| Literature DB >> 35524183 |
Shiwei Zhou1,2, Peter Kalds1,3, Qi Luo1, Kexin Sun1, Xiaoe Zhao2, Yawei Gao1, Bei Cai1, Shuhong Huang1, Qifang Kou4, Bjoern Petersen5, Yulin Chen6, Baohua Ma7, Xiaolong Wang8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: CRISPR/Cas9-based genome-editing systems have been used to efficiently engineer livestock species with precise genetic alterations intended for biomedical and agricultural applications. Previously, we have successfully generated gene-edited sheep and goats via one-cell-stage embryonic microinjection of a Cas9 mRNA and single-guide RNAs (sgRNAs) mixture. However, most gene-edited animals produced using this approach were heterozygotes. Additionally, non-homozygous gene-editing outcomes may not fully generate the desired phenotype in an efficient manner.Entities:
Keywords: CRISPR/Cas9 optimization; Genome editing; Homozygous gene knockout; MSTN; Muscle growth; Sheep
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35524183 PMCID: PMC9078021 DOI: 10.1186/s12864-022-08594-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Genomics ISSN: 1471-2164 Impact factor: 4.547
Fig. 1Optimization of the CRISPR/Cas9 system in sheep fibroblasts and embryos. A Schematic representation of the study design for the optimization of CRISPR/Cas9:sgRNA delivery system in fibroblasts and sheep microinjected zygotes. B Editing efficiency of different sgRNAs targeting the MSNT gene in sheep fibroblasts. C, D Embryo development rate and editing efficiency for each tested microinjection group. In groups #1, #2, and #3, Cas9 mRNA concentration was 25 ng/μL, whereas concentration of total sgRNAs was 100 ng/μL, 200 ng/μL, and 400 ng/μL, respectively. In groups #4, #5, and #6, Cas9 mRNA concentration was 50 ng/μL, while concentration of total sgRNAs was 100 ng/μL, 200 ng/μL, and 400 ng/μL, respectively. In groups #7, #8, and #9, Cas9 mRNA concentration was 100 ng/μL, while concentration of total sgRNAs was 100 ng/μL, 200 ng/μL, and 400 ng/μL, respectively. In groups #10, #11, and #12, Cas9 mRNA concentration was 400 ng/μL, while concentration of total sgRNAs was 100 ng/μL, 200 ng/μL, and 400 ng/μL, respectively
Fig. 2Detection of CRISPR/Cas9-mediated nucleotide variations in founder animals. A Schematic diagram of the MSTN gene structure and targeting loci of chosen sgRNAs. sgRNAs targeting sites are highlighted in yellow; protospacer adjacent motif (PAM) sequences are highlighted in red. B Representative images of a 30-day-old MSTN gene-edited (Mut) and wild-type (WT) lambs. C Genotypes of target sites in eight founder animals as determined by targeted deep sequencing. Mutations are highlighted in blue and (−) indicates deletions
Lambs generated with MSTN knockout after optimization of the CRISPR/Cas9 system in vitro
| No. of donor ewes | 33 |
| No. of collected embryos | 358 |
| Cas9 mRNA:sgRNA | |
| No. of microinjected embryos | 350 |
| No. of transferred embryos | 345 |
| No. of recipient ewes | 58 |
| No. of pregnancies | 14 |
| Newborns | 16 |
| No. of homozygous knockouts | 4 |
| No. of non-homozygous knockouts | 4 |
| No. of wild-type lambs | 8 |
Fig. 3Phenotypic analyses of MSTN gene-edited sheep. A Expression levels of the MSTN gene in homozygous gene-edited (Mut) and wild-type (WT) lambs. **P < 0.01, Student’s t-test. B Birth weight of Mut and WT lambs; blue dots indicate WT founders and red dots indicate Mut founders. C Average daily gain (ADG) of Mut and WT lambs from day 0 to 90. D Changes in body weight in Mut and WT lambs from day 0 to 90. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, Student’s t-test. E Histological analysis of muscle tissues of Mut (#48) and a WT founder on day 180
Effect of MSTN knockout on meat quality as assessed on the gluteal muscle tissue of gene-edited and wild-type lambs
| Item | Groups | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Control | |||
| pH45min | 6.15 ± 0.04 | 6.14 ± 0.04 | 0.76 |
| pH24h | 5.74 ± 0.03 | 5.74 ± 0.03 | 1.00 |
| Moisture (%) | 78.16 ± 0.48 | 77.63 ± 0.51 | 0.13 |
| Drip loss (%) | 4.75 ± 0.27 | 4.63 ± 0.21 | 0.44 |
| Shear force (N) | 46.78 ± 0.77 | 47.66 ± 0.55 | 0.063 |
| Intramuscular fat (g/100 g) | 4.57 ± 0.49 | 4.74 ± 0.34 | 0.55 |
| Crude protein (g/100 g) | 18.60 ± 0.35 | 18.88 ± 0.28 | 0.21 |