Literature DB >> 34174439

Prediction and validation of hematopoietic stem and progenitor cell off-target editing in transplanted rhesus macaques.

Aisha A AlJanahi1, Cicera R Lazzarotto2, Shirley Chen3, Tae-Hoon Shin3, Stefan Cordes3, Xing Fan3, Isabel Jabara3, Yifan Zhou3, David J Young3, Byung-Chul Lee3, Kyung-Rok Yu4, Yuesheng Li3, Bradley Toms5, Ilker Tunc6, So Gun Hong3, Lauren L Truitt3, Julia Klermund7, Geoffroy Andrieux8, Miriam Y Kim9, Toni Cathomen7, Saar Gill10, Shengdar Q Tsai2, Cynthia E Dunbar11.   

Abstract

The programmable nuclease technology CRISPR-Cas9 has revolutionized gene editing in the last decade. Due to the risk of off-target editing, accurate and sensitive methods for off-target characterization are crucial prior to applying CRISPR-Cas9 therapeutically. Here, we utilized a rhesus macaque model to compare the predictive values of CIRCLE-seq, an in vitro off-target prediction method, with in silico prediction (ISP) based solely on genomic sequence comparisons. We use AmpliSeq HD error-corrected sequencing to validate off-target sites predicted by CIRCLE-seq and ISP for a CD33 guide RNA (gRNA) with thousands of off-target sites predicted by ISP and CIRCLE-seq. We found poor correlation between the sites predicted by the two methods. When almost 500 sites predicted by each method were analyzed by error-corrected sequencing of hematopoietic cells following transplantation, 19 off-target sites revealed insertion or deletion mutations. Of these sites, 8 were predicted by both methods, 8 by CIRCLE-seq only, and 3 by ISP only. The levels of cells with these off-target edits exhibited no expansion or abnormal behavior in vivo in animals followed for up to 2 years. In addition, we utilized an unbiased method termed CAST-seq to search for translocations between the on-target site and off-target sites present in animals following transplantation, detecting one specific translocation that persisted in blood cells for at least 1 year following transplantation. In conclusion, neither CIRCLE-seq or ISP predicted all sites, and a combination of careful gRNA design, followed by screening for predicted off-target sites in target cells by multiple methods, may be required for optimizing safety of clinical development.
Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  CRISPR; Ca9; Macaque; error-corrected sequencing; gene editing; gene therapy; off-target; translocation

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34174439      PMCID: PMC8753565          DOI: 10.1016/j.ymthe.2021.06.016

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mol Ther        ISSN: 1525-0016            Impact factor:   11.454


  60 in total

Review 1.  Hematopoietic stem cell gene therapy:assessing the relevance of preclinical models.

Authors:  Andre Larochelle; Cynthia E Dunbar
Journal:  Semin Hematol       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 3.851

2.  Functional disruption of the dystrophin gene in rhesus monkey using CRISPR/Cas9.

Authors:  Yongchang Chen; Yinghui Zheng; Yu Kang; Weili Yang; Yuyu Niu; Xiangyu Guo; Zhuchi Tu; Chenyang Si; Hong Wang; Ruxiao Xing; Xiuqiong Pu; Shang-Hsun Yang; Shihua Li; Weizhi Ji; Xiao-Jiang Li
Journal:  Hum Mol Genet       Date:  2015-04-09       Impact factor: 6.150

3.  Aberrant Clonal Hematopoiesis following Lentiviral Vector Transduction of HSPCs in a Rhesus Macaque.

Authors:  Diego A Espinoza; Xing Fan; Di Yang; Stefan F Cordes; Lauren L Truitt; Katherine R Calvo; Idalia M Yabe; Selami Demirci; Kristin J Hope; So Gun Hong; Allen Krouse; Mark Metzger; Aylin Bonifacino; Rong Lu; Naoya Uchida; John F Tisdale; Xiaolin Wu; Suk See DeRavin; Harry L Malech; Robert E Donahue; Chuanfeng Wu; Cynthia E Dunbar
Journal:  Mol Ther       Date:  2019-04-09       Impact factor: 11.454

4.  Postnatal genome editing partially restores dystrophin expression in a mouse model of muscular dystrophy.

Authors:  Chengzu Long; Leonela Amoasii; Alex A Mireault; John R McAnally; Hui Li; Efrain Sanchez-Ortiz; Samadrita Bhattacharyya; John M Shelton; Rhonda Bassel-Duby; Eric N Olson
Journal:  Science       Date:  2015-12-31       Impact factor: 47.728

5.  CRISPR off-target analysis in genetically engineered rats and mice.

Authors:  Keith R Anderson; Maximilian Haeussler; Colin Watanabe; Vasantharajan Janakiraman; Jessica Lund; Zora Modrusan; Jeremy Stinson; Qixin Bei; Andrew Buechler; Charles Yu; Sobha R Thamminana; Lucinda Tam; Michael-Anne Sowick; Tuija Alcantar; Natasha O'Neil; Jinjie Li; Linda Ta; Lisa Lima; Merone Roose-Girma; Xin Rairdan; Steffen Durinck; Søren Warming
Journal:  Nat Methods       Date:  2018-05-21       Impact factor: 28.547

6.  High-resolution mapping of DNA polymerase fidelity using nucleotide imbalances and next-generation sequencing.

Authors:  Alexandra M de Paz; Thaddeus R Cybulski; Adam H Marblestone; Bradley M Zamft; George M Church; Edward S Boyden; Konrad P Kording; Keith E J Tyo
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2018-07-27       Impact factor: 16.971

7.  Treatment of autosomal dominant hearing loss by in vivo delivery of genome editing agents.

Authors:  Xue Gao; Yong Tao; Veronica Lamas; Mingqian Huang; Wei-Hsi Yeh; Bifeng Pan; Yu-Juan Hu; Johnny H Hu; David B Thompson; Yilai Shu; Yamin Li; Hongyang Wang; Shiming Yang; Qiaobing Xu; Daniel B Polley; M Charles Liberman; Wei-Jia Kong; Jeffrey R Holt; Zheng-Yi Chen; David R Liu
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2017-12-20       Impact factor: 49.962

8.  Off- and on-target effects of genome editing in mouse embryos.

Authors:  Shinya Ayabe; Kenichi Nakashima; Atsushi Yoshiki
Journal:  J Reprod Dev       Date:  2018-12-06       Impact factor: 2.214

9.  CRISPR/Cas9 systems have off-target activity with insertions or deletions between target DNA and guide RNA sequences.

Authors:  Yanni Lin; Thomas J Cradick; Matthew T Brown; Harshavardhan Deshmukh; Piyush Ranjan; Neha Sarode; Brian M Wile; Paula M Vertino; Frank J Stewart; Gang Bao
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2014-05-16       Impact factor: 16.971

10.  In vivo CRISPR editing with no detectable genome-wide off-target mutations.

Authors:  Pinar Akcakaya; Maggie L Bobbin; Jimmy A Guo; Jose Malagon-Lopez; Kendell Clement; Sara P Garcia; Mick D Fellows; Michelle J Porritt; Mike A Firth; Alba Carreras; Tania Baccega; Frank Seeliger; Mikael Bjursell; Shengdar Q Tsai; Nhu T Nguyen; Roberto Nitsch; Lorenz M Mayr; Luca Pinello; Mohammad Bohlooly-Y; Martin J Aryee; Marcello Maresca; J Keith Joung
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2018-09-12       Impact factor: 49.962

View more
  3 in total

Review 1.  Genome editing in large animal models.

Authors:  Lucy H Maynard; Olivier Humbert; Christopher W Peterson; Hans-Peter Kiem
Journal:  Mol Ther       Date:  2021-10-01       Impact factor: 11.454

Review 2.  Understanding and overcoming adverse consequences of genome editing on hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells.

Authors:  Byung-Chul Lee; Richard J Lozano; Cynthia E Dunbar
Journal:  Mol Ther       Date:  2021-09-10       Impact factor: 11.454

Review 3.  Genome editing for primary immunodeficiencies: A therapeutic perspective on Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome.

Authors:  Asma Naseem; Zohar Steinberg; Alessia Cavazza
Journal:  Front Immunol       Date:  2022-08-18       Impact factor: 8.786

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.