: 5.917

10.  Exome sequencing in the knockin mice generated using the CRISPR/Cas system.

Authors:  Kazuo Nakajima; An-A Kazuno; John Kelsoe; Moe Nakanishi; Toru Takumi; Tadafumi Kato
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-10-04       Impact factor: 4.379

View more
  17 in total

1.  Discrimination of single-point mutations in unamplified genomic DNA via Cas9 immobilized on a graphene field-effect transistor.

Authors:  Sarah Balderston; Jeffrey J Taulbee; Elizabeth Celaya; Kandace Fung; Amanda Jiao; Kasey Smith; Reza Hajian; Giedrius Gasiunas; Simonas Kutanovas; Daehwan Kim; Jonathan Parkinson; Kenneth Dickerson; Juan-José Ripoll; Regis Peytavi; Hsiang-Wei Lu; Francie Barron; Brett R Goldsmith; Philip G Collins; Irina M Conboy; Virginijus Siksnys; Kiana Aran
Journal:  Nat Biomed Eng       Date:  2021-04-05       Impact factor: 25.671

2.  Disruption of Type III Interferon (IFN) Genes Ifnl2 and Ifnl3 Recapitulates Loss of the Type III IFN Receptor in the Mucosal Antiviral Response.

Authors:  Stefan T Peterson; Elizabeth A Kennedy; Pamela H Brigleb; Gwen M Taylor; Kelly Urbanek; Traci L Bricker; Sanghyun Lee; Haina Shin; Terence S Dermody; Adrianus C M Boon; Megan T Baldridge
Journal:  J Virol       Date:  2019-10-29       Impact factor: 5.103

3.  Generation of an Allelic Series at the Ahr Locus Using an Edited Recombinant Approach.

Authors:  Rachel H Wilson; Patrick R Carney; Edward Glover; Jessica C Parrott; Brenda L Rojas; Susan M Moran; Jeremiah S Yee; Manabu Nukaya; Nicholas A Goetz; Clifford D Rubinstein; Kathy J Krentz; Yongna Xing; Christopher A Bradfield
Journal:  Toxicol Sci       Date:  2021-04-12       Impact factor: 4.849

4.  Efficient CRISPR/Cas9-Mediated Gene Editing in an Interspecific Hybrid Poplar With a Highly Heterozygous Genome.

Authors:  Jie Wang; Huaitong Wu; Yingnan Chen; Tongming Yin
Journal:  Front Plant Sci       Date:  2020-07-03       Impact factor: 5.753

5.  High-Efficiency CRISPR/Cas9 Mutagenesis of the white Gene in the Milkweed Bug Oncopeltus fasciatus.

Authors:  Katie Reding; Leslie Pick
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2020-06-03       Impact factor: 4.562

Review 6.  CRISPR to fix bad blood: a new tool in basic and clinical hematology.

Authors:  Elisa González-Romero; Cristina Martínez-Valiente; Cristian García-Ruiz; Rafael P Vázquez-Manrique; José Cervera; Alejandra Sanjuan-Pla
Journal:  Haematologica       Date:  2019-03-28       Impact factor: 9.941

Review 7.  Gene Therapy Approaches to Functional Cure and Protection of Hematopoietic Potential in HIV Infection.

Authors:  Tetsuo Tsukamoto
Journal:  Pharmaceutics       Date:  2019-03-11       Impact factor: 6.321

8.  Heat-shock-inducible CRISPR/Cas9 system generates heritable mutations in rice.

Authors:  Soumen Nandy; Bhuvan Pathak; Shan Zhao; Vibha Srivastava
Journal:  Plant Direct       Date:  2019-05-29

9.  Gene editing and CRISPR in the clinic: current and future perspectives.

Authors:  Matthew P Hirakawa; Raga Krishnakumar; Jerilyn A Timlin; James P Carney; Kimberly S Butler
Journal:  Biosci Rep       Date:  2020-04-30       Impact factor: 3.840

10.  Off-target effects of CRISPRa on interleukin-6 expression.

Authors:  Sébastien Soubeyrand; Paulina Lau; Victoria Peters; Ruth McPherson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-10-28       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.