| Literature DB >> 33391496 |
Song Zhang1, Jiangtao Shen2, Dali Li3, Yiyun Cheng1,3.
Abstract
CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing has gained rapidly increasing attentions in recent years, however, the translation of this biotechnology into therapy has been hindered by efficient delivery of CRISPR/Cas9 materials into target cells. Direct delivery of CRISPR/Cas9 system as a ribonucleoprotein (RNP) complex consisting of Cas9 protein and single guide RNA (sgRNA) has emerged as a powerful and widespread method for genome editing due to its advantages of transient genome editing and reduced off-target effects. In this review, we summarized the current Cas9 RNP delivery systems including physical approaches and synthetic carriers. The mechanisms and beneficial roles of these strategies in intracellular Cas9 RNP delivery were reviewed. Examples in the development of stimuli-responsive and targeted carriers for RNP delivery are highlighted. Finally, the challenges of current Cas9 RNP delivery systems and perspectives in rational design of next generation materials for this promising field will be discussed. © The author(s).Entities:
Keywords: CRISPR; RNP; genome editing; nanoparticles; polymers
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33391496 PMCID: PMC7738854 DOI: 10.7150/thno.47007
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Theranostics ISSN: 1838-7640 Impact factor: 11.556
Figure 1Schematic illustration of the structure and molecular mechanism of the CRISPR/Cas9 system. A. structure of Cas9 protein and sgRNA. B. Formation of DSB via CRISPR/Cas9 system. C. The repair mechanisms of DSBs.
Figure 2The physical approaches for Cas9 RNP delivery. A and B. Schematic diagrams of microinjection (A) and biolistics (B) for RNP delivery. C. Schematic of the NanoEP electroporation device. Reduced with permission from 119. Copyright 2019, National Academy of Sciences. D. Illustration of the original microfluidic device for macromolecules delivery via cell squeezing. Adapted with permission from 122. Copyright 2013, National Academy of Sciences. E. Workflow of the silicon microfluidic chip. F. Images showing the nanostructures of silicon nanotube. Reduced with permission from 127. Copyright 2020, Wiley-VCH. G. Schematic of the iTOP system.
Figure 3Virus-like particles for Cas9 RNP delivery. A. Schematic of 'all in one virus' production. Adapted with permission from 143. Copyright 2016, Springer Nature. Creative Commons CC BY. B. Scheme describing the production of MLV-like particles. Reduced with permission form 144. Copyright 2019, Springer Nature. Creative Commons CC BY. C. Illustration of a lentivirus-like RNP delivery system. Adapted with permission from 145. Copyright 2019, Oxford University Press. Creative Commons CC BY.
Figure 4Cell-derived extracellular vesicles for Cas9 RNP delivery. A. Packing strategy of recruiting Cas9 into ARMMs via specific interaction between WW domain and PPXY motifs of ARRDC1. Reprinted with permission from 149. Copyright 2018, Springer Nature. Creative Commons CC BY. B. Schematic of the production of RNP-packaging fusogenic VSV-G vesicles. Reprinted with permission from 153. Copyright 2018, Elsevier. Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND. C. Selective packaging of Cas9 and sgRNA into extracellular nanovesicles. Adapted with permission from 155. Copyright 2020, Copyright Springer Nature. Creative Commons CC BY.
Figure 5Intracellular delivery of Cas9 RNP by lipids. A. Cationic lipid-mediated delivery of CRISPR system by RNP complex or fusing Cas9 protein with anionic GFP. B. Bioreducible cationic lipid library for the delivery of genome editing systems 170. C. Expansion of bioreducible cationic lipid library for Cas9 RNP delivery 171. D. Synthesis of cationic chalcogen-containing lipids for Cas9 RNP delivery 172. E. Non-cationic NTA-containing lipidoids for Cas9 RNP delivery. Red color identifying the leading amine heads or lipidoid for the intracellular delivery of Cas9 RNP 173.
Figure 6Lipid vehicles for Cas9 RNP delivery. A. Lecithin-based liposomal delivery system for Cas9 RNP delivery. Reduced with permission from 174. Copyright 2019, Springer Nature. Creative Commons CC BY. B. Illustration of T-shape lipo-OAAs with different fatty acids, in which lipo-OAA-containing OHSteA was superior to others in higher genome editing efficiency. Reduced with permission form 175. Copyright 2020, American Chemical Society. C. A fluorescent surfactant used to enhance the Cas9 RNP delivery of lipofectamine. Adapted with permission from 176. Copyright 2019, Royal Society of Chemistry.
Figure 7CPP- and lipopeptide-based delivery systems. A. CPP-conjugated Cas9 protein and CPP complexed sgRNA for intracellular delivery. Reduced with permission from 177. Copyright 2014, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press. Creative Commons CC BY. B. Schematic of chimeric Cas9-LWMP complexed with dual RNAs. Reduced with permission from 180. Copyright 2018, American Chemical Society. C. Amphipathic α-helical peptides for the intracellular delivery of Cas9 RNP without covalent conjugation. Reduced with permission from 183. Copyright 2018, American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. Creative Commons CC BY. D. Illustration of the lipopeptide formed via a supramolecular strategy for the screening of Cas9 RNP delivery. Adapted with permission from 188. Copyright 2017, Royal Society of Chemistry. Creative Commons CC BY-NC.
Figure 8Polymers for Cas9 RNP delivery. A. PBA-rich dendrimer used for the intracellular delivery of protein and Cas9 RNP. Adapt with permission from 57. Copyright 2019, The Authors, some rights reserved. Creative Commons CC BY-NC. B. Carboxylated branched PBAEs used for the intracellular delivery of protein and Cas9 RNP. Reprinted with permission from 212. Copyright 2019, The Authors, some right reserved. Creative Commons CC BY. C. Illustration of the assembly of pH-responsive PEGylated PLL and double targeted Cas9 RNPs. Reduced with permission from 218. Copyright 2019, American Chemical Society.
Figure 9Nanogels for the intracellular delivery of Cas9 RNP. A. Schematic illustration of the RNP-embedded nucleic acid nanogel formation and intracellular delivery. Reduced with permission from 226. Copyright 2019, Royal Society of Chemistry. B. Image of design and preparation of reduction-responsive nanogel for Cas9 RNP delivery.
Figure 10GNP-based delivery platforms for Cas9 RNP. A. Rational design of arginine-functionalized GNPs for the intracellular delivery of E-tagged Cas9 or RNP. Adapted with permission from 59. Copyright 2017, American Chemical Society. B. Schematic illustration of pH-induced assembly of GSH-modified GNPs with Cas9 protein. Reduced with permission from 233. Copyright 2019, American Chemical Society. C. PAsp(DET) coated SNAs for the delivery of Cas9 RNP. D. Schematic illustration of GNP-based RNP nanoformulation for genome editing.
Figure 11Inorganic materials for the intracellular delivery of Cas9 RNP. A. Illustration of the encapsulation of Cas9 RNP into ZIF-8. Reprinted with permission from 249. Copyright 2017, American Chemical Society. B. Schematic illustration of the self-assembly and ATP-triggered release of ZIF-90/RNP complex. Reprinted with permission from 251. Copyright 2019, American Chemical Society. C. Schematic diagram of the GO-PEG-PEI based Cas9 RNP delivery system. Adapted with permission from 256. Copyright 2018, Royal Society of Chemistry. D. Image of the complexation of BP nanosheets and Cas9-3NLS RNPs for genome editing. Adapted with permission from 260. Copyright 2018, Wiley-VCH.
Figure 12DNA nanoclews for the delivery of Cas9 RNP. Adapted with permission from 266. Copyright 2015, Wily-VCH.
Figure 13Responsive delivery systems for RNP delivery. A. NPOM-caged sgRNA for spatiotemporal control of Cas9 RNP function. Adapted with permission from 269. Copyright 2020, Wiley-VCH. B. UCNP-based NIR-responsive Cas9 RNP delivery system. Reduced with permission from 272. Copyright 2019, The Authors, some rights reserved. Creative Commons CC BY-NC. C. Schematic illustration of US-activatable microbubbles as Cas9 RNP delivery system for androgenic alopecia therapy.
Figure 14Reduction-sensitive Cas9 RNP delivery systems. A. Synthesis of GSH-responsive cationic block copolymer for the delivery of CRISPR/Cas9 system. Reduced with permission from 221. Copyright 2018, American Chemical Society. B. Redox-responsive cross-linked polymers for the delivery of Cas9 RNP. Adapted with permission from 222. Copyright 2018, American Chemical Society. C. Schematic illustration on microenvironment-responsive delivery of Cas9 RNP. Reduced with permission from 179. Copyright 2019, American Chemical Society.
Figure 15Gal-mediated targeted Cas9 RNP delivery. A. Receptor-mediated delivery of Cas9 RNP. Reduced with permission from 276. Copyright 2018, American Chemical Society. B. Schematic diagram of Gal-conjugated gold nanoclusters for Cas9 RNP delivery. Reduced with permission from 278. Copyright 2019, Wiley. C. Schematic illustration of the Gal-targeted PEI nanoparticles for genome editing. Adapted with permission from 267. Copyright 2020, The Authors, some rights reserved. Creative Commons CC BY-NC.
Figure 16Targeted delivery systems for Cas9 RNP delivery. A. iRGD-containing lipopeptide for targeted Cas9 RNP delivery. Reduced with permission from 191. B. Folate-based targeted delivery system for Cas9 RNP delivery. Reduced with permission from 280. Copyright 2019, Wiley-VCH. Copyright 2019, Royal Society of Chemistry. Creative Commons BY-NC. C. Schematic illustration of the cell-specific delivery system. Reduced with permission from 250. Copyright 2020, American Chemical Society.
Figure 17Selective organ targeting systems for the delivery of CRISPR/Cas9 system 281.
CRISPR-Cas9 system based clinical trials
| Intervention/treatment | Target gene | Cells | Disrupt/Correct (Insert) | Condition or disease | Phase | Status | Year | ClinicalTrials.gov identifier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Genetic: Edited T cells | T cells | Disrupt | Metastatic non-small cell lung cancer | Phase 1 | Active, not recruiting | 2016 | NCT02793856 | |
| Biological: PD-1 knockout T cells | T Cells | Disrupt | Muscle-invasive bladder cancer | Phase 1 | Withdrawn | 2016 | NCT02863913 | |
| Biological: PD-1 knockout T cells | T Cells | Disrupt | Hormone refractory prostate cancer | - | Withdrawn | 2016 | NCT02867345 | |
| Biological: PD-1 knockout T cells | T Cells | Disrupt | Metastatic renal cell carcinoma | Phase 1 | Withdrawn | 2016 | NCT02867332 | |
| Drug: CTX | T Cells | Disrupt | Metastatic non-small cell lung cancer | Phase 1 | Active, not recruiting | 2016 | NCT02793856 | |
| Drug: Fludarabine/ CTX | EBV-CTL cells | Disrupt | Advanced stage Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) associated malignancies | Phase 1/2 | Recruiting | 2017 | NCT03044743 | |
| Biological: TALEN | HPV16 and HPV18 | Disrupt | HPV-related malignant neoplasm | Phase 1 | Unknown | 2017 | NCT03057912 | |
| Genetic: CCR5 gene modification | CD34+ hHSPCs | Disrupt | HIV-1-infection | Not Applicable | Recruiting | 2017 | NCT03164135 | |
| UCART019 | CAR-T Cells | Disrupt | B Cell leukemia | Phase 1/2 | Recruiting | 2017 | NCT03166878 | |
| PD-1 knockout T cells | T Cells | Disrupt | Esophageal cancer | Not Applicable | Completed | 2017 | NCT03081715 | |
| Anti-mesothelin CAR-T cells | CAR-T Cells | Disrupt | Mesothelin positive multiple solid tumors | Phase 1 | Recruiting | 2018 | NCT03545815 | |
| Biological: NY-ESO-1 redirected autologous T cells | T cells | Disrupt | Multiple myeloma | Phase 1 | Terminated | 2018 | NCT03399448 | |
| CTX001 | CD34+ hHSPCs | Disrupt | β-thalassemia | Phase 1/2 | Recruiting | 2018 | NCT03655678 | |
| CTX001 | CD34+ hHSPCs | Disrupt | Sickle cell disease | Phase 1/2 | Recruiting | 2018 | NCT03745287 | |
| iHSCs treatment group | iHSCs | Correct | Thalassemia | Early Phase 1 | Not yet recruiting | 2018 | NCT03728322 | |
| Mesothelin-directed CAR-T cells | CAR-T cells | Disrupt | Mesothelin positive multiple solid tumors | Phase 1 | Recruiting | 2018 | NCT03747965 | |
| Genetic: CD7.CAR/28zeta CAR T cells | T cells | Disrupt | T-cell acute lymphoblastic Leukemia | Phase 1 | Not yet recruiting | 2018 | NCT03690011 | |
| Universal Dual Specificity CD19 and CD20 or CD22 CAR-T Cells | Unknown | CAR-T cells | Unknown | B cell leukemia | Phase 1/2 | Recruiting | 2018 | NCT03398967 |
| AGN-151587 | Retinal cells | Disrupt | Leber congenital amaurosis 10 | Phase 1/2 | Recruiting | 2019 | NCT03872479 | |
| Genetic: XYF19 CAR-T cells | CAR-T Cells | Disrupt | Relapsed or refractory CD19+ leukemia or lymphoma | Phase 1 | Recruiting | 2019 | NCT04037566 | |
| CTX110 | T cells | Disrupt | B-cell malignancy | Phase 1/2 | Recruiting | 2019 | NCT04035434 | |
| Intervention on primary cultured cells | Mesenchymal stem cells | Disrupt | Kabuki syndrome 1 | - | Active, not recruiting | 2019 | NCT03855631 | |
| Drug: CTX/Fludarabine/IL-2 | TIL | Disrupt | Gastro-intestinal cancer | Phase 1/2 | Recruiting | 2020 | NCT04426669 | |
| CTX120 | T Cells | Disrupt and insert | Relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma | Phase 1 | Recruiting | 2020 | NCT04244656 | |
| CTX130 | T cells | Disrupt and insert | Renal cell carcinoma | Phase 1 | Recruiting | 2020 | NCT04438083 | |
| TACE, PD-1 knockout engineered T cells | T Cells | Disrupt | Advanced hepatocellular carcinoma | Phase 1 | Recruiting | 2020 | NCT04417764 |
CTX: Cyclophosphamide, TIL: Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, HPV: Human papillomavirus, TACE: Transcatheter arterial chemoembolization, IL-2: Interleukin-2,
Characteristics of CRISPR RNP delivery systems.
| Delivery system | Cell Type | Efficiency | Advantages | Disadvantages | Refs | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Microinjection | Embryo cells | 80% - 100% editing by deep sequencing | ● High efficiency | ○ Low throughput | ||
| Biolistics | Plant cells | ~0.7% mutation frequencies by deep sequencing | ● High throughput | ○ Low frequency | ||
| Electroporation | Almost all cell types | 24% - 98% indels by T7E1 assay | ● High efficiency | ○ May induce cell death | ||
| Microfluidics | Suspension cells | 33% - 47% indels by T7E1 assay | ● High throughput | ○ Require specialized equipment to fabricate | ||
| Filtroporation | HSCs | 44% - 59% indels on by T7E1 assay | ||||
| Nanotube | MEFs | ~14% editing efficiency by flow cytometry | ● Minimal cell damage | ○ Relatively low efficiency | ||
| iTOP | KBM7 cells | 56.1% editing efficiency by flow cytometry | ● Low cost | ○ Not suitable for | ||
| Protoplast transformation | Protoplast cells | 20% - 90% indels by T7E1 assay or deep sequencing | ● Well developed | ○ Limited cells type | ||
| TZM bl cells | 16% indels in | ● Reachable to high efficiency | ○ Potential immune response | |||
| U2OS cells | 13.4% GFP editing efficiency by flow cytometry | ● Reachable to high efficiency | ○ Tedious preparation | |||
| U2OS cells | 60% indels in | ● High efficiency | ○ Low payload capacity | |||
| HEK cells | 70% editing efficiency in | |||||
| HEK293T cells | 16% indels in | ● Reachable to high efficiency | ○ Need protein engineering | |||
| HeLa cells | 38% indels in | ● No need of protein engineering | ○ Medium efficiency | |||
| HEK293T cells | 39.7% indels in | ● Low cost | ○ Relatively low efficiency | |||
| HEK293T cells | 77% editing efficiency in | |||||
| U87MG cells | 39.1% indels in | |||||
| HEK293T cells | 46.7% indels in | |||||
| SW-480 cells | Induced a total apoptotic rate of 48.0% by editing | |||||
| HEK293 cells | ~50% editing efficiency in | |||||
| HEK293 cells | ~80% editing efficiency in | ● Serum tolerance | ○ Relatively low efficiency | |||
| HeLa cells | 29% indels in | ● Ease of preparation | ○ Potential toxicity | |||
| CHO cells | 30% indels in | ● Ease of preparation | ○ Potential toxicity of metal ions | |||
| AGS cells | ~39% editing in EGFP by flow cytometry | ● High payload capacity | ○ Relatively low efficiency | |||
| MCF-7 cells | 32.1% indels in | ● Excellent biocompatibility | ○ Relatively low efficiency | |||
| Protoplast cells | 20% indels in | ● Stable | ○ Low efficiency | |||
| U2OS cells | 28% indels in | ● Controllable size and architecture | ○ Poor stability of DNA carrier | |||
| HEK293T cells | 26.2% indels in | ● Precise spatiotemporal control | ○ Non-repeatable control | |||
| Human DPCs | 67.1% indels in | |||||
| HepG2 cells | 4.8% indels in | ● Specific delivery | ○ Fewer targeting types | |||
| HeLa cells | 47.1% indels in | |||||
| SW-480 cells | Induced a total apoptotic rate of 48.0% by editing | |||||
| 3TZ cells | 12% editing efficiency by flow cytometry | |||||
| MCF-7 cells | ~60 editing in | |||||
| HEK293 cells | Over 40% editing in | |||||
| Liver cells | 2.7% editing in liver by T7E1 and TIDE assay | |||||