Literature DB >> 32796939

GOTI, a method to identify genome-wide off-target effects of genome editing in mouse embryos.

Erwei Zuo1,2, Yidi Sun1,3, Wu Wei4,5,6, Tanglong Yuan2, Wenqin Ying1, Hao Sun7, Liyun Yuan4, Lars M Steinmetz8,9,10, Yixue Li11,12,13,14,15, Hui Yang16.   

Abstract

Genome editing holds great potential for correcting pathogenic mutations. We developed a method called GOTI (genome-wide off-target analysis by two-cell embryo injection) to detect off-target mutations by editing one blastomere of two-cell mouse embryos using either CRISPR-Cas9 or base editors. GOTI directly compares edited and non-edited cells without the interference of genetic background and thus could detect potential off-target variants with high sensitivity. Notably, the GOTI method was designed to detect potential off-target variants of any genome editing tools by the combination of experimental and computational approaches, which is critical for accurate evaluation of the safety of genome editing tools. Here we provide a detailed protocol for GOTI, including mice mating, two-cell embryo injection, embryonic day 14.5 embryo digestion, fluorescence-activated cell sorting, whole-genome sequencing and data analysis. To enhance the utility of GOTI, we also include a computational workflow called GOTI-seq (https://github.com/sydaileen/GOTI-seq) for the sequencing data analysis, which can generate the final genome-wide off-target variants from raw sequencing data directly. The protocol typically takes 20 d from the mice mating to sequencing and 7 d for sequencing data analysis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32796939      PMCID: PMC8190672          DOI: 10.1038/s41596-020-0361-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nat Protoc        ISSN: 1750-2799            Impact factor:   13.491


  47 in total

Review 1.  DNA double-strand break repair: all's well that ends well.

Authors:  Claire Wyman; Roland Kanaar
Journal:  Annu Rev Genet       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 16.830

Review 2.  The Hope and Hype of CRISPR-Cas9 Genome Editing: A Review.

Authors:  Kiran Musunuru
Journal:  JAMA Cardiol       Date:  2017-08-01       Impact factor: 14.676

Review 3.  Genome editing. The new frontier of genome engineering with CRISPR-Cas9.

Authors:  Jennifer A Doudna; Emmanuelle Charpentier
Journal:  Science       Date:  2014-11-28       Impact factor: 47.728

Review 4.  CRISPR-Cas9 Structures and Mechanisms.

Authors:  Fuguo Jiang; Jennifer A Doudna
Journal:  Annu Rev Biophys       Date:  2017-03-30       Impact factor: 12.981

Review 5.  Development and applications of CRISPR-Cas9 for genome engineering.

Authors:  Patrick D Hsu; Eric S Lander; Feng Zhang
Journal:  Cell       Date:  2014-06-05       Impact factor: 41.582

Review 6.  Therapeutic genome editing: prospects and challenges.

Authors:  David Benjamin Turitz Cox; Randall Jeffrey Platt; Feng Zhang
Journal:  Nat Med       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 53.440

7.  Targeted nucleotide editing using hybrid prokaryotic and vertebrate adaptive immune systems.

Authors:  Keiji Nishida; Takayuki Arazoe; Nozomu Yachie; Satomi Banno; Mika Kakimoto; Mayura Tabata; Masao Mochizuki; Aya Miyabe; Michihiro Araki; Kiyotaka Y Hara; Zenpei Shimatani; Akihiko Kondo
Journal:  Science       Date:  2016-08-04       Impact factor: 47.728

8.  Efficient introduction of specific homozygous and heterozygous mutations using CRISPR/Cas9.

Authors:  Dominik Paquet; Dylan Kwart; Antonia Chen; Andrew Sproul; Samson Jacob; Shaun Teo; Kimberly Moore Olsen; Andrew Gregg; Scott Noggle; Marc Tessier-Lavigne
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2016-04-27       Impact factor: 49.962

Review 9.  CRISPR-Cas guides the future of genetic engineering.

Authors:  Gavin J Knott; Jennifer A Doudna
Journal:  Science       Date:  2018-08-31       Impact factor: 47.728

10.  Programmable editing of a target base in genomic DNA without double-stranded DNA cleavage.

Authors:  Alexis C Komor; Yongjoo B Kim; Michael S Packer; John A Zuris; David R Liu
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2016-04-20       Impact factor: 49.962

View more
  6 in total

Review 1.  Mitochondrial genome engineering coming-of-age.

Authors:  Jose Domingo Barrera-Paez; Carlos T Moraes
Journal:  Trends Genet       Date:  2022-05-19       Impact factor: 11.821

2.  Efficient embryonic homozygous gene conversion via RAD51-enhanced interhomolog repair.

Authors:  Jonathan J Wilde; Tomomi Aida; Ricardo C H Del Rosario; Tobias Kaiser; Peimin Qi; Martin Wienisch; Qiangge Zhang; Steven Colvin; Guoping Feng
Journal:  Cell       Date:  2021-05-26       Impact factor: 66.850

3.  Canonical WNT signaling-dependent gating of MYC requires a noncanonical CTCF function at a distal binding site.

Authors:  Ilyas Chachoua; Ilias Tzelepis; Hao Dai; Jia Pei Lim; Anna Lewandowska-Ronnegren; Felipe Beccaria Casagrande; Shuangyang Wu; Johanna Vestlund; Carolina Diettrich Mallet de Lima; Deeksha Bhartiya; Barbara A Scholz; Mirco Martino; Rashid Mehmood; Anita Göndör
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2022-01-11       Impact factor: 17.694

Review 4.  Engineering chromosome rearrangements in cancer.

Authors:  Salvador Alonso; Lukas E Dow
Journal:  Dis Model Mech       Date:  2021-09-29       Impact factor: 5.732

5.  Mitochondrial base editor DdCBE causes substantial DNA off-target editing in nuclear genome of embryos.

Authors:  Yinghui Wei; Zhifang Li; Kui Xu; Hu Feng; Long Xie; Di Li; Zhenrui Zuo; Meiling Zhang; Chunlong Xu; Hui Yang; Erwei Zuo
Journal:  Cell Discov       Date:  2022-03-18       Impact factor: 10.849

6.  Gene editing in a Myo6 semi-dominant mouse model rescues auditory function.

Authors:  Yuanyuan Xue; Xinde Hu; Daqi Wang; Di Li; Yige Li; Fang Wang; Mingqian Huang; Xi Gu; Zhijiao Xu; Jinan Zhou; Jinghan Wang; Renjie Chai; Jun Shen; Zheng-Yi Chen; Geng-Lin Li; Hui Yang; Huawei Li; Erwei Zuo; Yilai Shu
Journal:  Mol Ther       Date:  2021-06-24       Impact factor: 11.454

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.