Literature DB >> 34050011

Frequent loss of heterozygosity in CRISPR-Cas9-edited early human embryos.

Gregorio Alanis-Lobato1, Jasmin Zohren2, Afshan McCarthy1, Norah M E Fogarty1,3, Nada Kubikova4,5, Emily Hardman1, Maria Greco6, Dagan Wells4,7, James M A Turner2, Kathy K Niakan8,9.   

Abstract

CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing is a promising technique for clinical applications, such as the correction of disease-associated alleles in somatic cells. The use of this approach has also been discussed in the context of heritable editing of the human germ line. However, studies assessing gene correction in early human embryos report low efficiency of mutation repair, high rates of mosaicism, and the possibility of unintended editing outcomes that may have pathologic consequences. We developed computational pipelines to assess single-cell genomics and transcriptomics datasets from OCT4 (POU5F1) CRISPR-Cas9-targeted and control human preimplantation embryos. This allowed us to evaluate on-target mutations that would be missed by more conventional genotyping techniques. We observed loss of heterozygosity in edited cells that spanned regions beyond the POU5F1 on-target locus, as well as segmental loss and gain of chromosome 6, on which the POU5F1 gene is located. Unintended genome editing outcomes were present in ∼16% of the human embryo cells analyzed and spanned 4-20 kb. Our observations are consistent with recent findings indicating complexity at on-target sites following CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing. Our work underscores the importance of further basic research to assess the safety of genome editing techniques in human embryos, which will inform debates about the potential clinical use of this technology.

Entities:  

Keywords:  CRISPR-Cas9; genome editing; human embryo; loss of heterozygosity; segmental aneuploidy

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34050011      PMCID: PMC8179174          DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2004832117

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A        ISSN: 0027-8424            Impact factor:   11.205


  47 in total

1.  Clinical application of a protocol based on universal next-generation sequencing for the diagnosis of beta-thalassaemia and sickle cell anaemia in preimplantation embryos.

Authors:  Nada Kubikova; Dhruti Babariya; Jonas Sarasa; Katharina Spath; Samer Alfarawati; Dagan Wells
Journal:  Reprod Biomed Online       Date:  2018-05-21       Impact factor: 3.828

2.  TRF2 protects human telomeres from end-to-end fusions.

Authors:  B van Steensel; A Smogorzewska; T de Lange
Journal:  Cell       Date:  1998-02-06       Impact factor: 41.582

Review 3.  Mosaicism in Preimplantation Human Embryos: When Chromosomal Abnormalities Are the Norm.

Authors:  Rajiv C McCoy
Journal:  Trends Genet       Date:  2017-04-28       Impact factor: 11.639

4.  Allele-Specific Chromosome Removal after Cas9 Cleavage in Human Embryos.

Authors:  Michael V Zuccaro; Jia Xu; Carl Mitchell; Diego Marin; Raymond Zimmerman; Bhavini Rana; Everett Weinstein; Rebeca T King; Katherine L Palmerola; Morgan E Smith; Stephen H Tsang; Robin Goland; Maria Jasin; Rogerio Lobo; Nathan Treff; Dieter Egli
Journal:  Cell       Date:  2020-10-29       Impact factor: 41.582

5.  Morphological and cytogenetic assessment of cleavage and blastocyst stage embryos.

Authors:  E Fragouli; S Alfarawati; K Spath; D Wells
Journal:  Mol Hum Reprod       Date:  2013-11-01       Impact factor: 4.025

6.  DNA copy number analysis of fresh and formalin-fixed specimens by shallow whole-genome sequencing with identification and exclusion of problematic regions in the genome assembly.

Authors:  Ilari Scheinin; Daoud Sie; Henrik Bengtsson; Mark A van de Wiel; Adam B Olshen; Hinke F van Thuijl; Hendrik F van Essen; Paul P Eijk; François Rustenburg; Gerrit A Meijer; Jaap C Reijneveld; Pieter Wesseling; Daniel Pinkel; Donna G Albertson; Bauke Ylstra
Journal:  Genome Res       Date:  2014-09-18       Impact factor: 9.043

7.  CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing induces megabase-scale chromosomal truncations.

Authors:  Grégoire Cullot; Julian Boutin; Jérôme Toutain; Florence Prat; Perrine Pennamen; Caroline Rooryck; Martin Teichmann; Emilie Rousseau; Isabelle Lamrissi-Garcia; Véronique Guyonnet-Duperat; Alice Bibeyran; Magalie Lalanne; Valérie Prouzet-Mauléon; Béatrice Turcq; Cécile Ged; Jean-Marc Blouin; Emmanuel Richard; Sandrine Dabernat; François Moreau-Gaudry; Aurélie Bedel
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2019-03-08       Impact factor: 14.919

8.  Unintended on-target chromosomal instability following CRISPR/Cas9 single gene targeting.

Authors:  J Przewrocka; A Rowan; R Rosenthal; N Kanu; C Swanton
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2020-05-15       Impact factor: 32.976

Review 9.  Human germline genome editing.

Authors:  Rebecca A Lea; Kathy K Niakan
Journal:  Nat Cell Biol       Date:  2019-12-04       Impact factor: 28.824

10.  Segmental duplications arise from Pol32-dependent repair of broken forks through two alternative replication-based mechanisms.

Authors:  Celia Payen; Romain Koszul; Bernard Dujon; Gilles Fischer
Journal:  PLoS Genet       Date:  2008-09-05       Impact factor: 5.917

View more
  27 in total

1.  CRISPR, animals, and FDA oversight: Building a path to success.

Authors:  Laura R Epstein; Stella S Lee; Mayumi F Miller; Heather A Lombardi
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2021-04-30       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  CRISPRroots: on- and off-target assessment of RNA-seq data in CRISPR-Cas9 edited cells.

Authors:  Giulia I Corsi; Veerendra P Gadekar; Jan Gorodkin; Stefan E Seemann
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2022-02-28       Impact factor: 16.971

Review 3.  Designing and executing prime editing experiments in mammalian cells.

Authors:  Jordan L Doman; Alexander A Sousa; Peyton B Randolph; Peter J Chen; David R Liu
Journal:  Nat Protoc       Date:  2022-08-08       Impact factor: 17.021

Review 4.  Therapeutic in vivo delivery of gene editing agents.

Authors:  Aditya Raguram; Samagya Banskota; David R Liu
Journal:  Cell       Date:  2022-07-06       Impact factor: 66.850

5.  CRISPR-Cas9 can cause chromothripsis.

Authors:  Fyodor D Urnov
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2021-06       Impact factor: 38.330

Review 6.  CRISPR-Cas and Its Wide-Ranging Applications: From Human Genome Editing to Environmental Implications, Technical Limitations, Hazards and Bioethical Issues.

Authors:  Roberto Piergentili; Alessandro Del Rio; Fabrizio Signore; Federica Umani Ronchi; Enrico Marinelli; Simona Zaami
Journal:  Cells       Date:  2021-04-21       Impact factor: 7.666

Review 7.  CRISPR-based genome editing through the lens of DNA repair.

Authors:  Tarun S Nambiar; Lou Baudrier; Pierre Billon; Alberto Ciccia
Journal:  Mol Cell       Date:  2022-01-20       Impact factor: 17.970

Review 8.  In vivo somatic cell base editing and prime editing.

Authors:  Gregory A Newby; David R Liu
Journal:  Mol Ther       Date:  2021-09-10       Impact factor: 11.454

9.  Frequent loss of heterozygosity in CRISPR-Cas9-edited early human embryos.

Authors:  Gregorio Alanis-Lobato; Jasmin Zohren; Afshan McCarthy; Norah M E Fogarty; Nada Kubikova; Emily Hardman; Maria Greco; Dagan Wells; James M A Turner; Kathy K Niakan
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2021-04-09       Impact factor: 11.205

10.  Life 2.0-A CRISPR path to a sustainable planet.

Authors:  Dana Carroll; Barbara J Meyer
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2021-06-01       Impact factor: 11.205

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.