| Literature DB >> 31552084 |
Peter Kalds1,2, Shiwei Zhou1, Bei Cai1, Jiao Liu1, Ying Wang1, Bjoern Petersen3, Tad Sonstegard4, Xiaolong Wang1, Yulin Chen1.
Abstract
Sheep and goats are valuable livestock species that have been raised for their production of meat, milk, fiber, and other by-products. Due to their suitable size, short gestation period, and abundant secretion of milk, sheep and goats have become important model animals in agricultural, pharmaceutical, and biomedical research. Genome engineering has been widely applied to sheep and goat research. Pronuclear injection and somatic cell nuclear transfer represent the two primary procedures for the generation of genetically modified sheep and goats. Further assisted tools have emerged to enhance the efficiency of genetic modification and to simplify the generation of genetically modified founders. These tools include sperm-mediated gene transfer, viral vectors, RNA interference, recombinases, transposons, and endonucleases. Of these tools, the four classes of site-specific endonucleases (meganucleases, ZFNs, TALENs, and CRISPRs) have attracted wide attention due to their DNA double-strand break-inducing role, which enable desired DNA modifications based on the stimulation of native cellular DNA repair mechanisms. Currently, CRISPR systems dominate the field of genome editing. Gene-edited sheep and goats, generated using these tools, provide valuable models for investigations on gene functions, improving animal breeding, producing pharmaceuticals in milk, improving animal disease resistance, recapitulating human diseases, and providing hosts for the growth of human organs. In addition, more promising derivative tools of CRISPR systems have emerged such as base editors which enable the induction of single-base alterations without any requirements for homology-directed repair or DNA donor. These precise editors are helpful for revealing desirable phenotypes and correcting genetic diseases controlled by single bases. This review highlights the advances of genome engineering in sheep and goats over the past four decades with particular emphasis on the application of CRISPR/Cas9 systems.Entities:
Keywords: CRISPR/Cas9; farm animals; gene editing; genetic modification; genome engineering; goats; sheep
Year: 2019 PMID: 31552084 PMCID: PMC6735269 DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2019.00750
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Genet ISSN: 1664-8021 Impact factor: 4.599
Figure 1Applications and aims of genome engineering in sheep and goats. Genome engineering has been applied in both sheep and goats (or generally in farm animals) for various purposes such as to investigate the biological and functional roles of genes, to introduce novel economically important traits for agricultural purposes, to produce valuable proteins in milk, to produce animals that are resistant to epidemic diseases, to model human diseases, and to produce hosts for the growth of human organs for xenotransplantation research, among other valuable purposes that mainly aim to increase human knowledge, as well as human and animal health and welfare.
Examples of transgenic sheep and goats produced using a pronuclear microinjection (PNI) approach.
| Species | Construct abbreviation | Construct name | Main trait | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sheep | Growth | |||
| Growth | ||||
| Growth | ||||
| Growth | ||||
| Growth | ||||
| Growth | ||||
| Therapeutic proteins in milk | ||||
| Therapeutic proteins in milk | ||||
| Therapeutic proteins in milk | ||||
| Disease model | ||||
| Disease model | ||||
| Disease resistance | ||||
| Wool | ||||
| Wool | ||||
| Goat | Therapeutic proteins in milk | |||
| Therapeutic proteins in milk | ||||
| Therapeutic proteins in milk | ||||
| Therapeutic proteins in milk | ||||
| Therapeutic proteins in milk | ||||
| Therapeutic proteins in milk | ||||
| Therapeutic proteins in milk | ||||
| Alteration of milk composition | ||||
| Disease resistance |
Examples of transgenic and gene-targeted sheep and goats produced using a somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) approach.
| Species | Gene or construct abbreviation | Gene or construct name | Main trait | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sheep | Therapeutic proteins in milk | |||
| Therapeutic proteins in milk | ||||
| Enrich n-3 fatty acids | ||||
| Disease resistance | ||||
| Disease resistance | ||||
| Goat | Therapeutic proteins in milk | |||
| Therapeutic proteins in milk | ||||
| Therapeutic proteins in milk | ||||
| Therapeutic proteins in milk | ||||
| Therapeutic proteins in milk | ||||
| Therapeutic proteins in milk | ||||
| Therapeutic proteins in milk | ||||
| Therapeutic proteins in milk | ||||
| Therapeutic proteins in milk | ||||
| Therapeutic proteins in milk | ||||
| Valuable molecule in milk | ||||
| Candidate malaria vaccine | ||||
| Improve milk production | ||||
| Improve milk production | ||||
| Marker gene | ||||
| Marker gene | ||||
| Marker gene | ||||
| Disease model | ||||
| Disease resistance | ||||
| Disease resistance | ||||
| Disease resistance | ||||
| Alteration of milk composition |
*Gene targeting by homologous recombination.
Figure 2Schematic representation of practical and likely pathways of genetic modification in sheep and goats. Pronuclear injection (PNI) and nuclear transfer (NT) are the two primary procedures for the generation of live founders with desired genetic modifications. In addition to these two approaches, several new tools have emerged that increase the efficiency and simplify the process of mediating genetic modification. These tools include sperm-mediated gene transfer (SMGT), viral vectors, recombinases, transposons, RNA interference (RNAi), and endonucleases. These have served to mediate manipulations in a variety of cells and organs, including somatic cells, embryonic cells, embryos, spermatozoa, spermatogonial stem cells (SSCs), testes, mammary glands, and other targeted organs. Different procedures are involved in the delivery of DNA constructs as well as the various enzymes and systems that induce genetic modification events within genomes. PNI, cytoplasmic injection (CI), perivitelline space injection (PSI), and zona-free transduction (ZFT) have been used for the delivery to embryos, transfection (TF), and transduction (TD) for the delivery to cells, incubation (IC) for the delivery to spermatozoa, intratesticular injection (ITI) for the delivery to testes, intramammary injection (IMI) for the delivery to mammary glands, and direct injection (DI) for the delivery to targeted organs (mainly for medical purposes). In vitro fertilization (IVF), intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), artificial insemination (AI) or even natural mating (NM) have been used for the delivery of transgenic sperms that resulted from incubation treatment, male germ cell transplantation, or intratesticular injection. In the diagram, from left to right, red arrows indicate the uses of DNA constructs for mediating DNA modification, green arrows indicate the uses of viral vectors, yellow arrows indicate the uses of RNAi molecules via delivery by viral vectors, purple arrows indicate the uses of transposons, pink arrows indicate the uses of RNAi molecules via integration by transposons, tan arrows indicate the independent uses of RNAi molecules, light blue arrows indicate the uses of recombinases, and orange arrows indicate the uses of endonucleases. Isolation (I) of spermatogonial stem cells from transgenic males can be used via transplantation (T) into infertile males to generate donor-derived spermatogenesis, which can then be used to generate transgenic founders. Furthermore, isolation of cells from transgenic individuals can also be used by nuclear transfer (NT) to generate transgenic progeny. Other abbreviations used in the diagram include embryo transfer (ET), lactation (L), and delivery (D).
Examples of gene-edited sheep and goats produced using the CRISPR/Cas9 system
| Species | Gene(s)* | Editing type | Delivery method | Transferred embryos/recipients/pregnancies | Pregnancy rate** | Obtained founders+ (birth rate***) | Mutated founders+ (targeting efficiency****) | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sheep | KO | MI | 213/55/31 | 56.3% | 35 (16.4%) | 2 (5.7%) | ||
| KO | MI | 53/29/19 | 65.5% | 22 (41.5%) | 10 (45.4%) | |||
| M-KO | MI | 578/82/34 | 41.4% | 49 (8.4%) | 36++ (73.4%) | |||
| KO | MI | 130/N.A./N.A. | N.A. | 32 (24.6%) | 5 (15.6%) | |||
|
| KO | SCNT | 415/20/8 | 40.0% | 6 (1.4%) | 3 (50.0%) | ||
| KO | MI | 100/53/14 | 26.4% | 18 (18.0%) | 3 (16.6%) | |||
| KO | MI | 170/101/20 | 19.8% | 20 (11.7%) | 16 (80.0%) | |||
|
| KO | MI | 92/60/6 | 10.0% | 6 (6.5%) | 5 (83.3%) | ||
| PM | MI | 279/39/16 | 41.0% | 21 (7.5%) | 7+++ (33.3%) | |||
| KI | MI | 593/150/77 | 51.3% | 98 (16.5%) | 34 (34.6%) | |||
| KI | MI | 977/181/59 | 31.5% | 79 (8.0%) | 50 (63.2%) | |||
| KI | MI | 30/N.A./N.A. | N.A. | 8 (26.0%) | 1 (12.5%) | |||
| KO | SCNT | 1029/73/34 | 46.5% | 33 (3.2%) | 33 (100.0%) | |||
| PM | MI | 41/17/9 | 52.9% | 15 (36.5%) | 6+++ (40.0%) | |||
|
| BE | MI | 20/8/3 | 37.5% | 4 (20.0%) | 3+++ (75.0%) | ||
| Goat | KO | SCNT | 269/21/7 | 33.3% | 3 (1.1%) | 3 (100.0%) | ||
| M-KO | MI | 416/137/64 | 46.7% | 93 (22.3%) | 26++ (27.9%) | |||
| KO | MI | 18/5/3 | 60.0% | 4 (22.2%) | 1 (25.0%) | |||
| KO | MI | N.A./7/6 | 85.7% | 8 (N.A). | 6 (75.0%) | |||
| KI, KO | SCNT | 134/56/8 | 14.2% | 1 (0.74%) | 1 (100.0%) | |||
| KO | MI | 103/67/18 | 26.8% | 26 (25.2%) | 4 (15.3%) | |||
| PM | MI | 56/17/13 | 76.4% | 18 (32.1%) | 6+++ (33.3%) | |||
| KO | SCNT | 257/79/5 | 6.3% | 6 (2.3%) | 6 (100.0%) | |||
| BE | MI | 22/7/3 | 42.8% | 5 (22.7%) | 5+++ (100.0%) |
N.A., not available; KO, knockout; M-KO, multiplex knockout; KI, knockin; PM, point mutation (using HDR); BE, base editing; MI, microinjection; SCNT, somatic cell nuclear transfer; *(MSTN, myostatin also known as GDF8 growth differentiation factor 8; ASIP, agouti-signaling protein; BCO2, β-carotene oxygenase 2; FGF5, fibroblast growth factor 5; BMPR-1B “FecB”, bone morphogenetic protein receptor type 1B “Booroola fecundity gene FecBB mutation”; AANAT, arylalkylamine N-acetyltransferase or SANT serotonin N-acetyltransferase; ASMT, acetylserotonin methyltransferase; tGFP, turbo green fluorescent protein; CFTR, cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator; ALPL, alkaline phosphatase biomineralization associated; SOCS2, suppressor of cytokine signaling 2; BLG, β-lactoglobulin; GDF9, growth differentiation factor 9; EDAR, ectodysplasin receptor); *indicates to the full names (in the table legend) of the used gene abbreviations in this column. **pregnancy rate (%) = no. of pregnancies/no. of recipients; ***birth rate (%) = no. of obtained founders/no. of transferred embryos; ****targeting efficiency (%) = no. of mutated founders/no. of obtained founders; +alive and dead; ++total number of the obtained mutated founders whether they carry mutations in a single gene or in more than one gene; +++the founders might be mutated but not all of them only show the defined point mutation. #Models generated by our research team.
Examples of interspecies somatic cell nuclear transfer (iSCNT) applications in sheep and goats for the reconstruction of embryos between different species.
| Intra-/Inter-genera | Nucleus donor | × | Oocyte donor | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Within the same genus | Argali ( | × | Sheep ( | |
| European mouflon ( | × | Sheep ( | ||
| Esfahan mouflon ( | × | Sheep ( | ||
| Ibex ( | × | Goat ( | ||
| Between different genera | Tibetan antelope ( | × | Goat ( | |
| Goat ( | × | Sheep ( | ||
| Goat ( | × | Bovine ( | ||
| Goat ( | × | Buffalo ( | ||
| Sheep ( | × | Bovine ( | ||
| Human ( | × | Goat ( | ||
| Human ( | × | Sheep ( |
Examples of adenoviral-mediated gene transfer into the teat canal of caprine mammary glands.
| Gene abbreviation | Gene full name | References |
|---|---|---|
Examples of ovine and caprine targeted gene expressions using RNA interference (RNAi).
| Species | Gene abbreviation | RNAi molecule | Delivery tool | Cell type | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sheep | shRNA | Lentiviral vector | Myoblasts | ||
| shRNA | Lentiviral vector | Fibroblasts | |||
|
| siRNA | Synthesized construct | Fibroblasts | ||
| siRNA | Synthesized construct | Fibroblasts | |||
| siRNA | Synthesized construct | Granulosa cells | |||
| Goat | shRNA | Lentiviral vector | Fibroblasts | ||
| shRNA | Lentiviral vector | Myoblasts | |||
| shRNA | Expression construct | Fibroblasts | |||
| shRNA | Expression construct | Myoblasts | |||
|
| siRNA | Synthesized construct | Myoblasts | ||
| miRNA | Expression construct | Fibroblasts | |||
| shRNA | Lentiviral vector | Fibroblasts | |||
|
| shRNA | Lentiviral vector | Fibroblasts | ||
| shRNA | Lentiviral vector | Fat cells | |||
| shRNA | Lentiviral vector | Granulosa cells | |||
| shRNA | Expression construct | Fibroblasts | |||
| shRNA | Expression construct | Fibroblasts | |||
| shRNA | Expression construct | Mammary epithelial cells |
shRNA, short hairpin RNA; siRNA, small interfering RNA; miRNA, microRNA; MSTN, myostatin; TRIM28, tripartite motif containing 28; INHα, inhibin α-subunit; PrP, prion protein; BLG, β-lactoglobulin; PPARγ, peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor γ; PGC-1α, peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor γ coactivator-1 α; DNMT1, DNA methyltransferase 1; FKBP38, FK506-binding protein 38; BZW2, basic leucine zipper and W2 domains 2.
Figure 3Gene editing using site-specific endonucleases. (A) The four major classes of endonucleases: meganucleases, ZFNs, TALENs, and CRISPR/Cas9. Flavobacterium okeanokoites, type IIS restriction enzyme (FokI), protospacer adjacent motif (PAM), and single-guide RNA (sgRNA). (B) The commonly used delivery approaches of the endonucleases are the direct microinjection into embryos (mainly, cytoplasmic injection in sheep and goats) and somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) (mainly, using fibroblast cells). (C) Different forms of modifications that result from the two main DNA repair pathways after induction of double-strand break (DSB) using endonucleases. i) Non-homologous end joining (NHEJ), which results in small insertions and/or deletions (indels), leads to gene knockout (disruption). ii) Homology-directed repair (HDR), which acts in the presence of exogenous donor DNA and mediates precise genetic modification including knockin (site-specific integration) and point mutation (single-nucleotide alteration). (D) Embryo transfer, gestation, and the generation of genetically edited offspring.
The advantages and disadvantages of genetic manipulation tools applicable to ovine and caprine genomes
| Tool | Uses | Advantages | Disadvantages | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PNI | Insertional transgenesis | The first tool to be applied for the generation of transgenic animals | Random integration, variable transgene copy number, low efficiency | |
| SCNT | Gene targeting, editing | An alternative that facilitated the implementation of HR gene targeting in species that lack ESCs, a low-level mosaicism | Development of a small proportion of reconstructed embryos that become live offspring, potential complications at birth of offspring as a result of developmental abnormalities | |
| SMGT | Gene transfer, integration | Simple, cost-effective, minimal embryo handling required | Initial doubt with regard to its repeatability, variable results, low incorporation of the exogenous gene | |
| VMGT | Gene transfer, integration | Able to infect germline cells and dividing or non-dividing somatic cells, delivery of the system to the egg/zygote is less damaging compared to pronuclear injection, high integration | Variability of transgenic expression, potential health risks, limited DNA capacity | |
| Recombinases | Integration, selectable cassette excision | Increased gene integration efficiency, offer different forms of modifications including the removal of unwanted DNA | Conservative specificity, in specific cases, pre-introduction of specific target sites within the host genome is required which is an inefficient and time-consuming process, potential toxicity | |
| Transposons | Integration | Able to integrate transgenes and RNAi-expressing constructs for the mediation of knockdown expression, lower immunogenicity and larger DNA capacity compared to viral systems | Classical transposons are less efficient for gene transfer compared to viral systems, potential cytotoxicity | |
| RNAi | Gene knock down | Targeting gene expression at mRNA level, useful tool to elucidate gene functions | Variability and incompleteness of knockdowns, potential off-target | |
| ZFNs | Gene editing | First “practical” endonuclease that has been applied to mediated gene-editing events | Difficult to design, potential off-target, mosaicism in offspring generated from microinjected embryos | |
| TALENs | Gene editing | A simplified alternative of the previously emerged ZFNs | Moderate difficulty in design, potential off-target, mosaicism in offspring generated from microinjected embryos | |
| CRISPR/Cas9 | Gene editing | Simple, cost-effective, customizable, precise compared to other endonucleases, able to mediate multiplex editing | Potential off-target, mosaicism in offspring generated from microinjected embryos |
PNI, pronuclear injection; SCNT, somatic cell nuclear transfer; SMGT, sperm-mediated gene transfer; VMGT, virus-mediated gene transfer; RNAi, RNA interference; ZFNs, zinc finger nucleases; TALENs, transcription activator-like effector nucleases; CRISPR/Cas9, clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeat/CRISPR-associated protein 9.