| Literature DB >> 35628723 |
Feng-Jie Jin1, Bao-Teng Wang1, Zhen-Dong Wang1, Long Jin1, Pei Han2.
Abstract
Aspergillus, a genus of filamentous fungi, is extensively distributed in nature and plays crucial roles in the decomposition of organic materials as an important environmental microorganism as well as in the traditional fermentation and food processing industries. Furthermore, due to their strong potential to secrete a large variety of hydrolytic enzymes and other natural products by manipulating gene expression and/or introducing new biosynthetic pathways, several Aspergillus species have been widely exploited as microbial cell factories. In recent years, with the development of next-generation genome sequencing technology and genetic engineering methods, the production and utilization of various homo-/heterologous-proteins and natural products in Aspergillus species have been well studied. As a newly developed genome editing technology, the clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats/CRISPR-associated protein 9 (CRISPR/Cas9) system has been used to edit and modify genes in Aspergilli. So far, the CRISPR/Cas9-based approach has been widely employed to improve the efficiency of gene modification in the strain type Aspergillus nidulans and other industrially important and pathogenic Aspergillus species, including Aspergillus oryzae, Aspergillus niger, and Aspergillus fumigatus. This review highlights the current development of CRISPR/Cas9-based genome editing technology and its application in basic research and the production of recombination proteins and natural products in the Aspergillus species.Entities:
Keywords: Aspergillus species; CRISPR/Cas9; cell factory; genome editing technology; natural product production
Year: 2022 PMID: 35628723 PMCID: PMC9143064 DOI: 10.3390/jof8050467
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Fungi (Basel) ISSN: 2309-608X
The development and application of the CRISPR/Cas9-based genome editing system in Aspergillus species.
| Species | Cas9 Expression | gRNA Expression | Delivery | DNA Repair System | Gene Editing Type | Efficiency | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Selection Marker, Promoter) | (Promoter) | ||||||
|
|
| PMT | NHEJ | 1–84 bp deletion or insertion | Success | [ | |
|
| PMT | HDR | Multiple-gene disruption | 10–100% | [ | ||
|
|
| PMT | HDR | gene disruption | 80% | [ | |
|
|
| PMT | HDR | gene activation (gene replacement) | Success | [ | |
|
| in vitro transcription | PMT | HDR | gene disruption | 37.5–100% | [ | |
|
|
| in vitro transcription | PMT | HDR | gene disruption | Success | [ |
|
|
| PMT | HDR | insertion-deletion mutation | 100% | [ | |
|
|
| PMT | NHEJ | short insertions or deletions | Success | [ | |
|
|
| PMT | NHEL/HDR | gene disruption | 79% | [ | |
|
| tRNA promoter | PMT | NHEJ/HDR | gene disruption/gene replacement | 13–97% | [ | |
|
| in vitro transcription | PMT | HDR | gene knock-in | Success | [ | |
|
| in vitro transcription | PMT | HDR | gene knock-in | Success | [ | |
|
| tRNA promoter | PMT | HDR | single/multiple gene knock-out | 38–100% | [ | |
|
| in vitro transcription | PMT | HDR | gene knock-out | 100% | [ | |
|
| in vitro synthesis | PMT | HDR | gene knock-in (base editing) | Success | [ | |
|
| RNP | PMT | HDR | single/multiple gene knock-out | 100% | [ | |
|
| (rAPOBEC1-nCas9D10A) |
| PMT | NHEJ | single base editing | 47.4–100% | [ |
|
| 5S rRNA | PMT | NHEJ/HDR | gene disruption | 100% | [ | |
|
|
| PMT | HDR | gene knock-out/knock-in | 13.5–54.5% | [ | |
|
| 5S rRNA | PMT | HDR | gene disruption | 100% | [ | |
|
|
| PMT | HDR | gene knock-out/knock-in | Success | [ | |
|
| RNP | PMT | NHEJ/HDR | gene knock-out/knock-in | 8.3–37.5% | [ | |
|
| RNP | PMT | NHEJ | gene disruption | Success | [ | |
|
| tRNAPro1 | PMT | HDR | base editing | Success | [ | |
|
|
| PMT | HDR | gene knock-in | Success | [ | |
|
| glutamine ( | Shock wave /PMT | NHEJ/HDR | gene disruption/gene knock-in | Success | [ | |
|
| RNP | PMT | HDR | gene disruption | 100% | [ | |
|
| tRNAPro1 | PMT | HDR | gene knock-out | Success | [ | |
|
| RNP | PMT | HDR | gene replacement | >90% | [ | |
|
| RNP | PMT | NHEJ/HDR | gene knock-out | Success | [ | |
|
| in vitro transcription | PMT | HDR | gene knock-in | Success | [ | |
|
| tRNA promoter | PMT | HDR | gene knock-out | Success | [ | |
|
|
| PMT | NHEJ | 1–22 bp deletion or insertion | 10–20% | [ | |
|
|
| PMT | NHEJ | 1–23 bp deletion | 100% | [ | |
|
|
| PMT | HDR | Single/double-gene disruption | 50–100% | [ | |
|
|
| PMT | HDR | gene disruption | Success | [ | |
|
|
| PMT | HDR | gene disruption | Success | [ | |
|
| RNP | PMT | HDR | gene disruption | 56–100% | [ | |
|
|
| PMT | HDR | Promoter exchange | Success | [ | |
|
|
| PMT | NHEJ/HDR | gene disruption | 25–53% | [ | |
|
| PMT | HDR | Single/double-gene disruption | 95–100% | [ | ||
|
|
| PMT | NHEJ/HDR | gene disruption/gene replacement | Success | [ | |
|
| RNP | PMT | HDR | gene disruption | 97% | [ | |
|
|
| PMT | HDR | base editing | Success | [ | |
|
| RNP | PMT | HDR | gene knock-in | Success | [ | |
|
| RNP | PMT | HDR | gene disruption/gene replacement | 93%; 10–20% | [ | |
|
| RNP | PMT | HDR | gene replacement | Success | [ | |
|
| RNP | PMT | HDR | gene disruption | 90% | [ | |
|
| AMT | NHEJ/HDR | Single-gene disruption | 27% | [ | ||
|
| RNP | PMT | HDR | gene disruption | Success | [ | |
|
|
| PMT | HDR | gene disruption | Success | [ | |
|
| 5S rRNA promoter | PMT | HDR | gene disruption | 71% | [ | |
|
| RNP | PMT | HDR | gene knock-in | Success | [ |
RNP, in vitro-assembled Cas9 and gRNA ribonucleoprotein complexes; PMT, a polyethylene glycol (PEG)/CaCl2-mediated protoplast transformation system; AMT, Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated transformation system.