Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Cell Biology’ Category

CRISPR/Cas-mediated Genome Engineering

Curator: Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FCAP

UPDATED on 10/9/2015

2.1.5.27

2.1.5.27   CRISPR/Cas-mediated Genome Engineering, Volume 2 (Volume Two: Latest in Genomics Methodologies for Therapeutics: Gene Editing, NGS and BioInformatics, Simulations and the Genome Ontology), Part 2: CRISPR for Gene Editing and DNA Repair

Cpf1 Is a Single RNA-Guided Endonuclease of a Class 2 CRISPR-Cas System

Bernd Zetsche10

,

Jonathan S. Gootenberg10

,

Omar O. Abudayyeh

,

Ian M. Slaymaker

,

Kira S. Makarova

,

Patrick Essletzbichler

,

Sara E. Volz

,

Julia Joung

,

John van der Oost

,

Aviv Regev

,

Eugene V. Koonin

,

Feng Zhangcorrespondence
10Co-first author
Publication stage: In Press Corrected Proof

Highlights

  • •CRISPR-Cpf1 is a class 2 CRISPR system
  • •Cpf1 is a CRISPR-associated two-component RNA-programmable DNA nuclease
  • •Targeted DNA is cleaved as a 5-nt staggered cut distal to a 5′ T-rich PAM
  • •Two Cpf1 orthologs exhibit robust nuclease activity in human cells

Summary

The microbial adaptive immune system CRISPR mediates defense against foreign genetic elements through two classes of RNA-guided nuclease effectors. Class 1 effectors utilize multi-protein complexes, whereas class 2 effectors rely on single-component effector proteins such as the well-characterized Cas9. Here, we report characterization of Cpf1, a putative class 2 CRISPR effector. We demonstrate that Cpf1 mediates robust DNA interference with features distinct from Cas9. Cpf1 is a single RNA-guided endonuclease lacking tracrRNA, and it utilizes a T-rich protospacer-adjacent motif. Moreover, Cpf1 cleaves DNA via a staggered DNA double-stranded break. Out of 16 Cpf1-family proteins, we identified two candidate enzymes from Acidaminococcus and Lachnospiraceae, with efficient genome-editing activity in human cells. Identifying this mechanism of interference broadens our understanding of CRISPR-Cas systems and advances their genome editing applications.

VIEW IMAGE and SOURCE

http://www.cell.com/cell/abstract/S0092-8674%2815%2901200-3

SOURCE

https://www.broadinstitute.org/news/7272

Series E. 2: 7.5

Rudolf Jaenisch

One-Step Generation of Mice Carrying Mutations in Multiple Genes by CRISPR/Cas-Mediated Genome Engineering

Haoyi Wang6, Hui Yang6, Chikdu S. Shivalila6, Meelad M. Dawlaty, Albert W. Cheng, Feng Zhang, Rudolf Jaenisch
Cell May 2013; 153: 4(9), p910–918  http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2013.04.025

Highlights

  • •CRISPR/Cas9-mediated simultaneous targeting of five genes in mES cells
  • •Generation of Tet1/Tet2 double-mutant mice in one step
  • •Generation of Tet1/Tet2 double-mutant mice with predefined mutations in one step

Summary

Mice carrying mutations in multiple genes are traditionally generated by sequential recombination in embryonic stem cells and/or time-consuming intercrossing of mice with a single mutation. The CRISPR/Cas system has been adapted as an efficient gene-targeting technology with the potential for multiplexed genome editing. We demonstrate that CRISPR/Cas-mediated gene editing allows the simultaneous disruption of five genes (Tet1, 2, 3, Sry, Uty – 8 alleles) in mouse embryonic stem (ES) cells with high efficiency. Coinjection of Cas9 mRNA and single-guide RNAs (sgRNAs) targeting Tet1 and Tet2 into zygotes generated mice with biallelic mutations in both genes with an efficiency of 80%. Finally, we show that coinjection of Cas9 mRNA/sgRNAs with mutant oligos generated precise point mutations simultaneously in two target genes. Thus, the CRISPR/Cas system allows the one-step generation of animals carrying mutations in multiple genes, an approach that will greatly accelerate the in vivo study of functionally redundant genes and of epistatic gene interactions.

Generating genetically modified mice using CRISPR/Cas-mediated genome engineering

Hui Yang, Haoyi Wang & Rudolf Jaenisch
Nature Protocols  2014; 9, 1956–1968.   http://dx.doi.org:/10.1038/nprot.2014.134

Mice with specific gene modifications are valuable tools for studying development and disease. Traditional gene targeting in mice using embryonic stem (ES) cells, although suitable for generating sophisticated genetic modifications in endogenous genes, is complex and time-consuming. We have recently described CRISPR/Cas-mediated genome engineering for the generation of mice carrying mutations in multiple genes, endogenous reporters, conditional alleles or defined deletions. Here we provide a detailed protocol for embryo manipulation by piezo-driven injection of nucleic acids into the cytoplasm to create gene-modified mice. Beginning with target design, the generation of gene-modified mice can be achieved in as little as 4 weeks. We also describe the application of the CRISPR/Cas technology for the simultaneous editing of multiple genes (five genes or more) after a single transfection of ES cells. The principles described in this protocol have already been applied in rats and primates, and they are applicable to sophisticated genome engineering in species in which ES cells are not available.

Our long-range goals are to understand epigenetic regulation of gene expression in mammalian development and disease. An important question is to understand the different epigenetic conformations that distinguish differentiated cell states and to define strategies to transdifferentiate one differentiated cell type into another. Embryonic stem cells are of major significance because they have the potential to generate any cell type in the body and, therefore, are of great interest for regenerative medicine. A major focus of our work is to understand the molecular mechanisms that allow the reprogramming of somatic cells to an embryonic pluripotent state and to use the potential of patient specific pluripotent cells to study complex human diseases.

One-Step Generation of Mice Carrying Mutations in Multiple Genes by CRISPR/Cas-Mediated Genome Engineering

Haoyi Wang1, 6, Hui Yang1, 6, Chikdu S. Shivalila1, 2, 6, Meelad M. Dawlaty1, Albert W. Cheng1, 3, Feng Zhang4, 5, Rudolf Jaenisch1, 3,

Cell  May 2013; 153(4): 910–918  http://dx.doi.org:/10.1016/j.cell.2013.04.025

Highlights

  • CRISPR/Cas9-mediated simultaneous targeting of five genes in mES cells
  • Generation of Tet1/Tet2 double-mutant mice in one step
  • Generation of Tet1/Tet2 double-mutant mice with predefined mutations in one step

Mice carrying mutations in multiple genes are traditionally generated by sequential recombination in embryonic stem cells and/or time-consuming intercrossing of mice with a single mutation. The CRISPR/Cas system has been adapted as an efficient gene-targeting technology with the potential for multiplexed genome editing. We demonstrate that CRISPR/Cas-mediated gene editing allows the simultaneous disruption of five genes (Tet1, 2, 3, Sry, Uty – 8 alleles) in mouse embryonic stem (ES) cells with high efficiency. Coinjection of Cas9 mRNA and single-guide RNAs (sgRNAs) targeting Tet1 and Tet2 into zygotes generated mice with biallelic mutations in both genes with an efficiency of 80%. Finally, we show that coinjection of Cas9 mRNA/sgRNAs with mutant oligos generated precise point mutations simultaneously in two target genes. Thus, the CRISPR/Cas system allows the one-step generation of animals carrying mutations in multiple genes, an approach that will greatly accelerate the in vivo study of functionally redundant genes and of epistatic gene interactions.

Genetically modified mice represent a crucial tool for understanding gene function in development and disease. Mutant mice are conventionally generated by insertional mutagenesis (Copeland and Jenkins, 2010; Kool and Berns, 2009) or by gene-targeting methods (Capecchi, 2005). In conventional gene-targeting methods, mutations are introduced through homologous recombination in mouse embryonic stem (ES) cells. Targeted ES cells injected into wild-type (WT) blastocysts can contribute to the germline of chimeric animals, generating mice containing the targeted gene modification (Capecchi, 2005). It is costly and time consuming to produce single-gene knockout mice and even more so to make double-mutant mice. Moreover, in most other mammalian species, no established ES cell lines are available that contribute efficiently to chimeric animals, which greatly limits the genetic studies in many species.

Alternative methods have been developed to accelerate the process of genome modification by directly injecting DNA or mRNA of site-specific nucleases into the one-cell embryo to generate DNA double-strand break (DSB) at a specified locus in various species (Bogdanove and Voytas, 2011; Carroll et al., 2008; Urnov et al., 2010). DSBs induced by these site-specific nucleases can then be repaired by error-prone nonhomologous end joining (NHEJ) resulting in mutant mice and rats carrying deletions or insertions at the cut site (Carbery et al., 2010; Geurts et al., 2009; Sung et al., 2013;Tesson et al., 2011). If a donor plasmid with homology to the ends flanking the DSB is coinjected, high-fidelity homologous recombination can produce animals with targeted integrations (Cui et al., 2011; Meyer et al., 2010). Because these methods require the complex designs of zinc finger nucleases (ZNFs) or Transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALENs) for each target gene and because the efficiency of targeting may vary substantially, no multiplexed gene targeting in animals has been reported to date. To dissect the functions of gene family members with redundant functions or to analyze epistatic relationships in genetic pathways, mice with two or more mutated genes are required, prompting the development of efficient technology for the generation of animals carrying multiple mutated genes.

Recently, the type II bacterial CRISPR/Cas system has been demonstrated as an efficient gene-targeting technology with the potential for multiplexed genome editing. Bacteria and archaea have evolved an RNA-based adaptive immune system that uses CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeat) and Cas (CRISPR-associated) proteins to detect and destroy invading viruses and plasmids (Horvath and Barrangou, 2010; Wiedenheft et al., 2012). Cas proteins, CRISPR RNAs (crRNAs), andtrans-activating crRNA (tracrRNA) form ribonucleoprotein complexes, which target and degrade foreign nucleic acids, guided by crRNAs ( Gasiunas et al., 2012; Jinek et al., 2012). It was shown that the Cas9 endonuclease from Streptococcus pyogenes type II CRISPR/Cas system can be programmed to produce sequence-specific DSB in vitro by providing a synthetic single-guide RNA (sgRNA) consisting of a fusion of crRNA and tracrRNA ( Jinek et al., 2012). More intriguingly, Cas9 and sgRNA are the only components necessary and sufficient for induction of targeted DNA cleavage in cultured human cells ( Cho et al., 2013; Cong et al., 2013; Mali et al., 2013) as well as in zebrafish (Chang et al., 2013; Hwang et al., 2013). A recent report also demonstrated disruption of a GFP transgene in mice using the CRISPR/Cas system ( Shen et al., 2013). The ease of design, construction, and delivery of multiple sgRNAs suggest the possibility of multiplexed genome editing in mammals. Indeed, one study demonstrated that two loci separated by 119 bp could be cleaved simultaneously in cultured human cells at a low efficiency ( Cong et al., 2013). The extent of achievable multiplexed genome editing has yet to be demonstrated in stem cells as well as in animals. Here, we use the CRISPR/Cas system to drive both NHEJ-based gene disruption and homology directed repair (HDR)-based precise gene editing to achieve highly efficient and simultaneous targeting of multiple genes in stem cells and mice.

Simultaneous Targeting up to Five Genes in ES Cells

To test whether the CRISPR/Cas system could produce targeted cleavage in the mouse genome, we transfected plasmids expressing both the mammalian-codon-optimized Cas9 and a sgRNA targeting each gene ( Cong et al., 2013; Mali et al., 2013) into mouse ES cells and determined the targeted cleavage efficiency by the Surveyor assay ( Guschin et al., 2010). All three Cas9-sgRNA transfections produced cleavage at target loci with high efficiency of 36% at Tet1, 48% atTet2, and 36% at Tet3 ( Figure 1B). Because each target locus contains a restriction enzyme recognition site ( Figure 1A), we PCR amplified an ∼500 bp fragment around each target site and digested the PCR products with the respective enzyme. A correctly targeted allele will lose the restriction site, which can be detected by failure to cleave upon enzyme treatment. Using this restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) assay, we screened 48 ES cell clones from each single-targeting experiment. Consistent with the Surveyor analysis, a high percentage of ES cell clones were targeted, with a high probability of having both alleles mutated ( Figure S1A available online). The results summarized in Table 1 demonstrate that between 65% and 81% of the tested ES cell clones carried mutations in the Tet genes with up to 77% having mutations in both alleles.

Figure 1.

Multiplexed Gene Targeting in mouse ES cells

(A) Schematic of the Cas9/sgRNA-targeting sites in Tet1, 2, and 3. The sgRNA-targeting sequence is underlined, and the protospacer-adjacent motif (PAM) sequence is labeled in green. The restriction sites at the target regions are bold and capitalized. Restriction enzymes used for RFLP and Southern blot analysis are shown, and the Southern blot probes are shown as orange boxes.

(B) Surveyor assay for Cas9-mediated cleavage at Tet1, 2, and 3 loci in ES cells.

(C) Genotyping of triple-targeted ES cells, clones 51, 52, and 53 are shown. Upper: RFLP analysis. Tet1PCR products were digested with SacI, Tet2 PCR products were digested with EcoRV, and Tet3 PCR products were digested with XhoI. Lower: Southern blot analysis. For the Tet1 locus, SacI digested genomic DNA was hybridized with a 5′ probe. Expected fragment size: WT = 5.8 kb, TM (targeted mutation) = 6.4 kb. For the Tet2 locus, SacI, and EcoRV double-digested genomic DNA was hybridized with a 3′ probe. Expected fragment size: WT = 4.3 kb, TM = 5.6 kb. For the Tet3 locus, BamHI and XhoI double-digested genomic DNA was hybridized with a 5′ probe. Expected fragment size: WT = 3.2 kb, TM = 8.1 kb.

(D) The sequence of six mutant alleles in triple-targeted ES cell clone 14 and 41. PAM sequence is labeled in red.

(E) Analysis of 5hmC levels in DNA isolated from triple-targeted ES cell clones by dot blot assay using anti-5hmC antibody. A previously characterized DKO clone derived using traditional method is used as a control. See also Figure S1.

Figure options

Figure S1.

Single-, Triple-, and Quintuple-Gene Targeting in mES Cells, Related to Figure 1

(A) RFLP analysis of clones from each single-targeting experiment (1 to 17 are shown).

(B) RFLP analysis of triple-gene-targeted clones (37 to 53 are shown). Tet1 PCR products were digested with SacI, Tet2 PCR products were digested with EcoRV, and Tet3 PCR products were digested with XhoI. WT control is shown in the last lane. Genotyping of clone 51, 52, and 53 are also shown in Figure 1C.

(C) Schematic of the Cas9/sgRNA-targeting sites in Sry and Uty. The sgRNA-targeting sequence is underlined, and the protospacer-adjacent motif (PAM) sequence is labeled in green. The restriction sites at the target regions are bold and capitalized. Restriction enzymes used for RFLP analysis are shown.

(D) RFLP analysis of quintuple-gene-targeted clones (1 to 10 are shown). Sry PCR products were digested with BsaJI, Uty PCR products were digested with AvrII. WT control is shown in the last lane. RFLP analysis of Tet1, 2, 3 loci are not shown.

Figure options

Table 1.

CRISPR/Cas-Mediated Gene Targeting in V6.5 ES Cells

Mutant Alleles per Clone / Total Clones Tested
Gene 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
Tet1 N/A 27/48 4/48 17/48
Tet2 37/48 2/48 9/48
Tet3 32/48 3/48 13/48
Tet1+ Tet2 + Tet3 20/96 16/96 2/96 2/96 1/96 0/96 55/96

Plasmids encoding Cas9 and sgRNAs targeting Tet1, Tet2, and Tet3 were transfected separately (single targeting) or in a pool (triple targeting) into ES cells. The number of total alleles mutated in each ES cell clone is listed from 0 to 2 for single-targeting experiment, and 0 to 6 for triple-targeting experiment. The number of clones containing each specific number of mutated alleles is shown in relation to the total number of clones screened in each experiment. See also Table S1.

Table options

The high efficiency of single-gene modification prompted us to test the possibility of targeting all three genes simultaneously. For this we cotransfected ES cells with the constructs expressing Cas9 and three sgRNAs targeting Tet1, 2, and 3. Of 96 clones screened using the RFLP assay, 20 clones were identified as having mutations in all six alleles of the three genes ( Figures 1C and S1B and Table 1). To exclude that a PCR bias could give false positive results, we performed Southern blot analysis and confirmed complete agreement with the RFLP results ( Figure 1C). We subcloned and sequenced the PCR products of Tet1-, Tet2-, and Tet3-targeted regions to verify that all of eight tested clones carried biallelic mutations in all three genes with most clones displaying two mutant alleles for each gene with small insertions or deletions (indels) at the target site ( Figure 1D). To test whether these mutant alleles would abolish the function of Tet proteins, we compared the 5hmC level of targeted clones to WT ES cells. Previously, we reported a depletion of 5hmC in Tet1/Tet2 double-knockout ES cells derived using traditional gene-targeting methods ( Dawlaty et al., 2013). As expected from loss of function alleles, we found a significant reduction of 5hmC levels in all clones carrying biallelic mutations in the three genes ( Figure 1E).

To further test the potential of multiplexed gene targeting by CRISPR/Cas system, we designed sgRNAs targeting two Y-linked genes, Sry and Uty ( Figure S1C). Short PCR products encoding sgRNAs targeting all five genes (Tet1, Tet2, Tet3, Sry, and Uty) were pooled and cotransfected with a Cas9 expressing plasmid and the PGK puroR cassette into ES cells. Of 96 clones that were screened using the RFLP assay, 10% carried mutations in all eight alleles of the five genes ( Figure S1D and Table S1), demonstrating the capacity of the CRISP/Cas9 system for highly efficient multiplexed gene targeting.

One-Step Generation of Single-Gene Mutant Mice by Zygote Injection

We tested whether mutant mice could be generated in vivo by direct embryo manipulation. Capped polyadenylated Cas9 mRNA was produced by in vitro transcription and coinjected with sgRNAs. Initially, to determine the optimal concentration of Cas9 mRNA for targeting in vivo, we microinjected varying amounts of Cas9-encoding mRNA with Tet1 targeting sgRNA at constant concentration (20 ng/μl) into pronuclear (PN) stage one-cell mouse embryos and assessed the frequency of altered alleles at the blastocyst stage using the RFLP assay. As expected, higher concentration of Cas9 mRNA led to more efficient gene disruption ( Figure S2A). Nevertheless, even embryos injected with the highest amount of Cas9 mRNA (200 ng/μl) showed normal blastocyst development, suggesting low toxicity.

Figure S2.

One-Step Generation of Single-Gene Mutant Mice by Zygote Injection, Related to Figure 2

(A) RFLP analysis of blastocysts injected with different concentration of Cas9 mRNA and Tet1 sgRNA at 20 ng/μl. Tet1 PCR products were digested with SacI.

(B) Commonly recovered Tet1 and Tet2 alleles resulted from MMEJ. PAM sequence of each targeting sequence is labeled in green. Microhomology flanking the DSB is bold and underlined in WT sequence.

(C) RFLP analysis of eight Tet3-targeted blastocysts demonstrated high targeting efficiency (embryo 3 and 5 failed to amplify). Tet3 PCR products were digested with XhoI.

(D) Some Tet3-targeted mice show smaller size and all homozygous mutants died within 1 day after birth.

(E) RFLP analysis of Tet3 single-targeted newborn mice. Mouse 8 and 14 survived after birth. Sample 2 and 6 failed to amplify.

(F) Sequences of both Tet3 alleles of surviving Tet3-targeted mouse 14. PAM sequences are labeled in red.

Figure options

To investigate whether postnatal mice carrying targeted mutations could be generated, we coinjected sgRNAs targeting Tet1or Tet2 with different concentrations of Cas9 mRNA. Blastocysts derived from the injected embryos were transplanted into foster mothers and newborn pups were obtained. As summarized in Table 2, about 10% of the transferred blastocysts developed to birth independent of the RNA concentrations used for injection suggesting low fetal toxicity of the Cas9 mRNA and sgRNA. RFLP, Southern blot, and sequencing analysis demonstrated that between 50 and 90% of the postnatal mice carried biallelic mutations in either target gene ( Figures 2A, 2B, and 2C and Table 2).

Table 2.

CRISPR/Cas-Mediated Single-Gene Targeting in BDF2 Mice

Gene Cas9/sg RNA (ng/μl) Blastocysts/Injected Zygotes Transferred Embryos (Recipients) Newborns (Dead) Mutant Alleles per Mouse/Total Mice Testeda
2 1 0
Tet1 200/20 38/50 19 (1) 2 (0) 2/2 0/2 0/2
100/20 50/60 25 (1) 3 (0) 2/3 0/3 1/3
50/20 40/50 40 (2) 8 (3) 4/7 2/7 1/7
100/50 167/198 60 (3) 12 (2) 9/11 1/11 1/11
Tet2 100/50 176/203 108 (5) 22 (3) 19/20 0/20 1/20
Tet3 100/50 85/112 64 (4) 15 (13) 9/13 2/13 2/13

Cas9 mRNA and sgRNAs targeting Tet1, Tet2, or Tet3 were injected into fertilized eggs. The blastocysts derived from injected embryos were transplanted into foster mothers and newborn pups were obtained and genotyped. The number of total alleles mutated in each mouse is listed from 0 to 2. The number of mice containing each specific number of mutated alleles is shown in relation to the total number of mice screened in each experiment. See also Table S2. A Some of the pups were cannibalized.

Table options

http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0092867413004674-gr2.jpg

Surprisingly, specific Δ9 Tet1 and specific Δ8 and Δ15 Tet2 mutant alleles were repeatedly recovered in independently derived mice. Preferential generation of these alleles is likely caused by a short sequence repeat flanking the DSB (see Figure S2B) consistent with previous reports demonstrating that perfect microhomology sequences flanking the cleavage sites can generate microhomology-mediated precise deletions by end repair mechanism (MMEJ) ( McVey and Lee, 2008; Symington and Gautier, 2011) (Figure S2B). A similar observation was also made when TALEN mRNA was injected into one-cell rat embryos ( Tesson et al., 2011).

We also derived blastocysts from zygotes injected with Cas9 mRNA and Tet3 sgRNA. Genotyping of the blastocysts demonstrated that of eight embryos three were homozygous and three were heterozygous Tet3 mutants (two failed to amplify) (Figure S2C). Some blastocysts were implanted into foster mothers and, upon C section, we readily identified multiple mice of smaller size ( Figure S2D), many of which died soon after delivery. Genotyping shown in Figure S2E indicated that all pups with mutations in both Tet3 alleles died neonatally. Only 2 out of 15 mice survived that were either Tet3heterozygous mutants or WT ( Figure S2F). These results are consistent with the lethal neonatal phenotype of Tet3 knockout mice generated using traditional methods ( Gu et al., 2011), although we have not yet established which of the Tet3 mutations produced loss of function rather than hypomorphic alleles.

One-Step Generation of Double-Gene Mutant Mice by Zygote Injection

To test whether Tet1/Tet2 double-mutant mice could be produced from single embryos, we coinjected Tet1 and Tet2 sgRNAs with 20 or 100 ng/μl Cas9 mRNA into zygotes. A total of 28 pups were born from 144 embryos transferred into foster mothers (21% live-birth rate) that had been injected at the zygote stage with high concentrations of RNA (Cas9 mRNA at 100 ng/μl, sgRNAs at 50 ng/μl), consistent with low or no toxicity of the Cas9 mRNA and sgRNAs ( Table 3). RFLP, Southern blot analysis, and sequencing identified 22 mice carrying targeted mutations at all four alleles of the Tet1 and Tet2genes ( Figures 2D and 2E) with the remaining mice carrying mutations in a subset of alleles ( Table 3). Injection of zygotes with low concentration of RNA (Cas9 mRNA at 20 ng/μl, sgRNAs at 20 ng/μl) yielded 19 pups from 75 transferred embryos (25% live-birth rate), which is a higher survival rate than from embryos injected with 100 ng/μl of Cas9 RNA. Nevertheless, more than 50% of the pups were biallelic Tet1/Tet2 double mutants ( Table 3). These results demonstrate that postnatal mice carrying biallelic mutations in two different genes can be generated within one month with high efficiency (Figure 2F).

Table 3.

CRISPR/Cas-Mediated Double-Gene Targeting in BDF2 Mice

Gene Cas9/sgRNA (ng/μl) Blastocyst/Injected Zygotes Transferred Embryos (Recipients) Newborns (Dead) Mutant Alleles per Mouse/Total Mice Testeda
4 3 2 1 0
Tet1 +Tet2 100 / 50 194/229 144(7) 31(8) 22/28 4/28 1/28 1/28 0/28
20 / 20 92/109 75(5) 19(3) 11/19 1/19 2/19 3/19 2/19

Cas9 mRNA and sgRNAs targeting Tet1and Tet2 were coinjected into fertilized eggs. The blastocysts derived from the injected embryos were transplanted into foster mothers and newborn pups were obtained and genotyped. The number of total alleles mutated in each mouse is listed from 0 to 4 for Tet1 and Tet2. The number of mice containing each specific number of mutated alleles is shown in relation to the number of total mice screened in each experiment. A Some of the pups were cannibalized.

Table options

Although the high live-birth rate and normal development of mutant mice suggest low toxicity of CRISPR/Cas9 system, we sought to determine the off-target effects in vivo. Previous work in vitro, in bacteria, and in cultured human cells suggested that the protospacer-adjacent motif (PAM) sequence NGG and the 8 to 12 base “seed sequence” at the 3′ end of the sgRNA are most important for determining the DNA cleavage specificity (Cong et al., 2013; Jiang et al., 2013; Jinek et al., 2012). Based on this rule, only three and four potential off targets exist in mouse genome for Tet1 and Tet2 sgRNA, respectively ( Table S2 and Experimental Procedures), with each of them perfectly matching the 12 bp seed sequence at the 3′ end and the NGG PAM sequence of the sgRNA (there is no potential off-target site for Tet3 sgRNA using this prediction rule). From seven double-mutant mice produced from injection with high RNA concentration we PCR amplified 400 to 500 bp fragments from all seven potential off-target loci and found no cleavage in the Surveyor assay ( Figure S3), suggesting a high specificity of CRISPR/Cas system.

Figure S3.

Off-Target Analysis of Double-Mutant Mice, Related to Figure 2

(A) Three potential off targets of Tet1 sgRNA and four potential off targets of Tet2 sgRNA are shown. The 12 bp perfect matching seed sequence is labeled in blue, and NGG PAM sequence is labeled in red.

(B) Surveyor assay of all seven potential off-target loci in seven double-mutant mice derived with high concentration of Cas9 mRNA (100 ng/μl) injection. WT control is included as the eighth sample. The weak cleavage activity at Ubr1 locus is not due to off-target effect because sequences of these PCR products show no mutations.

http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0092867413004674-figs3.jpg

Multiplexed Precise HDR-Mediated Genome Editing In Vivo

The NHEJ-mediated gene mutations described above produced mutant alleles with different and unpredictable insertions and deletions of variable size. We explored the possibility of precise homology directed repair (HDR)-mediated genome editing by coinjecting Cas9 mRNA, sgRNAs, and single-stranded DNA oligos into one-cell embryos. For this we designed an oligo targeting Tet1 so as to change two base pairs of a SacI restriction site and creating instead an EcoRI site and a second oligo targetingTet2 with two base pair changes that would convert an EcoRV site into an EcoRI site (Figure 3A). Blastocysts were derived from zygotes injected with Cas9 mRNA and sgRNAs and oligos targeting Tet1 or Tet2, respectively. DNA was isolated, amplified, and digested with EcoRI to detect oligo-mediated HDR events. Six out of nine Tet1-targeted embryos and 9 out of 15 Tet2-targeted embryos incorporated an EcoRI site at the respective target locus, with several embryos having both alleles modified (Figure S4A). When Cas9 mRNA, sgRNAs, and single-stranded DNA oligos targeting both Tet1 and Tet2 were coinjected into zygotes, out of 14 embryos, four were identified that were targeted with the oligo at the Tet1 locus, seven that were targeted with the oligo at the Tet2 locus and one embryo (2) that had one allele of each gene correctly modified (Figure S4B). All four alleles of embryo 2 were sequenced, confirming that one allele of each gene contained the 2 bp changes directed by the oligo, whereas the other alleles were disrupted by NHEJ-mediated deletion and insertion ( Figure S4C).

Figure 3.

Multiplexed HDR-Mediated Genome Editing In Vivo

(A) Schematic of the oligo-targeting sites at Tet1 and Tet2 loci. The sgRNA-targeting sequence is underlined, and the PAM sequence is labeled in green. Oligo targeting each gene is shown under the target site, with 2 bp changes labeled in red. Restriction enzyme sites used for RFLP analysis are bold and capitalized.

(B) RFLP analysis of double oligo injection mice with HDR-mediated targeting at the Tet1 and Tet2 loci.

(C) The sequences of both alleles of Tet1 and Tet2 in mouse 5 and 7 show simultaneously HDR-mediated targeting at one allele or two alleles of each gene, and NHEJ-mediated disruption at the other alleles. See also Figure S4.

http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0092867413004674-gr3.jpg

Figure S4.

Multiplexed Precise HDR-Mediated Genome Editing In Vivo, Related to Figure 3

(A) RFLP analysis of single oligo injection embryos with HDR-mediated targeting at Tet1 and Tet2 locus.

(B) RFLP analysis of double oligo injection embryos with multiplexed HDR-mediated targeting at both Tet1and Tet2 loci.

(C) Sequences of both alleles of Tet1 and Tet2 in embryo 2 show simultaneously HDR-mediated targeting at one allele of both genes, and NHEJ-mediated gene disruption at the other allele of each gene.

http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0092867413004674-figs4.jpg

Blastocysts with double oligo injections were implanted into foster mothers and a total of 10 pups were born from 48 embryos transferred (21% live-birth rate). Upon RFLP analysis using EcoRI, we identified seven mice containing EcoRI sites at the Tet1 locus and eight mice containing EcoRI sites at the Tet2 locus, with six mice containing EcoRI sites at both Tet1 and Tet2 loci ( Figure 3B). We also applied RFLP analysis using SacI and EcoRV to Tet1 and Tet2 loci, respectively, showing that all alleles not targeted by oligos contained disruptions, which is in consistent with the high biallelic mutation rate by Cas9 mRNA and sgRNAs injection. These results were confirmed by sequencing demonstrating mutations in all four alleles of mouse 5 and 7 ( Figure 3C). Our results demonstrate that mice with HDR-mediated precise mutations in multiple genes can be generated in one step by CRISPR/Cas-mediated genome editing.

Discussion

The genetic manipulation of mice is a crucial approach for the study of development and disease. However, the generation of mice with specific mutations is labor intensive and involves gene targeting by homologous recombination in ES cells, the production of chimeric mice, and, after germline transmission of the targeted ES cells, the interbreeding of heterozygous mice to produce the homozygous experimental animals, a process that may take 6 to 12 months or longer (Capecchi, 2005). To produce mice carrying mutations in several genes requires time-consuming intercrossing of single-mutant mice. Similarly, the generation of ES cells carrying homozygous mutations in several genes is usually achieved by sequential targeting, a process that is labor intensive, necessitating multiple consecutive cloning steps to target the genes and to delete the selectable markers.

As summarized in Figure 4, we have established three different approaches for the generation of mice carrying multiple genetic alterations. We demonstrate that CRISPR/Cas-mediated genome editing in ES cells can generate the simultaneous mutations of several genes with high efficiency, a single-step approach allowing the production of cells with mutations in five different genes (Figure 4A). We chose the threeTet genes as targets because the respective mutant phenotypes have been well defined previously ( Dawlaty et al., 2011, 2013; Gu et al., 2011). Cells mutant for Tet1, 2 and 3were depleted of 5hmC as would be expected for loss of function mutations of the genes (Dawlaty et al., 2013). However, we have not as yet established, which of the Cas9-mediated gene mutations produced loss of function rather than hypomorphic alleles.

Figure 4.

Mutiplexed Genome Editing in ES Cells and Mouse

(A) Multiple gene targeting in ES cells.

(B) One-step generation of mice with multiple mutations. Upper: multiple targeted mutations with random indels introduced through NHEJ. Lower: multiple predefined mutations introduced through HDR-mediated repair.

Figure options

We also show that mouse embryos can be directly modified by injection of Cas9 mRNA and sgRNA into the fertilized egg resulting in the efficient production of mice carrying biallelic mutations in a given gene. More significantly, coinjection of Cas9 with Tet1 andTet2 sgRNAs into zygotes produced mice that carried mutations in both genes (Figure 4B, upper). We found that up to 95% of newborn mice were biallelic mutant in the targeted gene when single sgRNA was injected and when coinjected with two different sgRNAs, up to 80% carried biallelic mutations in both targeted genes. Thus, mice carrying multiple mutations can be generated within 4 weeks, which is a much shorter time frame than can be achieved by conventional consecutive targeting of genes in ES cells and avoids time-consuming intercrossing of single-mutant mice.

The introduction of DSBs by CRISPR/Cas generates mutant alleles with varying deletions or insertions in contrast to designed precise mutations created by homologous recombination. The introduction of point mutations into human ES cells, cancer cell lines, and mouse by ZNF or TALEN along with DNA oligo has been demonstrated previously (Chen et al., 2011; Soldner et al., 2011; Wefers et al., 2013). We demonstrate that CRISPR/Cas-mediated targeting is useful to generate mutant alleles with predetermined alterations, and coinjection of single-stranded oligos can introduce designed point mutations into two target genes in one step, allowing for multiplexed gene editing in a strictly controlled manner (Figure 4B, lower). It will be of great interest to assess whether this targeting system allows for the production of conditional alleles, or precise insertion of larger DNA fragments such as GFP markers so as to generate conditional knockout and reporter mice for specific genes.

There are several potential limitations of the CRISPR/Cas technology. First, the requirement for a NGG PAM sequence of S. pyogenes Cas9 limits the target space in the mouse genome. It has been shown that the Streptococcus thermophilus LMD-9 Cas9 using different PAM sequence can also induce targeted DNA cleavage in mammalian cells ( Cong et al., 2013). Therefore, exploiting different Cas9 proteins may enable to target most of the mouse genome. Second, although the sgRNAs used here showed high targeting efficiency, much work is needed to elucidate the rules for designing sgRNAs with consistent high targeting efficiency, which is essential for multiplexed genome engineering. Third, although our off-target analysis for the seven most likely off targets of Tet1 and Tet2 sgRNAs failed to detect mutations in these loci, it is possible that other mutations were induced following as yet unidentified rules. A more thorough sequencing analysis for a large number of sgRNAs will provide more information about the potential off-target cleavage of the CRISPR/Cas system and lead to a better prediction of potential off-target sites. Last, oligo-mediated repair allows for precise genome editing, but the other allele is often mutated through NHEJ ( Figures 3B, 3C, andS4C). We have shown that using lower Cas9 mRNA concentration generates more mice with heterozygous mutations. Therefore, it may be possible to optimize the system for more efficient generation of mice with only one oligo -modified allele. In addition, employment of Cas9 nickase will likely avoid this complication because it mainly induces DNA single-strand break, which is typically repaired through HDR ( Cong et al., 2013;Mali et al., 2013).

It is likely that a much larger number of genomic loci than targeted in the present work can be modified simultaneously when pooled sgRNAs are introduced. The methods presented here open up the possibility of systematic genome engineering in mice, facilitating the investigation of entire signaling pathways, of synthetic lethal phenotypes or of genes that have redundant functions. A particularly interesting application is the possibility to produce mice carrying multiple alterations in candidate loci that have been identified in GWAS studies to play a role in the genesis of multigenic diseases. In summary, CRISPR/Cas-mediated genome editing makes possible the generation of ES cells and mice carrying multiple genetic alterations and will facilitate the genetic dissection of development and complex diseases.

One-Step Generation of Mice Carrying Reporter and Conditional Alleles by CRISPR/Cas-Mediated Genome Engineering

Hui Yang1, 4, Haoyi Wang1, 4, Chikdu S. Shivalila1, 2, 4, Albert W. Cheng1, 3, Linyu Shi1, Rudolf Jaenisch1, 3

Cell Sep 2013; 154(6):1370-1379   http://dx.doi.org:/10.1016/j.cell.2013.08.022

Highlights

  • One-step generation of mice with reporters in endogenous genes
  • One-step generation of conditional mutant mice
  • Off-target analysis suggests high specificity of the CRISPR/Cas9 system

The type II bacterial CRISPR/Cas system is a novel genome-engineering technology with the ease of multiplexed gene targeting. Here, we created reporter and conditional mutant mice by coinjection of zygotes with Cas9 mRNA and different guide RNAs (sgRNAs) as well as DNA vectors of different sizes. Using this one-step procedure we generated mice carrying a tag or a fluorescent reporter construct in the Nanog, the Sox2, and the Oct4 gene as well as Mecp2 conditional mutant mice. In addition, using sgRNAs targeting two separate sites in the Mecp2 gene, we produced mice harboring the predicted deletions of about 700 bps. Finally, we analyzed potential off-targets of five sgRNAs in gene-modified mice and ESC lines and identified off-target mutations in only rare instances.

Mice with specific gene modification are valuable tools for studying development and disease. Traditional gene targeting in embryonic stem (ES) cells, although suitable for generating sophisticated genetic modifications in endogenous genes, is complex and time-consuming (Capecchi, 2005). The production of genetically modified mice and rats has been greatly accelerated by novel approaches using direct injection of DNA or mRNA of site-specific nucleases into the one-cell-stage embryo, generating DNA double-strand breaks (DSB) at specified sequences leading to targeted mutations (Carbery et al., 2010, Geurts et al., 2009, Shen et al., 2013, Sung et al., 2013, Tesson et al., 2011 and Wang et al., 2013). Coinjection of a single-stranded or double-stranded DNA template containing homology to the sequences flanking the DSB can produce mutant alleles with precise point mutations or DNA inserts (Brown et al., 2013, Cui et al., 2011, Meyer et al., 2010, Wang et al., 2013 and Wefers et al., 2013). Recently, pronuclear injection of two pairs of ZFNs and two double-stranded donor vectors into rat fertilized eggs produced rat containing loxP-flanked (floxed) alleles (Brown et al., 2013). However, the complex and time-consuming design and generation of ZFNs and double-stranded donor vectors limit the application of this method.

CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeat) and Cas (CRISPR-associated) proteins function as the RNA-based adaptive immune system in bacteria and archaea (Horvath and Barrangou, 2010 and Wiedenheft et al., 2012). The type II bacterial CRISPR/Cas system has been demonstrated as an efficient gene-targeting technology that facilitates multiplexed gene targeting (Cong et al., 2013 and Wang et al., 2013). Because the binding of Cas9 is guided by the simple base-pair complementarities between the engineered single-guide RNA (sgRNA) and a target genomic DNA sequence, it is possible to direct Cas9 to any genomic locus by providing the engineered sgRNA (Cho et al., 2013, Cong et al., 2013, Gilbert et al., 2013, Hwang et al., 2013, Jinek et al., 2012, Jinek et al., 2013, Mali et al., 2013b, Qi et al., 2013 and Wang et al., 2013).

Previously, we used the type II bacterial CRISPR/Cas system as an efficient tool to generate mice carrying mutations in multiple genes in one step (Wang et al., 2013). However, this study left a number of issues unresolved. For example, neither the efficiency of using the CRISPR/Cas gene-editing approach for the insertion of DNA constructs into endogenous genes nor its utility to create conditional mutant mice was clarified. Here, we report the one-step generation of mice carrying reporter constructs in three different genes as well as the derivation of conditional mutant mice. In addition, we performed an extensive off-target cleavage analysis and show that off-target mutations are rare in targeted mice and ES cells derived from CRISPR/Cas zygote injection.

Results

Targeted Insertion of Short DNA Fragments

http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0092867413010167-figs1.jpg

Mice with Reporters in the Endogenous Nanog, Sox2, and Oct4 Genes

http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0092867413010167-gr1.jpg

http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0092867413010167-gr2.jpg

http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0092867413010167-figs2.jpg

Finally, we designed sgRNA targeting the Oct4 3′ UTR, which was coinjected with a published donor vector designed to integrate the 3 kb transgene cassette (IRES-eGFP-loxP-Neo-loxP; Figure 2D) at the 3′ end of the Oct4 gene ( Lengner et al., 2007). Blastocysts were derived from injected zygotes, inspected for GFP expression, and explanted to derive ES cells. About 20% (47/254) of the blastocysts displayed uniform GFP expression in the ICM region. Three of nine derived ES cell lines expressed GFP (Figure 2E), including one showed mosaic expression ( Table S2). Three out of ten live-born mice contained the targeted allele ( Table 1). Correct targeting in mice and ES cell lines was confirmed by Southern blot analysis ( Figure 2F).

Conventionally, transgenic mice are generated by pronuclear instead of cytoplasmic injection of DNA. To optimize the generation of CRISPR/Cas9-targeted embryos, we compared different concentrations of RNA and the Nanog-mCherry or the Oct4-GFP DNA vectors as well as three different delivery modes: (1) simultaneous injection of all constructs into the cytoplasm, (2) simultaneous injection of the RNA and the DNA into the pronucleus, and (3) injection of Cas9/sgRNA into the cytoplasm followed 2 hr later by pronuclear injection of the DNA vector. Table S1 shows that simultaneous injection of all constructs into the cytoplasm at a concentration of 100 ng/μl Cas9 RNA, 50 ng/μl of sgRNA and 200 ng/μl of vector DNA was optimal, resulting in 9% (86/936) to 19% (47/254) of targeted blastocysts. Similarly, the simultaneous injection of 5 ng/μl Cas9 RNA, 2.5 ng/μl of sgRNA, and 10 ng/μl of DNA vector into the pronucleus yielded between 9% (7/75) and 18% (13/72) targeted blastocysts. In contrast, the two-step procedure with Cas9 and sgRNA simultaneous injected into the cytoplasm followed 2 hr later by pronuclear injection of different concentrations of DNA vector yielded no or at most 3% (1/34) positive blastocysts. Thus, our results suggest that simultaneous injection of RNA and DNA into the cytoplasm or nucleus is the most efficient procedure to achieve targeted insertion.

Conditional Mecp2 Mutant Mice

http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0092867413010167-figs3.jpg

http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0092867413010167-gr3.jpg

A total of 98 E13.5 embryos and mice were generated from zygotes injected with Cas9 mRNA, sgRNAs, and DNA oligos targeting the L2 and R1 sites. Genomic DNA was digested with both NheI and EcoRI, and analyzed by Southern blot using exon 3 and exon 4 probes (Figures 3A and 3B). The L2 and R1 oligos contained, in addition to the loxP site, different restriction sites (NheI or EcoRI). Thus, single loxP site integration at L2 or R1 will produce either a 3.9 kb or a 2 kb band, respectively, when hybridized with the exon3 probe (Figures 3A and B). We found that about 50% (45/98) of the embryos and mice carried a loxP site at the L2 site and about 25% (25/98) at the R1 site. Importantly, integration of both loxP sites on the same DNA molecule, generating a floxed allele, produces a 700 bp band as detected by exon 3 probe hybridization (Figures 3A and 3B). RFLP analysis, sequencing (Figures S4A and S4B) and Southern blot analysis (Figure 3B) showed that 16 out of the 98 mice tested contained two loxP sites flanking exon 3 on the same allele. Table 2 summarizes the frequency of all alleles and shows that the overall insertion frequency of an L2 or R1 insertion was slightly higher in females (21/38) than in males (28/60) consistent with the higher copy number of the X-linkedMecp2 gene in females. To confirm that the floxed allele was functional, we used genomic DNA for in vitro Cre-mediated recombination. Upon Cre treatment, both the deletion and circular products were detected by PCR in targeted mice, but not in DNA from wild-type mice ( Figure 3C). The PCR products were sequenced and confirmed the precise Cre-loxP-mediated recombination ( Figure S4C).

http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0092867413010167-figs4.jpg

Mosaicism

Off-Target Analysis

In this study, we demonstrate that CRISPR/Cas technology can be used for efficient one-step insertions of a short epitope or longer fluorescent tags into precise genomic locations, which will facilitate the generation of mice carrying reporters in endogenous genes. Mice and embryos carrying reporter constructs in the Sox2, the Nanog and the Oct4 gene were derived from zygotes injected with Cas9 mRNA, sgRNAs, and DNA oligos or vectors encoding a tag or a fluorescent marker. Moreover, microinjection of two Mecp2-specific sgRNAs, Cas9 mRNA, and two different oligos encoding loxP sites into fertilized eggs allowed for the one-step generation of conditional mutant mice. In addition, we show that the introduction of two spaced sgRNAs targeting the Mecp2 gene can produce mice carrying defined deletions of about 700 bp. Though all RNA and DNA constructs were injected into the cytoplasm or nucleus of zygotes, the gene modification events could happen at the one-cell stage or later. Indeed, Southern analyses revealed mosaicism in 17% (1/6) to 40% (20/49) of the targeted mice and ES cell lines indicating that the insertion of the transgenes had occurred after the zygote stage ( Table S2).

More…

In summary, CRISPR/Cas-mediated genome editing represents an efficient and simple method of generating sophisticated genetic modifications in mice such as conditional alleles and endogenous reporters in one step. The principles described in this study could be directly adapted to other mammalian species, opening the possibility of sophisticated genome engineering in many species where ES cells are not available.

Multiplexed activation of endogenous genes by CRISPR-on, an RNA-guided transcriptional activator system

Albert W Cheng1,2,*, Haoyi Wang1,*, Hui Yang1, Linyu Shi1, Yarden Katz1,3, Thorold W Theunissen1, Sudharshan Rangarajan1, Chikdu S Shivalila1,4, Daniel B Dadon1,4 and Rudolf Jaenisch1,4
Cell Research (2013) 23:1163–1171. http://dx.doi.org:/10.1038/cr.2013.122

Technologies allowing for specific regulation of endogenous genes are valuable for the study of gene functions and have great potential in therapeutics. We created the CRISPR-on system, a two-component transcriptional activator consisting of a nuclease-dead Cas9 (dCas9) protein fused with a transcriptional activation domain and single guide RNAs (sgRNAs) with complementary sequence to gene promoters. We demonstrate that CRISPR-on can efficiently activate exogenous reporter genes in both human and mouse cells in a tunable manner. In addition, we show that robust reporter gene activation in vivo can be achieved by injecting the system components into mouse zygotes. Furthermore, we show that CRISPR-on can activate the endogenous IL1RN, SOX2, and OCT4genes. The most efficient gene activation was achieved by clusters of 3-4 sgRNAs binding to the proximal promoters, suggesting their synergistic action in gene induction. Significantly, when sgRNAs targeting multiple genes were simultaneously introduced into cells, robust multiplexed endogenous gene activation was achieved. Genome-wide expression profiling demonstrated high specificity of the system.

Gene expression is strictly controlled in many biol-ogical processes, such as development and diseases. Transcription factors regulate gene expression by binding to specific DNA sequences at the enhancer and promoter regions of target genes, and modulate transcription through their effector domains1. Based on the same principle, artificial transcription factors (ATFs) have been generated by fusing various functional domains to a DNA binding domain engineered to bind to the genes of interest, thereby modulating their expression2,3. The capability of regulating endogenous gene expression using ATFs may facilitate the study of the transcriptional network underlying complex biological processes and provide new therapeutic options for diseases. Significant efforts and progress have been made to engineer DNA binding domains with defined specificities. The decipherment of the “code” of DNA binding specificity of zinc finger proteins and transcription activator-like effectors (TALE) has led to the rational design of DNA binding domains to recognize specific nucleotides with certain probability4,5,6,7,8,9,10. However, binding specificity of these ATFs is usually degenerate, can be difficult to predict and the complex and time-consuming design and generation limits their applications. To study the transcriptional network in a systematic manner, regulating multiple endogenous genes is required, prompting the development of efficient technology for simultaneous regulation of multiple endogenous genes.

CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palin-dromic repeat) and Cas (CRISPR-associated) proteins are utilized by bacteria and archea to defend against viral pathogens11,12. Because the binding of Cas protein is guided by the simple base-pair complementarities between the engineered single guide RNA (sgRNA) and a target genomic DNA sequence, Cas9 could be directed to specific genomic locus or multiple loci simultaneously, by providing the engineered sgRNAs13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20. A recent study described the CRISPRi (CRISPR interference) system, in which the nuclease-deficient dCas9 (D10A; H840A) proteins blocked the transcription apparatus when directed to promoters or gene bodies in bacteria21. A subsequent study demonstrated a more efficient gene repression in eukaryotes by dCas9 fused with a transcription repression domain or exogenous transgene activation when fused with an activation domain22. Two most recent studies showed single endogenous gene activation using dCas9-based activators9,10. To what extent multiple endogenous genes could be regulated simultaneously has not been explored. In this study we report the generation of an RNA-programmable CRISPR-on system, which enables the simultaneous activation of multiple endogenous genes with a defined stoichiometry.

…

We show here that the CRISPR-on system can be used for the simultaneous induction of at least three different endogenous genes. More significantly, we demonstrated that the stoichiometry of gene induction of multiple genes can be tuned by adjusting the relative amount of their cognate sgRNAs. Simultaneous activation of multiple endogenous genes with defined stoichiometry opens up novel opportunities for systems biology as it allows for the predictable manipulation of transcriptional networks.

Finally, with the ease of design and synthesis, a library of sgRNAs could be generated. When introduced into a cell line constitutively expressing dCas9 activator, gene activation screens mediated by RNA (RNAa) could be achieved. As the specificity components (sgRNA) can be separately designed and constructed from the effector component (Cas fusion proteins), the same library of sgRNAs could be used with different dCas9 fusions (e.g., VP160 domain for transactivation, KRAB domain for transcriptional repression, chromatin modifier domains for specific histone modification) to exert different functions at particular genomic loci.

  1. Spitz F, Furlong EE. Transcription factors: from enhancer binding to developmental control. Nat Rev Genet 2012; 13:613–626. | Article | PubMed | CAS |
  2. Blancafort P, Segal DJ, Barbas CF 3rd. Designing transcription factor architectures for drug discovery. Mol Pharmacol 2004; 66:1361–1371. | Article | PubMed | ISI | CAS |
  3. Sera T. Zinc-finger-based artificial transcription factors and their applications. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2009; 61:513–526. | Article | PubMed | ISI | CAS |
  4. Beerli RR, Segal DJ, Dreier B, Barbas CF 3rd. Toward controlling gene expression at will: specific regulation of the erbB-2/HER-2 promoter by using polydactyl zinc finger proteins constructed from modular building blocks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1998; 95:14628–14633. | Article | PubMed | CAS |
  5. Beerli RR, Dreier B, Barbas CF 3rd. Positive and negative regulation of endogenous genes by designed transcription factors. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2000; 97:1495–1500. | Article | PubMed | CAS |
  6. Zhang F, Cong L, Lodato S, Kosuri S, Church GM, Arlotta P. Efficient construction of sequence-specific TAL effectors for modulating mammalian transcription. Nat Biotechnol 2011; 29:149–153. | Article | PubMed | ISI | CAS |
  7. Moscou MJ, Bogdanove AJ. A simple cipher governs DNA recognition by TAL effectors. Science 2009; 326:1501. | Article | PubMed | ISI | CAS |
  8. Boch J, Scholze H, Schornack S, et al. Breaking the code of DNA binding specificity of TAL-type III effectors. Science 2009; 326:1509–1512. | Article | PubMed | ISI | CAS |
  9. Maeder ML, Linder SJ, Reyon D, et al. Robust, synergistic regulation of human gene expression using TALE activators. Nat Methods 2013; 10:243–245. | Article | PubMed | CAS |
  10. Perez-Pinera P, Ousterout DG, Brunger JM, et al. Synergistic and tunable human gene activation by combinations of synthetic transcription factors.Nat Methods 2013; 10:239–242. | Article | PubMed | CAS |
  11. Bhaya D, Davison M, Barrangou R. CRISPR-Cas systems in bacteria and archaea: versatile small RNAs for adaptive defense and regulation. Annu Rev Genet 2011; 45:273–297. | Article | PubMed | CAS |
  12. Wiedenheft B, Sternberg SH, Doudna JA. RNA-guided genetic silencing systems in bacteria and archaea. Nature 2012; 482:331–338. | Article | PubMed | CAS |

….

Our long-range goals are to understand epigenetic regulation of gene expression in mammalian development and disease. An important question is to understand the different epigenetic conformations that distinguish differentiated cell states and to define strategies to transdifferentiate one differentiated cell type into another. Embryonic stem cells are of major significance because they have the potential to generate any cell type in the body and, therefore, are of great interest for regenerative medicine. A major focus of our work is to understand the molecular mechanisms that allow the reprogramming of somatic cells to an embryonic pluripotent state and to use the potential of patient specific pluripotent cells to study complex human diseases.

http://www.fiercebiotech.com/press-releases/fiercebiotech-names-crispr-therapeutics-one-its-fierce-15-biotech-companies?

Elizabeth Pennisi

Three years ago, no one knew or cared about much about a protein called Cpf1 produced by a bacterial gene. Now, it shows potential for making a fast-developing genome editing technique called CRISPR easier and more accurate. Bioinformaticians identified this protein and its potential connection to CRISPR by scanning the public database of genome sequences. Their colleagues now show that two of 16 versions of this protein tested can delete a gene in a human cell. Cpf1 has other advantages as well-being smaller than one of the popular Cas9 proteins used and depending on a smaller piece of RNA to find its target DNA. But its utility for editing genomes of human and other cells needs further testing.

Read Full Post »

The structure of our visual and auditory system

Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FCAP, Curator

Leaders in Pharmaceutical Intelligence

Series E. 2; 5.8

Revised 9/30/2015

Torsten N. Wiesel (1921— )
President Emeritus
Vincent and Brooke Astor Professor Emeritus – Rockefeller Univerity
1981 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine

Torsten N. Wiesel

The structure of our visual system, beginning at the eyes and ending at the primary visual cortex at the back of the brain, is a little like a maze, intricately constructed to send visual signals through myriad portals and passageways to reach just the right neurons at the end of the path. In the 1950s, H. Keffer Hartline, a member of The Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, charted the first avenues of that maze when he revealed how the visual stimulus received by the retina is divided, altered and sharpened by the optic nerve network in order to send a more useful picture to the brain. Former Rockefeller president Torsten N. Wiesel, along with his colleague David H. Hubel, continued Dr. Hartline’s exploration at their Harvard Medical School laboratory by delving further back, into the brain, and described for the first time how the system develops innately, how experience shapes it further and how it analyzes visual signals. For this work, Drs. Wiesel and Hubel shared the 1981 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.

The complex array of stimuli in our visual field passes first through several distinct layers of cells known collectively as the retina. Next they are analyzed by the optic nerve and make their way to the lateral geniculate nucleus (LGN), the first visual processing center in the brain, located in the thalamus of each brain hemisphere. From the LGN, the signals are sent to the primary visual cortex, also known as the striate cortex. Working with cats and rhesus macaque monkeys, Drs. Wiesel and Hubel recorded the electrical impulses of cortical cells in response to various patterns flashed before the eyes. They coined the terms “simple” and “complex” for cells that respond to only one type of stimulus and those that respond to multiple and opposite stimuli.

To understand the differentiation, the scientists conducted a series of experiments to observe the brain’s response when one eye is kept closed for different periods of time. They discovered that animals with one eye closed for the first three months of life become blind in that eye. Examinations revealed no change in the eye itself or in the retina; the LGN cells devoted to that eye had shrunken but still responded to stimulation of the deprived eye as efficiently as those for the normal eye. The difference, they concluded, must therefore be in the striate cortex.

Awards: Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, Louisa Gross Horwitz Prize, National Medal of Science for Biological Sciences

Swedish-born American neurobiologist Torsten N. Wiesel was raised at Beckomberga Hospital, the mental institute where his father was chief psychiatrist. He described himself as a lazy student until his late teens, before embarking on a career of research into the physiology of vision. Wiesel was awarded the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 1981, along with his long-time collaborator David H. Hubel, for mapping the visual or striate cortex, the posterior section of the cerebral cortex. Roger W. Sperry shared that year’s Nobel honors, for work conducted at CalTech. Wiesel also demonstrated the importance of early diagnosis of childhood visual problems.

When a reporter informed him he had won the Nobel Prize, Wiesel’s first response was, “Oh, no, I was afraid of that”, explaining that he feared the hubbub might prove a distraction from his work. In the 1990s he was President of Rockefeller University, and since 2000, he has been Secretary-General of the Human Frontier Science Program, a group which supports collaboration across different scientific fields. He also served more than a decade as Chair of the Human Rights Committee for the National Academy of Sciences.

In 2001, he was named to a high-level post at the National Institutes of Health, but his nomination was scuttled by then-Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson, with the official explanation that he had “signed too many full-page letters in the New York Times critical of President Bush.” Wiesel responded, “I have not signed a statement against Bush, but nonetheless for some reason I am on the administration’s blacklist. Perhaps [it is because of] my human rights activities and being contrary in general.”

Structure and evolution of hearing

9.2015 The Scientist

Inner Ear Cartography

Scientists map the position of cells within the organ of Corti.  by Ruth Williams

Age-related hearing loss caused by damage to the sensory hair cells within the cochlea is extremely common, but studying the inner ear is tough. “It’s in the densest bone in the body, so you don’t have access,” says John Brigande of Oregon Health and Science University in Portland. Even if you can extract cells, he says, “there are so darn few of them.” Despite these technical difficulties, researchers have gleaned gene-expression information about different cell types within the organ of Corti—home to the sensory cells within the cochlea. But “it’s not only important to know what a cell expresses,” says Robert Durruthy-Durruthy, a postdoc in the Stanford University lab of Stefan Heller. “It’s also important to know where it can be found within a tissue.” To this end, Durruthy-Durruthy, Heller, and postdoc Jörg Waldhaus have derived a 2-D map of organ of Corti cells from neonatal mice. First, the team sorted all cell types across the medial-to-lateral axis (or width) of the organ based on marker gene expression. The approximately 900 sorted cells, representing nine cell types, were then each quantitatively analyzed for the expression of 192 selected genes. Computational analysis of these expression data then enabled reconstruction of the cells’ positions along the organ’s apical-to-basal (length) and medial-to-lateral axes. In principle, the technique, which harnesses gene-expression information to determine cells’ spatial organization, could be applied to generate 2-D maps of any complex tissue, says Durruthy-Durruthy. Within the mammalian cochlea, apical cells retain regenerative capacity for a few weeks after birth, but basal cells do not. “Spatial mapping allows us to get at the differences [between these cells],” says Brigande, and that could ultimately highlight possible ways to reinstate regeneration in the adult ear. (Cell Reports, 11:1385-99, 2015) To build a map of cells within the organ of Corti—where sound is translated to neural activity— scientists divide the cochlea in two. Each half of the organ of Corti is then broken up into its constituent cells, which comprise nine cell types (represented by the nine colors) spanning the organ’s medial-to-lateral axis.

FROM CELLS TO GENE-EXPRESSION: Each cell is analyzed for the expression of 192 selected genes. Based on the pattern of expression, a cell is given a position within the organ of Corti along both the basal-apical and the medial-lateral axes. Each column represents one of the nine cell types.

Human Hearing: A Primer

Semicircular canals of the vestibular system OSSICLES Ear canal Tympanic membrane (eardrum) When sound enters the ear canal, it vibrates the tympanic membrane, or eardrum. These vibrations are passed through the inner ear via three small bones called ossicles: the malleus, the incus, and the stapes. Finally, vibrations of the stapes stimulate the movement of a fluid called perilymph within the bony labyrinth of the inner ear.

Cochlea – How the human ear translates sound waves into nervous impulses.

Perilymph fills the both the vestibular and tympanic ducts of the cochlea. Between these two channels lies the cochlear duct, which is home to the organ of Corti. There, the soundinduced movement of perilymph in the cochlea is translated to an electrical signal that is sent to the brain for processing.

The organ of Corti sits on the basilar membrane, which separates the cochlear duct from the tympanic duct. As the basilar membrane vibrates in response to fluid movement, it pushes the organ along the tectorial membrane, which shifts laterally over the hair cells. This shift bends projections at the tips of the cells, called stereocilia, resulting in the generation of electrical signals.

The bending of the stereocilia results in the depolarization of the inner hair cell and initiates a nerve impulse through the spinal ganglion neuron at the base of the cell. A series of outer hair cells serves to mechanically amplify the vibrations that trigger the inner hair cells to fire. High-frequency sounds stimulate hair cells at the base of the cochlea, while low-frequency sounds stimulate hair cells at the apex.

Aural History -The form and function of the ears of modern land vertebrates cannot be understood without knowing how they evolved.

by Geoffrey A. Manley

Unlike eyes, which are generally instantly recognizable, ears differ greatly in their appearance throughout the animal kingdom. Some hearing structures may not be visible at all. For example, camouflaged in the barn owl’s facial ruff—a rim of short, brown feathers surrounding the bird’s white face—are clusters of stiff feathers that act as external ears on either side of its head. These feather structures funnel sound collected by two concave facial disks to the ear canal openings, increasing the bird’s hearing sensitivity by 20 decibels—approximately the difference between normal conversation and shouting.

Similar increases in sensitivity result from the large and often mobile external structures, or pinnae, of many mammals, such as cats and bats. Internally, the differences among hearing organs are even more dramatic.

Although fish can hear, only amphibians and true land vertebrates—including the aquatic species that descended from them, such as whales and pinnipeds—have dedicated hearing organs. In land vertebrates belonging to the group Amniota, including lizards, birds, and mammals, sound usually enters through an external canal and impinges on an eardrum that is connected through middle-ear bones to the inner ear. There, hundreds or thousands of sensory hair cells are spread along an elongated membrane that acts as a spectral analyzer, with the result that each local group of hair cells responds best to a certain range of pitches, or sound frequencies. The hair cells then feed this information into afferent nerve fibers that carry the information to the brain. (See “Hearing Primer” on page 34.)

Together, these hair cells and nerve fibers encode a wide range of sounds that enter the ear on that side of the head. Two ears complete the picture, allowing animals’ brains to localize the source of the sounds they hear by comparing the two inputs. Although it seems obvious that the ability to process nearby sounds would be enormously useful, modern amniote ears in fact arose quite late in evolutionary history, and to a large extent independently in different lineages. As a result, external, middle, and inner ears of various amniotes are characteristically different.1

Moreover, the early evolution of these dedicated auditoryorgans in land vertebrates led to the loss of the heavy otolithic membrane that overlies the hair-cell bundles of vestibular organs and is responsible for their slow responses. What remains is the watery macromolecular gel known as the tectorial membrane, which assures that local groups of hair cells move synchronously, resulting in greater sensitivity.

Good high-frequency hearing did not exist from the start, however. For a period of at least 50 million years after amniotes arose, the three main lineages were most likely quite hard of hearing. They had not yet evolved any mechanism for absorbing sound energy from air; they lacked the middle ear and eardrum that are vital for the function of modern hearing organs. As such, ancestral amniotes most likely perceived only sounds of relatively low frequency and high amplitude that reached the inner ear via the limbs or, if the skull were rested on the ground, through the tissues of the head. It is unclear what kind of stimuli could have existed that would have led to the retention of such hearing organs for such a long time.

The magnificent middle ear

During the Triassic period, some 250 to 200 million years ago, a truly remarkable thing happened. Independently, but within just 20 million to 30 million years of one another, all three amniote lineages evolved a tympanic middle ear from parts of the skull and the jaws.2 The tympanic middle ear is the assemblage of tiny bones that connects at one end to an eardrum and at the other end to the oval window, an aperture in the bone of the inner ear. Despite the temporal coincidence in the evolution of these structures in the three amniote lineages and the functional similarities of the adaptations, the groups were by this time so far separated that the middle ears evolved from different structures into two different configurations. The single middle-ear bone, the columella, of archosaurs and lepidosaurs derived from the hyomandibular, a bone that earlier had formed a large strut connecting the braincase to the outer skull.

Research on hearing organs have revealed the remarkable history of this unexpected diversity of ears. Divergence from a common origin Amniote vertebrates comprise three lineages of extant groups that diverged roughly 300 million years ago: the lepidosaurs, which include lizards and snakes; the archosaurs, which include crocodilians and birds; and mammals, which include egg-laying, pouched, and placental mammals. By comparing the skulls of the extinct common ancestors of these three lineages, as well as the ears of the most basal modern amniotes, researchers have concluded that ancestral amniotes had a small (perhaps less than 1 millimeter in length) but dedicated hearing organ: a sensory epithelium called a basilar papilla, with perhaps a few hundred sensory hair cells supported by a thin basilar membrane that is freely suspended in fluid. These rudimentary structures evolved from the hair cells of vestibular organs, which help organisms maintain their balance by responding to physical input, such as head rotation or gravity. Initially, the hearing organ only responded to low-frequency sounds. On their apical surface, all hair cells have tight tufts or bundles of large, hairlike villi known as stereovilli (or, more commonly stereocilia, even though they are not true cilia), which give hair cells their name. Between these stereovilli are proteinaceous links, most of which are closely coupled to sensory transduction channels that respond to a tilting of the stereovilli bundles caused by sound waves.

The amniote hearing organ evolved as a separate group of hair cells that lay between two existing vestibular epithelia. Low-frequency vestibular hair cells became specialized to transduce higher frequencies, requiring much faster response rates. This change is attributable in part to modifications in the ion channels of the cell membrane, such that each cell is “electrically tuned” to a particular frequency, a phenomenon still observed in some modern amniote ears.

MODERN INNER EARS

Arose starting about 200 million years ago In all three lineages, hair cells are arranged along the auditory papilla from low- to high-frequency sensitivity, called a tonotopic organization. In both archosaurs and mammals, one type of hair cell serves to amplify the sound signal received by the other type. In lepidosaurs, the auditory papilla ranges from a few hundred micrometers to 2 millimeters in length and contains two types of hair cells: one with taller bundles and fewer stereovilli that responds to sounds below 1 kHz and another with shorter, thicker bundles that responds to higher-frequency pitches.

The archosaur papilla, which reaches lengths of up to 10 millimeters in some owls, contains many thousands of hair cells of types: tall hair cells, which serve to detect sound, and short hair cells, which amplify the signal. In most mammals, the auditory papilla, called the organ of Corti, evolved to be so long that it began to coil on top of itself. The papilla ranges from 1.5 to 4 coils and 7 millimeters (mouse) to 75 millimeters (blue whale) in length. Mammals have two types of hair cells: covering the oval window, which detect sound, and outer hair cells, which inner hair cells amplify it.

Tectorial membrane

Tall hair cell

Short hair cell

Basilar membrane

Inner

hair cell

Outer

hair cell

In modern representatives, the columella is long and thin, with several, usually cartilaginous extensions known as the extracolumella. One of these, the “inferior process,” connects the inner surface of the eardrum and the columella, which then connects to the footplate that covers the oval window of the inner ear. This two-part system forms a lever that, together with the pressure increase incurred by transmitting from the much larger eardrum to the footplate, greatly magnifies sound entering the inner ear.

In the mammals of the Triassic, the equivalent events were more complex, but the functional result was remarkably similar. Mammal ancestors reduced the number of bones in the lower jaw from seven to one and, in the process, formed a new jaw joint. Initially, the old and new jaw structures existed in parallel, but over time the old joint moved towards the rear of the head. This event, which at any other time would likely have led to the complete loss of the old joint bones, occurred simultaneously with the origin of the mammalian tympanic middle ear. Older paleontological and newer developmental evidence from Shigeru Kuratani’s lab at RIKEN in Japan indicate that the mammalian eardrum evolved at a lower position on the skull relative to that of the other amniotes, a position outside the old jaw joint.3 In time, the bones of this old joint, together with the hyomandibula, became the three bony ossicles (malleus, incus, and stapes) of the new middle ear. Like the middle ear of archosaurs and lepidosaurs, these ossicles form a lever system that, along with the large area difference between eardrum and footplate, greatly magnifies sound input. Thus, remarkably, these complex events led independently to all modern amniotes possessing a middle ear that, at frequencies below 10 kHz, works equally effectively despite the diverse structures and origins. There is also evidence that the three-ossicle mammalian middle ear itself evolved at least twice—in egg-laying mammals such as the platypus, and in therians, which include marsupials and placentals—with similar outcomes.

More…

Aural History

The form and function of the ears of modern land vertebrates cannot be understood without knowing how they evolved.

http://www.the-scientist.com//?articles.view/articleNo/43806/title/Aural-History/

By Geoffrey A. Manley | September 1, 2015

PHOTO CREDITS SEE END OF ARTICLE
http://www.the-scientist.com/Sept2015/feature1.jpg

Unlike eyes, which are generally instantly recognizable, ears differ greatly in their appearance throughout the animal kingdom. Some hearing structures may not be visible at all. For example, camouflaged in the barn owl’s facial ruff—a rim of short, brown feathers surrounding the bird’s white face—are clusters of stiff feathers that act as external ears on either side of its head. These feather structures funnel sound collected by two concave facial disks to the ear canal openings, increasing the bird’s hearing sensitivity by 20 decibels—approximately the difference between normal conversation and shouting. Similar increases in sensitivity result from the large and often mobile external structures, or pinnae, of many mammals, such as cats and bats. Internally, the differences among hearing organs are even more dramatic.

Although fish can hear, only amphibians and true land vertebrates—including the aquatic species that descended from them, such as whales and pinnipeds—have dedicated hearing organs. In land vertebrates belonging to the group Amniota, including lizards, birds, and mammals, sound usually enters through an external canal and impinges on an eardrum that is connected through middle-ear bones to the inner ear. There, hundreds or thousands of sensory hair cells are spread along an elongated membrane that acts as a spectral analyzer, with the result that each local group of hair cells responds best to a certain range of pitches, or sound frequencies. The hair cells then feed this information into afferent nerve fibers that carry the information to the brain. (See “Human Hearing: A Primer.”)

For a period of at least 50 million years after amniotes arose, the three main lineages were most likely quite hard of hearing.

Together, these hair cells and nerve fibers encode a wide range of sounds that enter the ear on that side of the head. Two ears complete the picture, allowing animals’ brains to localize the source of the sounds they hear by comparing the two inputs. Although it seems obvious that the ability to process nearby sounds would be enormously useful, modern amniote ears in fact arose quite late in evolutionary history, and to a large extent independently in different lineages. As a result, external, middle, and inner ears of various amniotes are characteristically different.1 New paleontological studies and comparative research on hearing organs have revealed the remarkable history of this unexpected diversity of ears.

Divergence from a common origin

Amniote vertebrates comprise three lineages of extant groups that diverged roughly 300 million years ago: the lepidosaurs, which include lizards and snakes; the archosaurs, which include crocodilians and birds; and mammals, which include egg-laying, pouched, and placental mammals. By comparing the skulls of the extinct common ancestors of these three lineages, as well as the ears of the most basal modern amniotes, researchers have concluded that ancestral amniotes had a small (perhaps less than 1 millimeter in length) but dedicated hearing organ: a sensory epithelium called a basilar papilla, with perhaps a few hundred sensory hair cells supported by a thin basilar membrane that is freely suspended in fluid. These rudimentary structures evolved from the hair cells of vestibular organs, which help organisms maintain their balance by responding to physical input, such as head rotation or gravity. Initially, the hearing organ only responded to low-frequency sounds. On their apical surface, all hair cells have tight tufts or bundles of large, hairlike villi known as stereovilli (or, more commonly stereocilia, even though they are not true cilia), which give hair cells their name. Between these stereovilli are proteinaceous links, most of which are closely coupled to sensory transduction channels that respond to a tilting of the stereovilli bundles caused by sound waves.

The amniote hearing organ evolved as a separate group of hair cells that lay between two existing vestibular epithelia. Low-frequency vestibular hair cells became specialized to transduce higher frequencies, requiring much faster response rates. This change is attributable in part to modifications in the ion channels of the cell membrane, such that each cell is “electrically tuned” to a particular frequency, a phenomenon still observed in some modern amniote ears. Moreover, the early evolution of these dedicated auditory organs in land vertebrates led to the loss of the heavy otolithic membrane that overlies the hair-cell bundles of vestibular organs and is responsible for their slow responses. What remains is the watery macromolecular gel known as the tectorial membrane, which assures that local groups of hair cells move synchronously, resulting in greater sensitivity.

Good high-frequency hearing did not exist from the start, however. For a period of at least 50 million years after amniotes arose, the three main lineages were most likely quite hard of hearing. They had not yet evolved any mechanism for absorbing sound energy from air; they lacked the middle ear and eardrum that are vital for the function of modern hearing organs. As such, ancestral amniotes most likely perceived only sounds of relatively low frequency and high amplitude that reached the inner ear via the limbs or, if the skull were rested on the ground, through the tissues of the head. It is unclear what kind of stimuli could have existed that would have led to the retention of such hearing organs for such a long time.

The magnificent middle ear

http://www.the-scientist.com/Sept2015/Manleyonline.jpg

CONVERGING ON THE EAR: Starting around 250 million years ago, the three amniote lineages—lepidosaurs (lizards and snakes), archosaurs (crocodilians and birds), and mammals—separately evolved a tympanic middle ear, followed by evolution of the inner ear, both of which served to increase hearing sensitivity. Despite the independent origin of hearing structures in the three lineages, the outcomes were functionally quite similar, serving as a remarkable example of convergent evolution.
See full infographic: JPG

ILLUSTRATIONS: PHEBE LI FOR THE SCIENTIST. ICONS: ISTOCK.COMDuring the Triassic period, some 250 to 200 million years ago, a truly remarkable thing happened. Independently, but within just 20 million to 30 million years of one another, all three amniote lineages evolved a tympanic middle ear from parts of the skull and the jaws.2

The tympanic middle ear is the assemblage of tiny bones that connects at one end to an eardrum and at the other end to the oval window, an aperture in the bone of the inner ear. Despite the temporal coincidence in the evolution of these structures in the three amniote lineages and the functional similarities of the adaptations, the groups were by this time so far separated that the middle ears evolved from different structures into two different configurations. The single middle-ear bone, the columella, of archosaurs and lepidosaurs derived from the hyomandibular, a bone that earlier had formed a large strut connecting the braincase to the outer skull. In modern representatives, the columella is long and thin, with several, usually cartilaginous extensions known as the extracolumella. One of these, the “inferior process,” connects the inner surface of the eardrum and the columella, which then connects to the footplate that covers the oval window of the inner ear. This two-part system forms a lever that, together with the pressure increase incurred by transmitting from the much larger eardrum to the footplate, greatly magnifies sound entering the inner ear.

In the mammals of the Triassic, the equivalent events were more complex, but the functional result was remarkably similar. Mammal ancestors reduced the number of bones in the lower jaw from seven to one and, in the process, formed a new jaw joint. Initially, the old and new jaw structures existed in parallel, but over time the old joint moved towards the rear of the head. This event, which at any other time would likely have led to the complete loss of the old joint bones, occurred simultaneously with the origin of the mammalian tympanic middle ear. Older paleontological and newer developmental evidence from Shigeru Kuratani’s lab at RIKEN in Japan indicate that the mammalian eardrum evolved at a lower position on the skull relative to that of the other amniotes, a position outside the old jaw joint.3 In time, the bones of this old joint, together with the hyomandibula, became the three bony ossicles (malleus, incus, and stapes) of the new middle ear. Like the middle ear of archosaurs and lepidosaurs, these ossicles form a lever system that, along with the large area difference between eardrum and footplate, greatly magnifies sound input.

Thus, remarkably, these complex events led independently to all modern amniotes possessing a middle ear that, at frequencies below 10 kHz, works equally effectively despite the diverse structures and origins. There is also evidence that the three-ossicle mammalian middle ear itself evolved at least twice—in egg-laying mammals such as the platypus, and in therians, which include marsupials and placentals—with similar outcomes.

Inner-ear evolution

http://www.the-scientist.com/Sept2015/piano_med.jpg

PITCH PERFECT: The hearing organs of amniotes are organized tonotopically, with hair cells sensitive to high frequencies at the basal end of the papilla, grading into low-frequency hair cells at the apical end.BASED ON MED-EL WWW.MEDEL.COMThe evolution of tympanic middle ears kick-started the evolution of modern inner ears, where sound waves are converted into the electrical signals that are sent to the brain. The inner ear is least developed in the lepidosaurs, most of which retained a relatively small auditory papilla, in some just a few hundred micrometers long. Many lepidosaurs, predominantly diurnal species, also lost their eardrum. Snakes reduced their middle ear, limiting their hearing to frequencies less than 1 kHz, about two octaves above middle C. (For comparison, humans can hear sounds up to about 15 or 16 kHz.) Clearly, hearing was not under strong selective pressure in this group. There are a few exceptions, however. In geckos, for example, which are largely nocturnal, the papillar structure shows unique specializations, accompanied by high sensitivity and strong frequency selectivity. Indeed, the frequency selectivity of gecko auditory nerve fibers exceeds that of many mammals.

One part of the inner ear that did improve in lizards (but not in snakes) is the hair cells, with the papillae developing different areas occupied by two structural types of these sound-responsive cells. One of these hair cell groups responds to sounds below 1 kHz and perhaps corresponds to the ancestral version. The higher-frequency hair cells have a more specialized structure, particularly with regard to the size and height of the stereovilli, with bundle heights and stereovillus numbers varying consistently along the papilla’s length. Taller bundles with fewer stereovilli, which are much less stiff and therefore respond best to low frequencies, are found at one end of the membrane, while shorter, thicker bundles with more stereovilli that respond best to higher frequencies are found at the other end—a frequency distribution known as a tonotopic organization. Still, with the exception of one group of geckos, lizard hearing is limited to below 5 to 8 kHz.

In contrast to the relatively rudimentary lepidosaur inner ear, the auditory papilla of archosaurs (birds, crocodiles, and their relatives) evolved much greater length. Owls, highly proficient nocturnal hunters, boast the longest archosaur papilla, measuring more than 10 millimeters and containing many thousands of hair cells. As in lizards, archosaur hair cells show strong tonotopic organization, with a gradual change in the diameter and height of the stereovillar bundles contributing to the gradually changing frequency sensitivity along the papilla. In addition, the hair cells are divided along and across the basilar membrane, with tall hair cells (THCs) resting on the inner side and the apical end, most distant from the middle ear, grading into short hair cells (SHCs) on the outer side and at the basal end. Interestingly, many SHCs completely lack afferent innervation, which is the only known case of sensory cells lacking a connection to the brain. Instead of transmitting sensory information to the brain, these hair cells likely amplify the signal received by the inner ear. Despite the more complex anatomy, however, bird hearing is also generally limited to between 5 and 8 kHz, with the exception of some owls, which can hear up to 12 kHz.

The mammalian papilla, called the organ of Corti, also evolved to be larger—generally, but not always, longer than those of birds—but the extension in length varies in different lineages.4 Mammalian papillae also have a unique cellular arrangement. The papillae of modern egg-laying monotremes, which likely resemble those of the earliest mammals, include two groups of hair cells separated by numerous supporting pillar cells that form the tunnel of Corti. In any given cross section, there are approximately five inner hair cells (IHCs) on the inner side of the pillar cells, closer to the auditory nerve, and eight outer hair cells (OHCs) on the outer side. In therian mammals (marsupials and placentals), the numbers of each cell group have been much reduced, with only two pillar cells forming the tunnel in any given cross-section, and generally just a single IHC and three or four OHCs, though the functional consequences of this reduction remain unclear. About 90 percent of afferent fibers innervate IHCs, while only 10 percent or fewer innervate OHCs, despite the fact that OHCs account for some 80 percent of all hair cells. As with bird SHCs that lack afferent innervation, there are indications that the main function of OHCs is to amplify the physical sound signal at very low sound-pressure levels.

Therian mammals also evolved another key hearing adaptation: the cochlea. Shortly before marsupial and placental lineages diverged, the elongating hearing organ, which had always been curved, reached full circle. The only way to further increase its length was to form more than one full coil, a state that was reached roughly 120 million years ago. The result is hearing organs with 1.5 to 4 coils and lengths from 7 millimeters (mouse) to 75 millimeters (blue whale). Hearing ranges also diverged, partly depending on the size of the animal (larger mammals tend to have lower upper-frequency limits), but with a number of remarkable specializations, as expected in a lineage that radiated greatly during several evolutionary episodes.

As a result of these adaptations, most mammals have an upper frequency-response limit that well exceeds those of lepidosaurs and archosaurs. Human hearing extends to frequencies of about 15 kHz; a guinea pig can hear sounds up to about 45 kHz; and in the extreme cases of many bats and toothed whales, hearing extends into ultrasonic frequencies, sometimes as high as 180 kHz, allowing these animals to echolocate in air and water. This impressive increase in frequency limits is due to an extremely stiff middle ear, as well as a stiff cochlea. During early therian evolution, the bone of the canal surrounding the soft tissues invaded the supporting ridges of the basilar membrane, creating stiff laminae. Such bony ridges were retained in species perceiving ultrasonic frequencies, but tended to be reduced and replaced by softer connective-tissue supports in those with lower-frequency limits, such as humans.

Amplification within the ear

http://www.the-scientist.com/Sept2015/ear_hair.jpg

HAIRS OF THE EAR: Rows of inner-ear hair cells have villous bundles (blue) on their apical surface that convert sound waves to nervous signals sent to the brain.© STEVE GSCHMEISSNER/SCIENCE SOURCEIn addition to the specialized structures of the middle and inner ears of amniotes that served to greatly increase hearing sensitivity, the hair cells themselves can produce active movements that further amplify sound stimuli. The evolutionarily oldest such active mechanism was discovered in the late 1980s by Jim Hudspeth’s group, then at the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine, working with frogs,5 and Andrew Crawford and Robert Fettiplace, then at the University of Cambridge, working with turtles.6 The amplification mechanism, called the active bundle mechanism, probably evolved in the ancestors of vertebrates and helped overcome the viscous forces of the surrounding fluids, which resist movement. When sound stimuli move the hair-cell bundle and thus open transduction channels to admit potassium ions, some calcium ions also enter the cell. These calcium ions bind to and influence the open transduction channels, increasing the speed with which these channels close. Such closing forces are exerted in phase with the incoming sound waves, increasing the distance that the hair cells move in response, and thereby increasing their sensitivity. It is likely that this mechanism operates in all vertebrate hair cells.5 In lizards, my group provided evidence that this bundle mechanism really does operate in the living animal.7

In 1986, a second mechanism of hair cell–driven sound amplification was discovered in mammalian OHCs by Bill Brownell’s group, then at the University of Florida School of Medicine. Brownell and his colleagues showed that mammalian OHCs, but not IHCs, changed their length very rapidly in phase with the signal if exposed to an alternating electrical field.8 Such fields occur when hair cells respond to sound. Subsequent experiments showed that the change in cell length is due to changes in the molecular configuration of a protein, later named prestin, which occurs in high density along the lateral cell membrane of OHCs. In mammals, the force produced by the OHCs is so strong that the entire organ of Corti, which includes all cell types that surround the hair cells and the basilar membrane itself, is driven in an up-and-down motion. This movement can amplify sounds by at least 40dB, allowing very quiet noises to be detected. There is evidence for the independent evolution of specific molecular configurations of prestins that allow for the amplification of very high ultrasonic frequencies in bats and whales.9

Bird ears also appear to produce active forces that amplify sound. The SHCs have bundles comprising up to 300 stereovilli (about three times as many as the bundles of mammalian OHCs),10 and the movement of these bundles probably drives the movement of THCs indirectly via the tectorial membrane. Also, very recent data from the lab of Fettiplace, now at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, suggests that in birds, prestin (albeit in a different molecular form) may work in the plane across the hearing organ (i.e., not up and down as in mammals), perhaps reinforcing the influence of the bundle active mechanism on the THCs via the tectorial membrane.11

Three hundred million years of evolution have resulted in a fascinating variety of ear configurations that, despite their struc­tural diversity, show remarkably similar physiological responses.

In addition to amplifying hair-cell activity, these active mechanisms manifest as spontaneous movements of the hearing organ, oscillating even in the absence of sound stimuli. Such spontaneous movements actually produce sound that is emitted through the middle ear to the outside world and can be measured in the ear canal. These spontaneous otoacoustic emissions (SOAEs) enable remote sensing of what is going on within the inner ear and have permitted increasingly important research on inner-ear mechanisms and new clinical diagnostic methods to monitor the health of the ear’s sensory epithelium. We recently showed that spectral patterns of SOAEs in lizards, birds, and mammals are remarkably similar, despite up to 70-fold differences in the size of the hearing organs, suggesting that there are profound commonalities among the inner ears of amniotes that we still do not really understand.12

Remarkable convergence

Three hundred million years of evolution have resulted in a fascinating variety of ear configurations that, despite their structural diversity, show remarkably similar physiological responses. There are hardly any differences in sensitivity between the hearing of endothermal birds and mammals, and the frequency selectivity of responses is essentially the same in most lizards, birds, and mammals. The combined research efforts of paleontologists, anatomists, physiologists, and developmental biologists over several decades have clarified the major evolutionary steps in all lineages that modified the malleable middle and inner ears into their present-day kaleidoscopic variety of form, yet a surprising consensus in their function.

Geoffrey A. Manley is a retired professor from the Institute of Zoology at the Technical University in Munich, Germany. He is currently a guest scientist in the laboratory of his wife, Christine Köppl, at Oldenburg University in Germany.

References

  1. G.A. Manley, C. Köppl, “Phylogenetic development of the cochlea and its innervation,” Curr Opin Neurobiol, 8:468-74, 1998.
  2. J.A. Clack, “Patterns and processes in the early evolution of the tetrapod ear,” J Neurobiol, 53:251-64, 2002.
  3. T. Kitazawa et al., “Developmental genetic bases behind the independent origin of the tympanic membrane in mammals and diapsids,” Nat Commun, 6:6853, 2015.
  4. G.A. Manley, “Evolutionary paths to mammalian cochleae,” JARO, 13:733-43, 2012.
  5. A.J. Hudspeth, “How the ear’s works work: Mechanoelectrical transduction and amplification by hair cells,” C R Biol, 328:155-62, 2005.
  6. A.C. Crawford, R. Fettiplace, “The mechanical properties of ciliary bundles of turtle cochlear hair cells,” J Physiol, 364:359-79, 1985.
  7. G.A. Manley et al., “In vivo evidence for a cochlear amplifier in the hair-cell bundle of lizards,” PNAS, 98:2826-31, 2001.
  8. B. Kachar et al., “Electrokinetic shape changes of cochlear outer hair cells,” Nature, 322:365-68, 1986.
  9. Y. Liu et al., “Convergent sequence evolution between echolocating bats and dolphins,” Curr Biol, 20:R53-R54, 2010.
  10. C. Köppl et al., “Big and powerful: A model of the contribution of bundle motility to mechanical amplification in hair cells of the bird basilar papilla,” in Concepts and Challenges in the Biophysics of Hearing, ed. N.P. Cooper, D.T. Kemp (Singapore: World Scientific, 2009), 444-50.
  11. M. Beurg et al., “A prestin motor in chicken auditory hair cells: Active force generation in a nonmammalian species,” Neuron, 79:69-81, 2013.
  12. C. Bergevin et al., “Salient features of otoacoustic emissions are common across tetrapod groups and suggest shared properties of generation mechanisms,” PNAS, 112:3362-67, 2015.

Sea Lion: © iStock/LFStewart; Squirrel: © Erik Mandre/Shutterstock; Frog: ©Frank B. Yuwono/Shutterstock; Owl: ©XNature.Photography/Shutterstock; Lizard: ©Andrew Wijesuriya/Shutterstock; Bat: © iStock/GlobalP; Ostrich: © Jamen Percy/Shutterstock; Dog: ©Annette Shaff/Shutterstock; Lynx: © Dmitri Gomon/Shutterstock

Correction (September 15, 2015): Citation #8 of this story has been updated to accurately reflect the research referenced in the text. The Scientist regrets the error.

Tags

vertebrates, sensory biology, hearing, evolutionary biology, evolution and amniotes

Early Hominin Hearing

http://www.the-scientist.com//?articles.view/articleNo/44119/title/Early-Hominin-Hearing/

Based on the structure of fossilized skulls and ear bones, researchers learn that early hominins heard sounds best between the frequencies that humans and chimpanzees do.

By Karen Zusi | September 29, 2015

africanus skullWIKIMEDIA, JOSÉ BRAGA

http://www.the-scientist.com/images/Nutshell/Sept2015/hominin310.jpg

Early hominin species Australopithecus africanus andParanthropus robustus, which lived around 2 million years ago, possessed hearing capabilities largely similar to modern-day chimpanzees but with a few differences that made their sense more akin to that of humans, according to a recent study. The results were reported last week (September 25) in Science Advances.

“We know that the hearing patterns, or audiograms, in chimpanzees and humans are distinct because their hearing abilities have been measured in the laboratory in living subjects,” study coauthor Rolf Quam of Binghamton University in New York said in a press release. “So we were interested in finding out when this human-like hearing pattern first emerged during our evolutionary history.”

Quam and an international team of researchers studied the anatomy of the ear in three complete fossilized specimens, as well as several partial specimens, from South Africa. The team reconstructed the size and relative proportions of up to six different structures—such as the stapes, a middle ear bone—using 3-D CT scans. The researchers then used a published model to predict how the early hominins may have heard, based on these measurements.

Both species of early hominin evolved an anatomy that allowed them to hear sounds at slightly higher frequencies than chimpanzees, best in the 1.0 kHz to 3.5 kHz range. In comparison, chimpanzees can hear sounds best between 1.0 kHz and 3.0 kHz. Humans can typically hear sounds best between 1.0 kHz and 4.5 kHz; this range encompasses most sounds formed in spoken language.

“[The early hominins] didn’t hear as well as humans, and they are more like chimps,” Quam told The New York Times. But the researchers speculated that the changes in hearing anatomy over time were driven by a lifestyle spent on the open savanna, where short-range communication would have been favored.

“Hearing abilities are closely tied with verbal communication,” Quam wrote at The Conversation. “By figuring out when certain hearing capacities emerged during our evolutionary history, we might be able to shed some light on when spoken language started to evolve.”

Tags

paleontology, human evolution, hominin, hearing, fossils, CT scan and chimpanzee

Hearing Explained

Observe the ins and outs of how our ears perceive sound.

By The Scientist Staff | September 1, 2015

http://www.the-scientist.com//?articles.view/articleNo/43884/title/Hearing-Explained/

Human Hearing: A Primer

How the human ear translates sound waves into nervous impulses

By The Scientist Staff | September 1, 2015

https://youtu.be/46aNGGNPm7s

When sound enters the ear canal, it vibrates the tympanic membrane, or eardrum. These vibrations are passed through the inner ear via three small bones called ossicles: the malleus, the incus, and the stapes. Finally, vibrations of the stapes stimulate the movement of a fluid called perilymph within the bony labyrinth of the inner ear.

See labeled infographic: JPG© CATHERINE DELPHIA

hearing

http://www.the-scientist.com/images/August2015/Primer_2.jpg

Perilymph fills the both the vestibular and tympanic ducts of the cochlea. Between these two channels lies the cochlear duct, which is home to the organ of Corti. There, the sound induced movement of perilymph in the cochlea is translated to an electrical signal that is sent to the brain for processing.

An electrical signal is generated by inner hair cells that sit above the basilar membrane, which separates the cochlear duct from the tympanic duct. As the basilar membrane vibrates in response to fluid movement, it pushes the hair cells along another membrane, known as the tectorial membrane, which shifts laterally to bend projections at the tips of the cells, called stereocilia.

The bending of the stereocilia results in the depolarization of the inner hair cell and initiates a nerve impulse through the spiral ganglion neuron at the base of the cell. A series of outer hair cells serves to mechanically amplify the vibrations that trigger the inner hair cells to fire. High-frequency sounds stimulate hair cells at the base of the cochlea, while low-frequency sounds stimulate hair cells at the apex.

See labeled infographic: JPG© CATHERINE DELPHIA

HAIRS OF THE EAR ear_hair

http://www.the-scientist.com/images/August2015/Primer_1.jpg

Tags

spiral ganglion neurons, sensory biology, neuroscience, neurons, mechanotransduction, mechanoreception and hearing

Author of books:
Brain Mechanisms of Vision (1991, with David H. Hubel)
Colloquium on Vision: From Photon to Perception (200, with John Dowling and Lubert Stryer)
Brain and Visual Perception: The Story of a 25-Year Collaboration (2005, with David H. Hubel)

Professor: Physiology, Harvard University (1964-74)
Professor: Neurobiology, Harvard University (1974-84)
Professor: Neurobiology, Rockefeller University (1984-98)
Administrator: President, Rockefeller University (1991-98)

The interplay of light and life

Lubert Stryer (born March 2, 1938, in Tianjin, China) is the Mrs. George A. Winzer Professor of Cell Biology, Emeritus, at the Stanford University School of Medicine.[1][2] His research over more than four decades has been centered on the interplay of light and life. In 2007 he received the National Medal of Science for elucidating the biochemical basis of signal amplification in vision, pioneering the development of high density micro-arrays for genetic analysis, and authoring the biochemistry textbook.[3]

Stryer received his B.S. degree from the University of Chicago in 1957 and his M.D. degree from Harvard Medical School. He was a Helen Hay Whitney Research Fellow[4] in the Department of Physics at Harvard and then at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology[5] in Cambridge, England, before joining the faculty of the Department of Biochemistry at Stanford in 1963. In 1969 he moved to Yale to become Professor of Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry, and in 1976, he returned to Stanford to head a new Department of Structural Biology.[6]

Stryer and coworkers pioneered the use of fluorescence spectroscopy, particularly Förster resonance energy transfer (FRET), to monitor the structure and dynamics of biological macromolecules.[7][8] In 1967, Stryer and Haugland showed that the efficiency of energy transfer depends on the inverse sixth power of the distance between the donor and acceptor,[9][10] as predicted by Förster’s theory. They proposed that energy transfer can serve as a spectroscopic ruler to reveal proximity relationships in biological macromolecules.

A second contribution was Stryer’s discovery of the primary stage of amplification in visual excitation.[11][12] Stryer, together with Fung and Hurley, showed that a single photoexcited rhodopsin molecule activates many molecules of transducin, which in turn activate many molecules of a cyclic GMP phosphodiesterase. Stryer’s laboratory has also contributed to our understanding of the role of calcium in visual recovery and adaptation.[13][14][15]

Stryer participated in developing light-directed, spatially addressable parallel chemical synthesis for the synthesis of peptides and polynucleotides.[16][17][18] Light-directed combinatorial synthesis has been used by Stephen Fodor and coworkers at Affymetrix to make DNA arrays containing millions of different sequences for genetic analyses.

Download Biochemistry Jeremy M Berg John L Tymoczko …

Dec 13, 2014 – Uploaded by Marquita Iraely

Download Biochemistry Jeremy M Berg John L Tymoczko Lubert Stryer PDF. Marquita Iraely …

Macmillan Higher Education: Biochemistry Seventh Edition …

http://www.macmillanhighered.com/Catalog/…/biochemistry-seventhedition-be…

Jeremy M. Berg , John L. Tymoczko (Carleton College) , Lubert Stryer (Stanford … this extraordinary textbook has helped shape the way biochemistry is taught, …

Loose-leaf Version for Biochemistry Seventh Edition Edition

Read Full Post »

A new way of moving – Michael Sheetz, James Spudich, Ronald Vale

Larry H Bernstein, MD, FCAP, Curator

Leaders in Pharmaceutical Intelligence

Series E. 2; 5.5

 

J Clin Invest. 2012 Oct 1; 122(10): 3374–3377.

http://dx.doi.org:/10.1172/JCI66361

The MBI community congratulates Michael Sheetz upon winning the prestigious Albert Lasker Basic Medical Research Award. Michael Sheetz, Director of the Mechanobiology Institute, Singapore, Distinguished Professor of the Department of Biological Sciences, NUS and William R Kenan, Junior Professor at Columbia University, shares this award with two of his collaborators, James Spudich (Stanford University) and Ronald Vale (University of California, San Francisco). The Award was presented at a ceremony on Friday, September 21, 2012, in New York City.

 

The Albert Lasker Basic Medical Research Award was given to Prof Sheetz, Prof Spudich and Prof Vale in honor of seminal contributions made in establishing methods to study cytoskeletal motor proteins. These developments paved the way to study molecular motors and enabled the discovery of the motor protein, kinesin. The landmark achievements in deciphering new components of cellular motors, which helped explain how these motors worked, were pivotal in understanding the basic fundamental process of energy conversion within the cell. These have led to explorations of these physiologically relevant molecules, as potential drug targets in a variety of disease conditions.

 

Many basic cellular functions depend on the directed movement of cytoplasmic organelles, macromolecules, membranes or chromosomes from one place to another within the cell. The transport of this intracellular cargo is achieved by molecular motor proteins, such as myosin and kinesin, which provide force and movement through the conversion of chemical energy (ATP) into mechanical energy. Molecular motor proteins move along scaffolds made of specific protein polymers, with kinesins moving along microtubules and myosins along actin filaments, in order to carry their cargo to the appropriate destination within the cell.
Subsequently, Sheetz and Spudich worked out an in-vitro method for visualizing actin filaments creeping along myosin coated surfaces, and this system still remains the gold-standard assay for studying myosin movement. With a read-out in hand, many details of the mechanism of action of the motor molecules within the cell were worked out. Michael Sheetz and colleagues, Ronald Vale and Thomas Reese, carried out pivotal experiments that ultimately led to the discovery of kinesins, a novel and hitherto unknown family of motor proteins. These experiments involved the development of an in vitromotility assay, whereby proteins from the cytoplasm of neuronal cells were shown to power the movement of microtubules across the surface of glass coverslips. This technique was found to be a sensitive and rapid assay for testing the activity of kinesin and was adopted by numerous labs following these crucial initial experiments.

For more details of the award winning contribution towards understanding the basics of cellular machinery, please go to http://www.laskerfoundation.org/media/index.htm and also http://www.laskerfoundation.org/media/pdf/2012citation_basic.pdf

 

Michael Sheetz, along with James Spudich and Ronald Vale strongly believe in an open culture of scientific exchange. ‘The most interesting scientific insights result from collaborative, interdisciplinary adventures’, has been the one common theme of Michael Sheetz career. A firm believer of an open laboratory concept where students from different labs and backgrounds, share bench space and often ideas, he emulated the Open Lab model (learn more about MBI’s open labs) at the Mechanobiology Institute, Singapore. This new model of open laboratory environment in interdisciplinary institutes provides an excellent way to encourage fast paced discovery process.

“My greatest excitement comes from considering the puzzle provided by an unexpected result when new technology is applied to an old problem, says Professor Sheetz.„

In his acceptance essay, which can be read here (PDF), Michael Sheetz refers to the importance of collaborations, where the parties are learning from each other and also ‘encourages young scientists to perform speculative experiments whenever they have such an idea, even if most of them fail; since an experiment, even a flawed on, can reveal the solution to an important problem’.

 

The Mechanobiology Institute is delighted to announce that Michael Sheetz has been selected as a Massry Prize Laureate for 2013.

michaelSheetz_WB_9079Shared with James Spudich (Stanford University) and Ronald Vale (University of California, San Francisco), the award to the trio is a recognition of their work defining molecular mechanisms of ‘intracellular motility.’

This process involves the deployment of molecular machines to move cargo on molecular tracks which are a part of the cellular skeleton.

The discovery of a novel family of motor proteins, the kinesins, by Michael Sheetz, Ronald Vale and Thomas Reese and the methodology developed for the same, proved to be pivotal and the technique developed led to many further discoveries by different laboratories.

Subsequently, Sheetz and Spudich worked out an in-vitro method for visualizing actin filaments creeping along myosin coated surfaces, and this system still remains the gold-standard assay for studying myosin movement. With a read-out in hand, many details of the mechanism of action of the motor molecules within the cell were worked out.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Lasker Awards: motors take centre stage

Nature Cell Biology | Editorial
Nature Cell Biology 14,1113(2012)  http://dx.doi.org:/10.1038/ncb2618

Michael Sheetz, James Spudich and Ronald Vale have now joined the list of Lasker laureates, having jointly received the 2012 Albert Lasker Basic Medical Research Award for their “discoveries concerning cytoskeletal motor proteins, machines that move cargoes within cells, contract muscles, and enable cell movements”1.

Although the mechanism of action and the cellular functions performed by force-generating cytoskeletal motors, including their roles in intracellular trafficking, cell migration, cell division and muscle contraction, are now a fundamental part of cell biology, in the 1970s and 1980s they were still mostly a mystery. Following a postdoctoral fellowship under the guidance of Hugh Huxley, a pioneer of muscle contraction studies, James Spudich established his independent work at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) and later at Stanford University on what was, at the time, the largely unchartered territory of myosin activity and function. A fortuitous crossing of paths occurred in 1982, when Michael Sheetz joined the Spudich laboratory on sabbatical from his own independent research at the University of Connecticut Health Center. Working together, Spudich and Sheetz demonstrated myosin movement on actin filaments using the Nitella axillaris alga as a model, and later established an in vitro reconstitution system that demonstrated the ability of purified myosin to move on purified actin filaments in the presence of adenosine triphosphate at rates consistent with those of muscle contraction. This seminal work was published in Nature in 19832 and 19853.

Spurred by the exciting work on myosin-based movement, Ronald Vale, then a graduate student at Stanford University, decided with Michael Sheetz to define the particle movement observed in squid axons. Their experiments at the Marine Biology Laboratory in Woods Hole led to a series of groundbreaking Cell publications in 19854, 5, 6, 7, 8, which determined that axonal movement was not driven by myosin on actin filaments as they had anticipated, but was instead occurring on microtubules and was powered by a then-uncharacterized factor that they purified and named kinesin.

These initial efforts investigating myosin- and kinesin-powered motility, and the in vitro assays developed to characterize cytoskeletal motor activities, opened up new and fascinating avenues of research and have become a corner-stone of cell biology today. Following these key discoveries, Spudich went on to define many other aspects of myosin activity and function. Vale continued his work on molecular motors and their cellular roles in his independent research at UCSF, and Sheetz followed a varied research career ranging from motility studies to work on cell adhesion and mechanosensing at Columbia University and the Mechanobiology Institute in Singapore.

In honouring the early work of Sheetz, Spudich and Vale, the Lasker Foundation recognizes the significance of the cytoskeletal motor field in biology, and also the importance of understanding the principles underlying cellular motor function in human diseases in which such activities are deregulated. Indeed, the characterization of normal myosin and kinesin activity and function has served as the spring-board for studies on their impaired or aberrant action in disease, with the goal of developing therapies for heart conditions in the case of myosins, and neurological disorders and malignancy in the case of kinesins.

It should also be noted that the discoveries acknowledged by the Lasker Award and the subsequent scientific careers of the three awardees were the outcome of an inspired mix of cell and molecular biology, biochemistry and physics, among other disciplines, and are thus a testament to the importance of fostering multidisciplinary science. Moreover, as the three award recipients eloquently noted in their Lasker Award acceptance remarks, the motivating force during the exciting times of their initial research on motors was not only a thirst for discovery and a passion for science, but also a strong collaborative spirit. As a fundamentally creative and adventurous endeavour, science is often seen by outsiders as a solitary pursuit of inquiry and testing one’s own ideas. However, the reality of a bustling laboratory reveals that teamwork, discussion and brainstorming, and a successful combination of different personalities, are just as important as individual intellect and drive. In that respect, the dedication, creativity and collaborative efforts of Sheetz, Spudich and Vale should be an inspiration to scientists everywhere.

References

  1. www.laskerfoundation.org/awards/2012_b_description.htm
  2. Sheetz, M. P. & Spudich, J. A. Nature 303, 31–35 (1983).
  3. Spudish, J. A., Kron, S. J. & Sheetz, M. P. Nature 315, 584–586 (1985).
  4. Vale, R. D., Schnapp, B. J., Reese, T. S. & Sheetz, M. P. Cell 40, 449–454 (1985).

One path to understanding energy transduction in biological systems

James A Spudich

http://www.laskerfoundation.org/awards/pdf/2012_b_spudich.pdf

Who is not fascinated by the myriad biological movements that define life? From cell migration, cell division and a network of translocation activities within cells to highly specialized muscle contraction, molecular motors operate by burning ATP as fuel. Three types of molecular motors—myosin, kinesin and dynein— and nearly 100 different subtypes transduce that chemical energy into mechanical movements to carry out a wide variety of cellular tasks. Understanding the molecular basis of energy transduction by these motors has taken decades. Our understanding of molecular motors could be viewed as beginning with the two 1954 papers in Nature by Hugh Huxley and Jean Hanson and Andrew Huxley and Rolf Niedergerke, respectively, where the authors proposed the sliding-filament theory of muscle contraction. But a good place to start my story is 1969, when Hugh Huxley, on the basis of his remarkable X-ray diffraction experiments on live muscle coupled with electron microscopy, postulated the swinging crossbridge hypothesis of muscle contraction1. Thus, more than 40 years ago, he proposed the basic concepts of how the myosin molecule produces the sliding of actin filaments to produce contraction. Hugh Huxley laid the foundation for the molecular motor field, and we are all indebted to him. My beginnings in myosin research began as a postdoctoral fellow in Hugh’s laboratory at the Medical Research Council Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge, England, coincidentally in 1969. But my fascination with science began much earlier.

Neither of my parents was college educated, but they both had keen intellects, positive and enthusiastic outlooks and profound work ethics. My father was intrigued by how things work and shared that interest with my brother John and me. After the coal mines closed, my father taught himself electrical engineering, founded the Spudich Electric Company and patented one of his inventions. He often told John and me, “do whatever excites you, but do it well and be respectful of people you interact with.”

I was captivated with chemistry from a young age. Beginning at the age of six, I mastered every chemistry set I could get. The myriad chemical reactions that could be created using everyday materials, sometimes with marvelously explosive results, fed my excitement for chemistry. It was a world unfamiliar to my parents, but they respected my preoccupations and cleared the pantry of our modest home for me to set up a lab with discarded equipment given to me by my high school chemistry teacher Robert Brandsmark. My brother John has also followed the allure of science into an exciting and distinguished career in basic research. His work has established the molecular basis of signaling in an important class of rhodopsins that he discovered in 1982 (ref. 2). John was my first collaborator.

A chance encounter with Woody Hastings at the University of Illinois launched my experimental-science career. Throughout my undergraduate years, I worked with Woody on bioluminescence in Vibrio fischeri3. I was inspired by his high-spirited fascination with biology and was fortunate to be invited to help him teach in the physiology course at the Marine Biological Laboratory (MBL) in Woods Hole (Fig. 1). At the MBL, I was introduced to the breadth and potential of many biological systems, including muscle contraction.

In 1963 I joined the PhD program in the new Department of Biochemistry at Stanford University, founded by Arthur Kornberg. One of the many remarkable aspects of the biochemistry department was that, although Arthur was my thesis advisor, all the faculty members were my mentors. This unique environment shaped the way I do research and taught me how to be a responsible colleague and a mentor to others (Fig. 2). I learned how important it is to reduce complex biological systems to their essential components and create quantitative in vitro assays for the function of interest. Those years also made it clear to me that interdisciplinary approaches would be key to understanding complex biological processes. So I decided to do postdoctoral work in both genetics and structural biology. I spent one year at Stanford with another influential role model, Charley Yanofsky, working on the genetics of the Escherichia coli tryptophan operon. I then joined Hugh Huxley’s laboratory in Cambridge.

I chose to study the  unanswered questions in cell biology at the time when I established my own laboratory – how the chemical energy of ATP hydrolysis brings about mechanical movement and what roles a myosin-like motor might have in nonmuscle cells.

The essential first steps were to develop a quantitative in vitro motility assay for myosin movement on actin, which is crucial for understanding the molecular mechanism of energy transduction by this system, and to develop a model organism to unravel the molecular basis of the myriad nonmuscle-cell movements that are apparent by light microscopy. We explored Neurospora crassa, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Physarum polycephalum, Dictyostelium discoideum, Nitella axillaris and other organisms, all unfamiliar to me at the time. The giant cells of the alga Nitella were particularly intriguing because of their striking intracellular cytoplasmic streaming that was visible under a simple light microscope. Although not suitable for biochemistry or genetics, Nitella would assume an important role in my lab a decade later, after Yolande Kersey in Norm Wessells’s laboratory in the Department of Biological Sciences at Stanford showed oriented actin cables lying along chloroplast rows in these cells 5. The slime mold Dictyostelium proved best for our initial biochemical approach 6. Margaret Clarke, my postdoctoral fellow, identified a myosin in Dictyostelium. We also showed that actin is associated with the cell membrane in this organism, and we isolated membranecoated polystyrene beads with actin filaments emanating from them. We were tremendously excited about the possibilities these results presented as a small step along the way to an in vitro motility assay where these actin-coated particles could move along a myosin-coated surface (Fig. 3).

Figure 3 Dictyostelium has a muscle-like myosin and membrane-associated actin. (a) A possible scheme for pulling two membranes together (redrawn from ref. 6). (b) Margaret Clarke discovered myosin II in Dictyostelium and showed that it forms bipolar thick filaments, similar to muscle myosin. (c) Phagocytized polystyrene beads offered an opportunity to explore one version of an in vitro motility assay where the beads may be pulled along by myosin. Taken from my laboratory notebook, 21 January 1973.

Figure 4 One approach to an in vitro motility assay from a totally defined system. (a) The concept was to observe myosin-coated beads moving along fixed actin filaments oriented by buffer flow. The actin filaments had biotinylated severin bound to their barbed ends; the barbed ends were attached to an avidin-coated surface by way of the tight avidin-biotin link. The filaments were oriented by buffer flow. B, biotin; S, severin. (b) Myosin-coated beads were observed by light microscopy to move upstream toward the barbed end of the surface-attached actin filaments. The position of each of the three bead aggregates is shown as a function of time. This was the first demonstration of quantitative, directed movement of myosin along actin with a totally defined system (taken from ref. 11). ATP binding releases the myosin Myosin binds to actin ATP ADP Pi ADP .

In 1977 I joined the Department of Structural Biology at Stanford. In the next years we extensively characterized the actin-myosin system in Dictyostelium. My student Arturo De Lozanne made the chance discovery that genes in Dictyostelium can be knocked out by homologous recombination and provided the first genetic proof that myosin II is essential for time that myosin II drove the forward movement of cells. Dietmar Manstein, Meg Titus and Arturo then extended these experiments to create a myosin-null cell8, which was crucial to our later work using mutational analysis to define the structure-function relationships of the myosin molecule and for important experiments in support of the swinging cross-bridge hypothesis9. Interestingly, reports from a number of laboratories between 1969 and 1980 did not support the swinging cross-bridge model, and it was more imperative than ever to develop a quantitative in vitro motility system to test the various models under consideration. In 1981 we identified and purified Dictyostelium severin, a protein that tightly binds the ‘barbed ends’ of actin filaments. This provided an opportunity to try another version of an in vitro motility assay. Using biotinylated severin, we attached the actin filament barbed ends to an avidin-coated slide and flowed aqueous solution over them. Long filaments attached to the surface at one end would be expected to orient in the direction of the flowing solution (Fig. 4a). We placed myosin-coated beads on these actin-coated slides and added ATP but saw only sporadic movements. In retrospect, we probably did not have sufficient alignment of filaments; we were not monitoring filament alignment at that time by electron microscopy, as we did later.

A key breakthrough occurred in 1982 when Mike Sheetz came to my laboratory on sabbatical. Not certain what component of our system might be limiting our approach, we took advantage of the known orientation of actin filaments in Nitella5 to overcome the actin filament alignment problem. Peter Sargent, a neurobiologist in the Structural Biology Department at that time, helped us cut open a Nitella cell, and we attached it to a surface to expose the actin fibers. We added myosin-coated beads and eureka! We saw robust ATP-dependent unidirectional movement along chloroplast rows, which mark the actin fibers 10.

Armed with the Nitella results, Mike left my lab and went to the MBL to explore whether myosin-coated vesicles may account for the particle movements observed in squid axons. Ron Vale, then a graduate student at Stanford with Eric Shooter, was fascinated by the movement of organelles in nerve axons and joined Mike at the MBL. To their great surprise, they found that movement in axons is not myosin driven. Instead, they discovered the new molecular motor kinesin, a discovery that completely energized the field and opened up years of exciting work from their laboratories and many others. ..

 

The combination of the in vitro motility assay and the Dictyostelium myosin-null cell provided powerful tools for Kathy Ruppel, Taro Uyeda, Dietmar Manstein, William Shih, Coleen Murphy, Meg Titus, Tom Egelhoff and others in my lab to use mutations along myosin to define the biochemical, biophysical and assembly properties of the molecule. Our results were consistent with the proposed actin-activated myosin chemomechanical cycle derived largely from the elegant biochemical kinetic studies from Edward Taylor’s laboratory in the early 1970’s (ref. 15) (Fig. 5). Then, in 1993, Ivan Rayment and his colleagues16 obtained a high-resolution crystal structure of myosin S1. Ivan’s pivotal work allowed us to place our mutational analyses in a myosin structure-function context.

Figure 5 The actin-activated myosin chemomechanical cycle. This cycle, extensively studied by many researchers over several decades, was derived from kinetic studies of Lymn and Taylor 15. A mechanical stroke only occurs when the myosin is strongly bound to actin. Our mutational analyses of Dictyostelium myosin II probed each of the steps shown and provided structure-function analyses that helped define how the myosin motor works. ADP-Pi , ADP and inorganic phosphate, the products of ATP hydrolysis, remain bound to the active site until actin binds to the myosin.

Figure 6 In vitro motility taken to the single-molecule level using the physics of laser trapping. (a) The Kron in vitro motility assay observing fluorescent actin filaments (yellow) moving on a myosin-coated (red) surface. (b) Two polystyrene beads attached to the ends of a single actin filament are trapped in space by laser beams. The filament is lowered onto a single myosin molecule on a bump on the surface (gray sphere). (c) Jeff Finer building the dual-beam laser trap in around 1990.

Fundamental issues still remained— primarily to establish the step size that the myosin takes for each ATP hydrolysis, which was under considerable debate.

more…

One of my great satisfactions is that the more detailed understanding of energy transduction by myosin has led to potential clinical therapies. A small molecule that binds and activates b-cardiac myosin is now in clinical trials for the treatment of heart failure, and another small molecule currently in clinical trials activates skeletal muscle contraction and may aid patients with amyotropic lateral sclerosis and other diseases.

…

 

Read Full Post »

Heroes in Basic Medical Research – Robert J. Lefkowitz

Author & Curator: Larry H Bernstein, MD, FCAP

Robert J. Lefkowitz, MD

Robert J. Lefkowitz MD, a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator who has spent his entire 39-year research career at the Duke University Medical Center, is sharing the 2012 Nobel Prize in Chemistry with Brian K. Kobilka of Stanford University School of Medicine, who was a post-doctoral fellow in Lefkowitz’s lab in the 1980s.

They are being recognized for their work on a class of cell surface receptors that have become the target of prescription drugs, including antihistamines, ulcer drugs and beta blockers to relieve hypertension, angina and coronary disease.

The receptors catch chemical signals from the outside and transmit their messages into the cell, providing the cell with information about changes occurring within the body. These particular receptors are called seven-transmembrane G protein-coupled receptors, or just “G-coupled receptors” for short. Serpentine in appearance, G-coupled receptors weave through the surface of the cell seven times.

The human genome contains code to make at least 1,000 different forms of these trans-membrane receptors, all of which are quite similar. The receptors also bear a strong resemblance to receptors that detect light in the eyes, smells in the nose and taste on the tongue. (See playlist of Lefkowitz science videos here.)

“Bob’s seminal discoveries related to G-protein coupled receptors ultimately became the basis for a great many medications that are in use today across many disease areas,” said Victor J. Dzau, MD, Chancellor for Health Affairs and CEO, Duke University Health System.  “He is an outstanding example of a physician-scientist whose impact can be seen in the lives of the countless patients who have benefited from his scientific discoveries. We are very proud of his magnificent achievements and grateful for his many contributions to Duke Medicine.”

After attending public elementary and junior high schools I entered The Bronx High School of Science (10th grade) in the autumn of 1956, graduating at age 16 in 1959. “Bronx Science” is one of several public high schools in New York City which admits students on the basis of a competitive examination. The student body, representing approximately the top 5% based on the exam, are gifted and interested in science and math. The accomplishments of graduates of this high school are quite remarkable. For example, I am the 8th Nobel Laureate to have graduated from this school, the 7 previous ones having received their prizes in Physics. For me, attending this school was a formative experience. Whereas in elementary and junior high school I was not greatly challenged, here I was among a group of remarkably bright, interesting and stimulating classmates. The curriculum featured many advanced classes at the college level. I was particularly drawn to chemistry and, as a result of taking these college level classes, I was able to receive full credit for two years of chemistry when I entered Columbia College in 1959. Thus I began as a college freshman with organic chemistry, a course generally taken by juniors.

The level of scholarship maintained by the student body was such that even with an average of about 94% my final class rank was about 100th out of 800. A classmate and friend at the time and at present, the famous geneticist David Botstein, had an almost identical average, a fact we tease each other about to this day.

Along with dozens of classmates, I moved on to Columbia University where I enrolled as a pre-medical student majoring in chemistry. The two year core curriculum in “Contemporary Civilization” was required of all students. With an emphasis on reading classic texts in history, philosophy, sociology and the political sciences and discussing these in small seminars, it was for me an opening to a whole new world. In addition, I took courses with and was exposed to, such intellectual giants as the literary critic Lionel Trilling, the cultural historian Jacques Barzun and the sociologist Daniel Bell, among others. I have very fond memories from this period of spending many hours in the public reading room at the 42nd Street New York Public Library, researching papers for those classes.

I also studied advanced Organic Chemistry with Cheves Walling and Physical Chemistry in a department which was strongly influenced by the then recently retired prominent physical organic chemist, Louis Hammett. However, the chemistry professor who had the most profound influence on me was actually a young Assistant Professor of Chemistry, Ronald Breslow. As a college senior I took an advanced seminar in biochemistry which he taught single handedly. This introduction to the chemistry of processes in living organisms really excited me in part, I suspect, because of his very lively teaching style. None of this, however, in any way diverted me from my goal of studying to become a practicing physician.

I greatly enjoyed my four years in medical school. I had dreamed about becoming a physician since grade school and now I was finally doing it. As a freshman immersed in the basic medical sciences I was able to deepen my interest in, and fascination with, biochemistry. Our biochemistry professors included a remarkable array of scholars (not that any of us appreciated that at the time). We heard lectures on metabolism from David Rittenberg, Chair of the Department; from David Shemin on porphyrins; from Irwin Chargaff on nucleic acids; and from David Nachmansohn on cholinergic neurotransmission.

One young professor left a lasting impression on me. Paul Marks was then a young academic hematologist who taught the Introduction to Clinical Medicine course in which we studied clinical problems for the first time, examined case histories, and looked at blood specimens. Not only was he a good clinician but he assigned readings from the basic science literature that were relevant in a very meaningful way to the cases we studied. This showed me how scientific information could be brought to bear on clinical problems. Among my classmates and friends in medical school was Harold Varmus, who was the co-recipient of the 1989 Nobel Prize for the discovery of oncogenes.

On July 1, 1968 I moved my family (now including the recently born Cheryl) to Rockville, Maryland to begin my research career at the NIH in nearby Bethesda, Maryland. I had been assigned, through a matching program, to work with Drs. Jesse Roth and Ira Pastan in the Clinical Endocrinology Branch of the National Institute of Arthritis and Metabolic Diseases (NIAMD), now known as NIDDK, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. I was a Clinical Associate, meaning that in addition to doing full time research ten months out of the year, for two months I also supervised a clinical endocrinology in-patient service. Because of this, I gained a remarkable exposure to unusual endocrine diseases which were under study at the time. An example of this was acromegaly.

It was the heyday of interest in second messenger signaling after the discovery of cAMP by Earl Sutherland. He would receive the Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology for this in 1971. One hormone after another was being shown to stimulate the enzyme adenylate cyclase thus increasing intracellular levels of cAMP. The idea that these different hormones might work through distinct receptors was talked about but was controversial. Moreover, at the time there were no direct methods for studying the receptors. I was assigned the challenging task of developing a radioligand binding method to study the putative receptors for adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) in plasma membranes derived from an ACTH responsive adrenocortical carcinoma passaged in nude mice.

Recently, two Nobel Laureates, Mike Brown and Joe Goldstein, published a brief essay discussing the remarkable number of Nobel Laureates (9 so far) who have in common the fact that they came to the NIH as physicians during the brief space between 1964–1972 for postdoctoral research training. (1)

They dissect the unique convergence of circumstances which may have been responsible for this extraordinary result, including the quality of basic science mentors on the full time NIH staff, the competitiveness of “the best and the brightest” to obtain these positions during the Vietnam War years, and the now bygone emphasis on teaching of basic sciences in medical schools in the 1960s.

Lineages among Nobel Laureates are often commented upon. In my case, Jesse Roth had trained with Solomon Berson and Rosalyn Yalow whose development of radioimmunoassay led to the Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology to Yalow (1977) after Berson’s untimely death in 1972. Moreover, training in Ira Pastan’s laboratory contemporaneously with me was my medical school and house staff classmate and future Nobel Laureate, Harold Varmus. Ira had himself trained in the lab of another NIH career scientist, Earl Stadtman, who also trained a future Nobel Laureate, Mike Brown.

Dr. Edgar Haber, the Chief of Cardiology and a prominent immunochemist, allowed me to begin working in his lab. I was fascinated by receptors and what I saw as their potential to form the basis for a whole new field of research just waiting to be explored. I spent a great deal of time analyzing which receptor I should attempt to study. As an aspiring academic cardiologist I wanted to work on something related to the cardiovascular system. I also wanted a receptor known to be coupled to adenylate cyclase. I initially focused on two models, the cardiac glucagon and β-adrenergic receptors. However, my attention quickly became focused on the latter, for very practical reasons. Unlike the case for peptide hormones such as glucagon or ACTH, literally dozens, if not hundreds of analogs of adrenaline and noradrenaline, as well as their antagonists were available which could be chemically modified to develop the types of new tools which would need to be developed to study the receptors. These would include radioligands, photoaffinity probes, affinity chromatography matrices and the like. Moreover, the first β-adrenergic receptor blocker (“β-blocker”) had recently been approved for clinical use in the United States, adding further to the attractiveness of this target to me.

So in the early months of 1971 I began the quest to prove the existence of β-adrenergic receptors, to study their properties, to learn about their chemical nature, how they were regulated and how they functioned. This work has consumed me for the past forty years. Over the next several years in Boston, working mostly with membrane fractions derived from canine myocardium, I sought to develop radioligand binding approaches to tag the β-adrenergic receptors. I focused initially on the use of [3H]labeled catecholamines such as norepinephrine, which are agonists for the receptor. Specific saturable binding could be demonstrated, and I thought initially that we had developed a valid approach to label the receptors. However, it became increasingly clear over the next few years that the sites being labeled lacked many of the properties that would be expected for true physiological receptor binding sites. Coming to this realization was difficult.

During this time I also published some of the very first studies demonstrating GTP regulation of β-adrenergic receptor stimulated adenylate cyclase following after the work of Martin Rodbell on GTP regulation of glucagon sensitive adenylate cyclase. I was now a cardiology fellow. As at the NIH, nights on call were often spent in the lab doing experiments while hoping that my on call beeper would remain quiet. During these years, I had many stimulating and profitable discussions with Geoffrey Sharpe, a faculty member in the Nephrology Division with an interest in cell signaling and adenylate cyclase.

In work with postdoc Marc Caron in the spring of 1974, we succeeded in developing [3H]dihydroalprenolol. Contemporaneously, Gerald Aurbach at the NIH, and Alex Levitzki at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem also developed similar approaches using different radioligands. This was a watershed event because it finally opened the door to direct study of the receptors. Together with M.D./Ph.D. student Rusty Williams we developed comparable assays for the α-adrenergic receptors shortly thereafter.

Brian Kent Kobilka is an American physiologist and a corecipient of the 2012 Nobel Prize in Chemistry with Robert Lefkowitz for discoveries that reveal the inner workings of an important family G protein-coupled receptors.

Read Full Post »

Proteins that control neurotransmitter release

Author & Curator: Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FCAP

Richard H. Scheller, PhD

The sec6/8 Complex Is Located at Neurite Outgrowth and Axonal Synapse-Assembly Domains

Christopher D. Hazuka, Davide L. Foletti, Shu-Chan Hsu, Yun Kee, F. Woodward Hopf, and Richard H. Scheller
Department of Molecular and Cellular Physiology, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305-5428

The Journal of Neuroscience, February 15, 1999, 19(4):1324–1334   http://www.jneurosci.org/content/19/4/1324.full.pdf

The molecules that specify domains on the neuronal plasma membrane for the delivery and accumulation of vesicles during neurite outgrowth and synapse formation are unknown. We investigated the role of the sec6/8 complex, a set of proteins that specifies vesicle targeting sites in yeast and epithelial cells, in neuronal membrane trafficking. This complex was found in layers of developing rat brain undergoing synaptogenesis. In cultured hippocampal neurons, the sec6/8 complex was present in regions of ongoing membrane addition: the tips of growing neurites, filopodia, and growth cones. In young axons, the sec6/8 complex was also confined to periodic domains of the plasma membrane. The distribution of synaptotagmin, synapsin1, sec6, and FM1–43 labeling in cultured neurons suggested that the plasma membrane localization of the sec6/8 complex preceded the arrival of synaptic markers and was downregulated in mature synapses. We propose that the sec6/8 complex specifies sites for targeting vesicles at domains of neurite outgrowth and potential active zones during synaptogenesis. Key words: synaptogenesis; neurotransmission; secretion; exocytosis; synaptic vesicle; vesicle targeting

Targeting of vesicles to synaptic sites during development may use similar mechanisms as those involved in vesicle fusion underlying membrane outgrowth. Before contact with a postsynaptic target, axons possess mobile vesicle clusters bearing synaptotagmin, which fuse with the plasma membrane after stimulation (Matteoli et al., 1992; Kraszewski et al., 1995; Dai and Peng, 1996). Thus, growing axons must contain the molecular machinery required for constitutive exocytosis, endocytosis, and activitydependent vesicle release. However, it is unclear how vesicles become clustered at synapses. Although vesicle fusion in axons might occur anywhere along the plasma membrane, there must be membrane targets that signal the clustering of vesicles for synapse formation. Furthermore, it is unclear how sites of vesicle exocytosis are modified as the neuron forms stable contacts with postsynaptic partners.

Identification of a Novel Rab11/25 Binding Domain Present in Eferin and Rip Proteins

Rytis Prekeris*, Jason M. Davies*, and Richard H. Scheller#
JBC Papers in Press. Published on July 31, 2001 as Manuscript M106133200
http://www.jbc.org/content/early/2001/07/31/jbc.M106133200.full.pdf

Rab11, a low molecular weight GTP binding protein, has been shown to play a key role in a variety of cellular processes, including endosomal recycling, phagocytosis, and transport of secretory proteins from the TGN. In this study we describe a novel Rab11 effector, EF hands containing Rab11 interacting protein (eferin). In addition, we identify a 20 amino acid domain that is present at the C-terminus of eferin and other Rab11/25 interacting proteins, such as Rip11 and nRip11. Using biochemical techniques we demonstrate that this domain is necessary and sufficient for Rab11 binding in vitro and that it is required for localization of Rab11 effector proteins in vivo. The data suggest that various Rab effectors compete with each other for the binding to Rab11/25 possibly accounting for the diversity of Rab11 functions.

Members of the Rab/Ypt GTPase family have emerged as important regulators of vesicular trafficking (1). Rab proteins have been proposed to mediate a variety of functions, including vesicle translocation and docking at a specific fusion sites. Like all small GTPases, Rabs cycle between active (GTP bound) and inactive (GDP bound) conformations (2). In the GTP bound state, Rab proteins can bind a variety of downstream effector proteins, while GTP hydrolysis leads to a conformational change in the “switch” region that renders the Rab GTPase unrecognizable to its effector proteins (3,4). A key question in understanding the interactions between Rabs and their effectors concerns the mechanisms by which Rab GTPases specifically bind a diverse spectrum of effectors and how this is regulated by the common structural motif used as a GTP switch. Biochemical and genetic studies have identified several hypervariable regions that might be involved in determining Rab specificity, including N- and C-termini, as well as α3/β5 by guest on September 6, 2015 http://www.jbc.org/ Downloaded from loop (5,6). Indeed, the recently reported structure of Rab3a bound to a putative effector, rabphillin-3a, revealed that Rab3a/rabphillin-3a complex interacts through two main regions (7). The first consists of conformationally sensitive “switch” regions of Rab3a bound to the a1 helix and the C-terminal part of rabphillin-3a. The second involves the SGAWFF domain of rabphillin-3a which fits into a pocket formed by the three hypervariable complementary determining regions (CDRs) of Rab3a, corresponding to the N- and C-termini and α3/β5 loop. Thus, it appears that the hypervariable RabCDR are involved in determining the specificity of effector binding, while the conserved “switch” regions impart GTP dependency and binding. It remains to be determined, however, whether this paradigm also applies to other Rab/effector complexes. Rab11a, -11b, and -25 are closely related members of Rab GTPase family that have been implicated in regulating a variety of different post-Golgi trafficking pathways, such as protein recycling (8), phagocytosis (9), insulin-stimulated Glut4 insertion in the plasma membrane (10), and membrane trafficking from early endosomes to the transGolgi network (11). During the last few years several Rab11/25 interacting proteins have been identified, including Rab11BP/Rabphilin-11, Rip11, nRip11, and myosin Vb (12- 15). However, the mechanisms of their function, as well as molecular aspects of their interactions with Rab11, remain to be fully understood. In the present study, we report the identification of EF-hands containing Rab11/25 interacting protein (eferin). Furthermore, we characterized a Rab binding domain (RBD11) which is present at the Cterminus of eferin as well as other Rab11/25 binding proteins, such as Rip11 and nRip11. Using biochemical techniques we demonstrated that RBD11 is the region which encodes the specificity for Rab11/25, but is distinct from the region interacting with Rab “switch” domain, since its interactions with the Rab11/25 are not GTP-dependent.

The functional significance of the differences in Rip and eferin interactions with Rab11/25 remains to be determined. One possibility is that additional cellular factors can regulate the affinity of Rab11/25 binding to its effectors. Indeed, the recombinant full length Rip11 binds poorly to Rab11a in pull down and yeast-two hybrid assays as compared to full length endogenous Rip11 from cellular TX-100 extracts (data not shown). Furthermore, it has been previously shown that Rip11 can also interact with γSNAP and cytoskeleton (13,24). Thus, the interactions of Rips and eferin with different factors could be used as a means of differentially regulating Rab11/25 binding. Alternatively, the Rab11/25 binding motif in eferin and Rip11 might be conformationlly hidden and require activation before binding to Rab11/25. We have previously demonstrated that phosphorylation of Rip11 plays an important role in its trafficking (13). Thus, differential phosphorylation on Rab11/25 binding motifs could also play a role in regulating the binding of Rip11 and eferin to Rab GTPases. Despite to recent progress in understanding the roles of Rabs and their effectors in regulating membrane trafficking, we are only beginning to unravel the structural determinants of their function. Identification and characterization of the Rab11/25 binding regions in Rip and Eferin proteins will be of a crucial importance in understanding the molecular mechanisms involved in differential regulation of the variety of Rab11-dependent trafficking pathways.

J. Immunol. Methods
J Immunol Methods 2008 Mar 14;332(1-2):41-52. Epub 2008 Jan 14.
Genentech Inc., 1DNA Way, South San Francisco, California, 94080, United States. jagath@gene.com
Cysteines with reactive thiol groups are attractive tools for site-specific labeling of proteins. Engineering a reactive cysteine residue into proteins with multiple disulfide bonds is often a challenging task as it may interfere with structural and functional properties of the protein. Here we developed a phage display-based biochemical assay, PHESELECTOR (Phage ELISA for Selection of Reactive Thiols) to rapidly screen reactive thiol groups on antibody fragments without interfering with their antigen binding, using trastuzumab-Fab (hu4D5Fab) as a model system

Antibody-drug conjugates enhance the antitumor effects of antibodies and reduce adverse systemic effects of potent cytotoxic drugs. However, conventional drug conjugation strategies yield heterogenous conjugates with relatively narrow therapeutic index (maximum tolerated dose/curative dose). Using leads from our previously described phage display-based method to predict suitable conjugation sites, we engineered cysteine substitutions at positions on light and heavy chains that provide reactive thiol groups and do not perturb immunoglobulin folding and assembly, or alter antigen binding.

Neuron
Neuron 2008 Nov;60(3):400-1

Antibody drug conjugates (ADCs) combine the ideal properties of both antibodies and cytotoxic drugs by targeting potent drugs to the antigen-expressing tumor cells, thereby enhancing their antitumor activity. Successful ADC development for a given target antigen depends on optimization of antibody selection, linker stability, cytotoxic drug potency, and mode of linker-drug conjugation to the antibody. Here, we systematically examined the in vitro potency as well as in vivo preclinical efficacy and safety profiles of a heterogeneous preparation of conventional trastuzumab-mcc-DM1 (TMAb-mcc-DM1) ADC with that of a homogeneous engineered thio-trastuzumab-mpeo-DM1 (thioTMAb-mpeo-DM1) conjugate.

Sensory and signaling pathways are exquisitely organized in primary cilia. Bardet-Biedl syndrome (BBS) patients have compromised cilia and signaling. BBS proteins form the BBSome, which binds Rabin8, a guanine nucleotide exchange factor (GEF) activating the Rab8 GTPase, required for ciliary assembly.

The reactive thiol in cysteine is used for coupling maleimide linkers in the generation of antibody conjugates. To assess the impact of the conjugation site, we engineered cysteines into a therapeutic HER2/neu antibody at three sites differing in solvent accessibility and local charge. The highly solvent-accessible site rapidly lost conjugated thiol-reactive linkers in plasma owing to maleimide exchange with reactive thiols in albumin, free cysteine or glutathione.

The intracellular pathogenic bacterium Salmonella enterica serovar typhimurium (Salmonella) relies on acidification of the Salmonella-containing vacuole (SCV) for survival inside host cells. The transport and fusion of membrane-bound compartments in a cell is regulated by small GTPases, including Rac and members of the Rab GTPase family, and their effector proteins. However, the role of these components in survival of intracellular pathogens is not completely understood.

Nat. Med.
Nat Med 2013 Oct;19(10):1232-5
Genentech Research and Early Development, 1 DNA Way, San Francisco, California, USA.
MAbs
MAbs 2014 Jan-Feb;6(1):95-107
Multi-transmembrane proteins are especially difficult targets for antibody generation largely due to the challenge of producing a protein that maintains its native conformation in the absence of a stabilizing membrane. Here, we describe an immunization strategy that successfully resulted in the identification of monoclonal antibodies that bind specifically to extracellular epitopes of a 12 transmembrane protein, multi-drug resistant protein 4 (MRP4). These monoclonal antibodies were developed following hydrodynamic tail vein immunization with a cytomegalovirus (CMV) promoter-based plasmid expressing MRP4 cDNA and were characterized by flow cytometry.

Antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) have a significant impact toward the treatment of cancer, as evidenced by the clinical activity of the recently approved ADCs, brentuximab vedotin for Hodgkin lymphoma and ado-trastuzumab emtansine (trastuzumab-MCC-DM1) for metastatic HER2+ breast cancer. DM1 is an analog of the natural product maytansine, a microtubule inhibitor that by itself has limited clinical activity and high systemic toxicity. However, by conjugation of DM1 to trastuzumab, the safety was improved and clinical activity was demonstrated.

Richard H Scheller, PhD

Published on 16 Sep 2014

The Keck School of Medicine of USC is the first medical school in the nation to host the Lasker Lectures, featuring recipients of the prestigious 2013 Albert Lasker Basic Medical Research Award. In this installment, Richard H. Scheller, PhD, executive vice president of Genentech research and early development, discusses breakthoughs in drug development that are turning the tide in the war against cancer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fx54EVJMcxM

Kavli Prize 2015

Xenon Pharmaceuticals Appoints Dr. Richard H. Scheller to Its Board of Directors

Biopharmaceutical company Xenon Pharmaceuticals (NasdaqGM:XENE) reported on Monday the addition of Richard H. Scheller, PhD to its board of directors.

Most recently, Dr Scheller has served as chief science officer and head of Therapeutics at 23andMe.

Previously Dr Scheller was the executive vice president at Genentech Research and Early Development & a member of the Roche Corporate Executive Committee; chief scientific officer, executive vice president of Research and senior vice president of Research at Genentech; as well as a professor of Molecular and Cellular Physiology and of Biological Sciences at Stanford University Medical Center and an investigator of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.

Dr Scheller is currently an adjunct professor in the Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, School of Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco.

He has been a Director at Xenon Pharmaceuticals Inc. since March 16, 2015 and Medrio, Inc. since November 2012. He serves as a Member of the Medical and Scientific Review Board of Evotec (US), Inc. (Renovis Inc.). In 2014, he was named a trustee of Caltech. He served as a Member of Scientific Advisory Board of Intra-Cellular Therapies, Inc. and Rinat Neuroscience Corporation.

He served on numerous advisory boards including the National Advisory Mental Health Council of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Scheller served as chairman of the Genentech Foundation’s board of directors. He is a globally recognized leader in biomedical research.

He has published over 200 papers in scientific journals, and worked in cell biology. He has received several additional awards for his work elucidating the molecular mechanisms governing neurotransmitter release, including the 2013 Albert Lasker Basic Medical Research Award, the 2014 California Institute of Technology’s Caltech Distinguished Alumni Award, the 2010 Kavli Prize in Neuroscience, and the 1997 U.S. National Academy of Sciences Award in Molecular Biology. He is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Dr. Scheller holds a Doctorate in Chemistry from the California Institute of Technology in 1980, where he was also a Postdoctoral Fellow, Division of Biology. He was also a Postdoctoral Fellow at Columbia University, College of Physicians & Surgeons. He has Bachelor’s Degree in Biochemistry in 1975 at the University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Education: 1971-1975 University of Wisconsin-Madison B.S. – Biochemistry with Honors 1975-1980 California Institute of Technology Ph.D. – Chemistry – Advisor: Eric H. Davidson 1980-1981 California Institute of Technology Postdoctoral Fellow-Division of Biology Advisor: Eric H. Davidson 1981-1982 Columbia University-College of Physicians & Surgeons Postdoctoral Fellow-Molecular Neurobiology Advisors: Richard Axel and Eric R. Kandel Industry Positions: 2001-2003 Senior Vice President – Research Genentech, Inc. 2003-2009 Executive Vice President – Research Genentech, Inc. 2008-2009 Chief Scientific Officer and Executive Vice President – Research Genentech, Inc. 2009- Executive Vice President – Genentech Research and Early Development (gRED) and Member of the Enlarged Roche Corporate Executive Committee Academic Appointments: 1982-1987 Assistant Professor, Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford University 1987-1990 Associate Professor, Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford University 1990-1993 Associate Professor, Department of Molecular and Cellular Physiology, Stanford University Associate Professor (by courtesy), Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford University

Read Full Post »

RNA polymerase – molecular basis for DNA transcription

Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FCAP, Curator

Leaders in Pharmaceutical Intelligence

Series E: 2; 3.1

Roger Kornberg, MD
Nobel Prize in Chemistry
Stanford University

Son of Arthur Kornberg, who received the Nobel Prize for DNA polymerase, Roger Kornberg spent decades on the problem of transcription of the genetic code in eukaryotic cells. Roger Kornberg made several contributions to the understanding of the transcription model including – recognition of the nucleosomal structure of DNA, characterization of the chromatin modifying factors, and discovering the bridging factor that mediates transcriptional activation (called Mediator). The three types of RNA are termed mRNA, tRNA, and rRNA. Kornberg recognized that chromatin consists of nucleosomes arranged along DNA in the form of beads on a string. He used electron crystallography to determine that lateral diffusion in molecules tethered to the bilayer to pack into two-dimensional crystals suitable for crystallography.   Using yeast, Kornberg identified the role of RNA polymerase II and other proteins in transcribing DNA, and he created three-dimensional images of the protein cluster using X-ray crystallography. Polymerase II is used by all organisms with nuclei, including humans, to transcribe DNA.

While a graduate student working with Harden McConnell at Stanford in the late 1960s, he discovered the “flip-flop” and lateral diffusion of phospholipids in bilayer membranes. While a postdoctoral fellow working with Aaron Klug and Francis Crick at the MRC in the 1970s, Kornberg discovered the nucleosome as the basic protein complex packaging chromosomal DNA in the nucleus of eukaryotic cells (chromosomal DNA is often termed “Chromatin” when it is bound to proteins in this manner, reflecting Walther Flemming‘s discovery that certain structures within the cell nucleus would absorb dyes and become visible under a microscope).[10] Within the nucleosome, Kornberg found that roughly 200 bp of DNA are wrapped around an octamer of histone proteins.

Kornberg’s research group at Stanford later succeeded in the development of a faithful transcription system from baker’s yeast, a simple unicellular eukaryote, which they then used to isolate in a purified form all of the several dozen proteins required for the transcription process. Through the work of Kornberg and others, it has become clear that these protein components are remarkably conserved across the full spectrum of eukaryotes, from yeast to human cells.

Using this system, Kornberg made the major discovery that transmission of gene regulatory signals to the RNA polymerase machinery is accomplished by an additional protein complex that they dubbed Mediator.[11] As noted by the Nobel Prize committee, “the great complexity of eukaryotic organisms is actually enabled by the fine interplay between tissue-specific substances, enhancers in the DNA and Mediator. The discovery of Mediator is therefore a true milestone in the understanding of the transcription process.”[12]

Kornberg took advantage of expertise with lipid membranes gained from his graduate studies to devise a technique for the formation of two-dimensional protein crystals on lipid bilayers. These 2D crystals could then be analyzed using electron microscopy to derive low-resolution images of the protein’s structure. Eventually, Kornberg was able to use X-ray crystallography to solve the 3-dimensional structure of RNA polymerase at atomic resolution.[13][14] He extended these studies to obtain structural images of RNA polymerase associated with accessory proteins.[15] Through these studies, Kornberg created an actual picture of how transcription works at a molecular level.

“I measured the molecular weight of the purified H3/H4 preparation by equilibrium ultracentrifugation, while Jean Thomas offered to analyze the material by chemical cross-linking. Both methods showed unequivocally that H3 and H4 were in the form of a double dimer, an (H3)2(H4)2 tetramer (Kornberg and Thomas, 1974). I pondered this result for days, and came to the following conclusions (Kornberg, 1974). First, the exact equivalence of H3 and H4 in the tetramer implied that the differences in relative amounts of the histones from various sources measured in the past must be due to experimental error. This and the stoichiometry of the tetramer implied a unit of structure in chromatin based on two each of the four histones, or an (H2A)2(H2B)2(H3)2(H4)2 octamer. Second, since chromatin from all sources contains roughly one of each histone for every 100 bp of DNA, a histone octamer would be associated with 200 bp of DNA. Finally, the (H3)2(H4)2 tetramer was reminiscent of hemoglobin, an a2b2 tetramer. The X-ray structures of hemoglobin and other oligomeric proteins available at the time were compact, with no holes through which a molecule the size of DNA might pass. Rather, the DNA in chromatin must be wrapped on the outside of the histone octamer.

As I turned these ideas over in mind, it struck me how I might explain the results of Hewish and Burgoyne. What if their sedimentation coefficient of unit length DNA fragments was measured under neutral rather than alkaline conditions? Then the DNA would have been double stranded and about 250 bp in length. Allowing for the approximate nature of the result, the correspondence with my prediction of 200 bp was electrifying. Then I recalled a reference near the end of the Hewish and Burgoyne paper to a report of a similar pattern of DNA fragments by Williamson. I rushed to the library and found that Williamson had obtained a ladder of DNA fragments from the cytoplasm of necrotic cells and measured the unit size by sedimentation under neutral conditions: the result was 205 bp! … with colleagues in Cambridge, I proved the existence of the histone octamer and the equivalence of the 200 bp unit with the particle seen in the electron microscope (Kornberg, 1977). This chapter of the chromatin story concluded with the X-ray crystal structure determination of the particle, now known as the nucleosome, showing a histone octamer surrounded by DNA, in near atomic detail (Luger et al., 1997).

I had decided to pursue the function rather than the structure of the nucleosome, and was joined in this by Yahli Lorch, who became my lifelong partner in chromatin research, and also my partner in life. We investigated the consequences of the nucleosome for transcription. It was believed that histones are generally inhibitory to transcription. We found, to the contrary, that RNA polymerases are capable of reading right through a nucleosome. Coiling of promoter DNA in a nucleosome, however, abolished initiation by RNA polymerase II (pol II) (Lorch et al., 1987). This finding, together with genetic studies of Michael Grunstein and colleagues, identified a regulatory role of the nucleosome in transcription. It has since emerged that nucleosomes play regulatory roles in a wide range of chromosomal transactions. A whole new field has emerged, one of the most active in bioscience today. It involves a bewildering variety of posttranslational modifications of the histones, and a protein machinery of great complexity for applying, recognizing, and removing these modifications.”

 

Read Full Post »

CRISPR/Cas9 Finds Its Way As an Important Tool For Drug Discovery & Development

  UPDATED 6/11/2021

CRISPR Diagnostics: CRISPR-dx Comes of Age: Tool in Drug Development

The past five years has seen a rapid expansion of the ability of CRISPR based tools toward diagnostic testing. Recently, CRISPR has been used to detect SARS-CoV-2 in patients. An article in the journal Science describes the different classes of CRISPR diagnostics in use today .

Update near end of post

UPDATED 8/08/2020

Association to Causation: Using GWAS to Identify Druggable Targets

A Gen Webinar Thursday, August 6, 2020; 11:00am – 12:30pm EST

See at end of post

Curator: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.

 

2.1.2.1

CRISPR/Cas9 Finds Its Way As an Important Tool For Drug Discovery & Development, Volume 2 (Volume Two: Latest in Genomics Methodologies for Therapeutics: Gene Editing, NGS and BioInformatics, Simulations and the Genome Ontology), Part 2: CRISPR for Gene Editing and DNA Repair

The RNA-guided Cas9 nuclease from the microbial clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) adaptive immune system can be used to facilitate efficient genome engineering in eukaryotic cells by simply specifying a 20-nt targeting sequence within its guide RNA.

CRISPR/Cas systems are part of the adaptive immune system of bacteria and archaea, protecting them against invading nucleic acids such as viruses by cleaving the foreign DNA in a sequence-dependent manner. Although CRISPR arrays were first identified in the Escherichia coli genome in 1987 (Ishino et al., 1987), their biological function was not understood until 2005, when it was shown that the spacers were homologous to viral and plasmid sequences suggesting a role in adaptive immunity (Bolotin et al., 2005; Mojica et al., 2005; Pourcel et al., 2005). Two years later, CRISPR arrays were confirmed to provide protection against invading viruses when combined with Cas genes (Barrangou et al., 2007). The mechanism of this immune system based on RNA-mediated DNA targeting was demonstrated shortly thereafter (Brouns et al., 2008; Deltcheva et al., 2011; Garneau et al., 2010; Marraffini and Sontheimer, 2008).

Jennifer Doudna, PhD Professor of Molecular and Cell Biology and Chemistry, University of California, Berkeley Investigator, Howard Hughes Medical Institute has recently received numerous awards and accolades for the discovery of CRISPR/Cas9 as a tool for mammalian genetic manipulation as well as her primary intended research target to understand bacterial resistance to viral infection.

A good post on the matter and Dr. Doudna can be seen below:

http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2014/06/13/215-245-6132014-jennifer-doudna-the-biology-of-crisprs-from-genome-defense-to-genetic-engineering/

In Delineating a Role for CRISPR-Cas9 in Pharmaceutical Targeting inheritable metabolic disorders in which may benefit from a CRISPR-Cas9 mediated therapy is discussed. However this curation is meant to focus on CRISPR/CAS9 AS A TOOL IN PRECLINICAL DRUG DEVELOPMENT.

 

Three Areas of Importance of CRISPR/Cas9 as a TOOL in Preclinical Drug Discovery Include:

  1. Gene-Function Studies: CRISPR/CAS9 ability to DEFINE GENETIC LESION and INSERTION SITE
  2. CRISPR/CAS9 Use in Developing Models of Disease
  3. CRISPR/CAS9 Use as a Diagnostic Tool
  • Using CRISPR/Cas9 in PRECLINICAL TOXICOLOGY STUDIES

I.     Gene-Function Studies: CRISPR/CAS9 ability to DEFINE GENETIC LESION and INSERTION SITE

The advent of the first tools for manipulating genetic material (cloning, PCR, transgenic technology, and before microarray and other’omic methods) allowed scientists to probe novel, individual gene functions as well as their variants and mutants in a “one-gene-at-a time” process. In essence, a gene (or mutant gene) was sequenced, cloned into expression vectors and transfected into recipient cells where function was evaluated.

However, some of the experimental issues with this methodology involved

  • Most transfections experiments result in NON ISOGENIC cell lines – by definition the insertion of a transgene alters the genetic makeup of a cell line. Simple transfection experiments with one transgene compared to a “null” transfectant compares non-isogenic lines, possibly confusing the interpretation of gene-function studies. Therefore a common technique is to develop cell lines with inducible gene expression, thereby allowing the investigator to compare a gene’s effect in ISOGENIC cell lines.
  1. Use of CRSPR in Highthrough-put Screening of Genetic Function

A very nice presentation and summary of CRSPR’s use in determining gene function in a high-throughput manner can be found below

www.rna.uzh.ch/events/journalclub/20140429JCCaihong.pdf

  1. Determining Off-target Effects of Gene Therapy Simplified with CRSPR

In GUIDE-seq: First genome-wide method of detecting off-target DNA breaks induced by CRISPR-Cas nucleases (from This Journal’s series on Live Meeting Coverage) at a 2014 Koch lecture

Shengdar Q Tsai and J Keith Joung describe

“

an approach for global detection of DNA double-stranded breaks (DSBs) introduced by RGNs and potentially other nucleases. This method, called genome-wide, unbiased identification of DSBs enabled by sequencing (GUIDE-seq), relies on capture of double-stranded oligodeoxynucleotides into DSBs. Application of GUIDE-seq to 13 RGNs in two human cell lines revealed wide variability in RGN off-target activities and unappreciated characteristics of off-target sequences. The majority of identified sites were not detected by existing computational methods or chromatin immunoprecipitation sequencing (ChIP-seq). GUIDE-seq also identified RGN-independent genomic breakpoint ‘hotspots’.

SOURCE http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nbt.3117.html

“

II. CRISPR/Cas9 Use in Developing Models of Disease

 

  1. Developing Animal Tumor Models

In a post this year I discussed a talk at the recent 2015 AACR National Meeting on a laboratories ability to use CRISPR gene editing in-vivo to produce a hepatocarcinoma using viral delivery. The post can be seen here: Notes from Opening Plenary Session – The Genome and Beyond from the 2015 AACR Meeting in Philadelphia PA; Sunday April 19, 2015

1) In this talk Dr. Tyler Jacks discussed his use of CRSPR to generate a mouse model of liver tumor in an immunocompetent mouse. Some notes from this talk are given below

  1. B) Engineering Cancer Genomes: Tyler Jacks, Ph.D.; Director, Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research
  • Cancer GEM’s (genetically engineered mouse models of cancer) had moved from transgenics to defined oncogenes
  • Observation that p53 -/- mice develop spontaneous tumors (lymphomas)
  • then GEMs moved to Cre/Lox systems to generate mice with deletions however these tumor models require lots of animals, much time to create, expensive to keep;
  • figured can use CRSPR/Cas9 as rapid, inexpensive way to generate engineered mice and tumor models
  • he used CRSPR/Cas9 vectors targeting PTEN to introduce PTEN mutations in-vivo to hepatocytes; when they also introduced p53 mutations produced hemangiosarcomas; took ONLY THREE months to produce detectable tumors
  • also produced liver tumors by using CRSPR/Cas9 to introduce gain of function mutation in β-catenin

See an article describing this study by MIT News “A New Way To Model Cancer: New gene-editing technique allows scientists to more rapidly study the role of mutations in tumor development.”

The original research article can be found in the August 6, 2014 issue of Nature[1]

And see also on the Jacks Lab site under Research

2)     In the Upcoming Meeting New Frontiers in Gene Editing multiple uses of CRISPR technology is discussed in relation to gene knockout/function studies, tumor model development and

New Frontiers in Gene Editing

Session Spotlight:
BUILDING IN VIVO MODELS FOR DRUG DISCOVERY

Genome Editing Animal Models in Drug Discovery
Myung Shin, Ph.D., Senior Principal Scientist, Biology-Discovery, Genetics and Pharmacogenomics, Merck Research Laboratories

Recent advances in genome editing have greatly accelerated and expanded the ability to generate animal models. These tools allow generating mouse models in condensed timeline compared to that of conventional gene-targeting knock-out/knock-in strategies. Moreover, the genome editing methods have expanded the ability to generate animal models beyond mice. In this talk, we will discuss the application of ZFN and CRISPR to generate various animal models for drug discovery programs.

In vivo Cancer Modeling and Genetic Screening Using CRISPR/Cas9
Sidi Chen, Ph.D., Postdoctoral Fellow, Laboratories of Dr. Phillip A. Sharp and Dr. Feng Zhang, Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research at MIT and Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT

Here we describe a genome-wide CRISPR-Cas9-mediated loss-of-function screen in tumor growth and metastasis. We mutagenized a non-metastatic mouse cancer cell line using a genome-scale library. The mutant cell pool rapidly generates metastases when transplanted into immunocompromised mice. Enriched sgRNAs in lung metastases and late stage primary tumors were found to target a small set of genes, suggesting specific loss-of-function mutations drive tumor growth and metastasis.

FEATURED PRESENTATION: In vivo Chromosome Engineering Using CRISPR-Cas9
Andrea Ventura, M.D., Ph.D., Assistant Member, Cancer Biology and Genetics Program, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center

We will discuss our experience using somatic genome editing to engineer oncogenic chromosomal rearrangements in vivo. More specifically, we will present the results of our ongoing efforts aimed at modeling cancers driven by chromosomal rearrangements using viral mediated delivery of Crispr-Cas9 to adult animals.

RNAi and CRISPR/Cas9-Based in vivo Models for Drug Discovery
Christof Fellmann, Ph.D., Postdoctoral Fellow, Laboratory of Dr. Jennifer Doudna, Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, The University of California, Berkeley

Genetically engineered mouse models (GEMMs) are a powerful tool to study disease initiation, treatment response and relapse. By combining CRISPR/Cas9 and “Sensor” validated, tetracycline-regulated “miR-E” shRNA technology, we have developed a fast and scalable platform to generate RNAi GEMMs with reversible gene silencing capability. The synergy of CRISPR/Cas9 and RNAi enabled us to not only model disease pathogenesis, but also mimic drug therapy in mice, providing us capability to perform preclinical studies in vivo.

In vivo Genome Editing Using Staphylococcus aureus Cas9
Fei Ann Ran, Ph.D., Post-doctoral Fellow, Laboratory of Dr. Feng Zhang, Broad Institute and Junior Fellow, Harvard Society of Fellows

The RNA-guided Cas9 nuclease from the bacterial CRISPR/Cas system has been adapted as a powerful tool for facilitating targeted genome editing in eukaryotes. Recently, we have identified an additional small Cas9 nuclease from Staphylococcus aureus that can be packaged with its guide RNA into a single adeno-associated virus (AAV) vector for in vivo applications. We demonstrate the use of this system for effective gene modification in adult animals and further expand the Cas9 toolbox for in vivo genome editing.

OriGene, Making the Right Tools for CRISPR Research
Xuan Liu, Ph.D., Senior Director, Marketing, OriGene

CRISPR technology has quickly revolutionized the scientific community. Its simplicity has democratized the genome editing technology and enabled every lab to consider its utility in gene function research. As the largest tool box for gene functional research, OriGene created a large collection of CRISPR-related tools, including various all-in-one vectors for gRNA cloning, donor vector backbones, genome-wide knockout kits, AAVS1 insertion vectors, etc. OriGene’s high quality products will accelerate CRISPR research.

  1. Transgenic Animals : Custom Mouse and Rat Model Generation Service Using CRISPR/Cas9 by AppliedStem Cell Inc. (http://www.appliedstemcell.com/)

A critical component of producing transgenic animals is the ability of each successive generations to pass on the transgene. In her post on this site, A NEW ERA OF GENETIC MANIPULATION  Dr. Demet Sag discusses the molecular biology of Cas9 systems and their efficiency to cause point mutations which can be passed on to subsequent generations

“

This group developed a new technology for editing genes that can be transferable change to the next generation by combining microbial immune defense mechanism, CRISPR/Cas9 that is the latest ground breaking technology for translational genomics with gene therapy-like approach.

  • In short, this so-called “mutagenic chain reaction” (MCR) introduces a recessive mutation defined by CRISPR/Cas9 that lead into a high rate of transferable information to the next generation. They reported that when they crossed the female MCR offspring to wild type flies, the yellow phenotype observed more than 95 percent efficiency.

“

The advantage of CRISPR/Cas9 over ZFNs or TALENs is its scalability and multiplexibility in that multiple sites within the mammalian genome can be simultaneously modified, providing a robust, high-throughput approach for gene editing in mammalian cells.

Applied StemCell, Inc. offers various services related to animal models including conventional transgenic rats, and phenotype analysis using knock-in, knock-out strategies.

Further explanation of their use of CRSPR can be found at the site below:

http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2014/10/29/gene-editing-at-crispr-speed-services-and-tools/

In addition, ReproCELL Inc., a Tokyo based stem cell company, uses CRSPR to develop

· Tailored disease model cells (hiPSC-Disease Model Cells)

  • 2 types of services
  • ReproUNUS™-g:human iPS cell derived functional cells involving gene editing by CRISPR/Cas9 system
  • eproUNUS™-p:patient derived iPS cell derived functional cells

III. Using CRISPR/Cas9 in PRECLINICAL TOXICOLOGY STUDIES

As of now it is unclear as to the strategy of pharma in how to use this technology for toxicology testing however a few companies have licensed the technology to use across their R&D platforms including

A recent paper used a sister technique TALEN to generate knock-in pigs which suggest that it would be possible to generate pigs with human transgenes, especially in human liver isozymes in orer to study hepatotoxicity of drugs.

Efficient bi-allelic gene knockout and site-specific knock-in mediated by TALENs in pigs

Jing Yao, Jiaojiao Huang, Tang Hai, Xianlong Wang, Guosong Qin, Hongyong Zhang, Rong Wu, Chunwei Cao, Jianzhong Jeff Xi, Zengqiang Yuan, Jianguo Zhao

Sci Rep. 2014; 4: 6926. Published online 2014 November 5. doi: 10.1038/srep06926

UPDATED 8/08/2020

Association to Causation: Using GWAS to Identify Druggable Targets

A Gen Webinar Thursday, August 6⋅11:00am – 12:30pm

This webinar is available at https://www.genengnews.com/resources/webinars/association-to-causation-using-gwas-to-identify-druggable-target/

Speakers:

Martin Kampmann, PhD

matinkampmann ucsf

Associate Professor
UCSF
Investigator
Chan Zuckerberg Biohub

Kevin Holden, PhD

kevinholdn sythego

Head of Science
Synthego

Abhi Saharia, PhD

abhisharia sythego

VP, Commercial Development
Synthego

Human genetics provides perhaps the single best opportunity to innovate and improve clinical success rates, through the identification of novel drug targets for complex disease. Even as correlation identifies multiple genetic variants associated with disease, it is challenging to conduct requisite functional studies to identify the causal variants, especially since most association signals map to non-coding regions of the genome.

Genetic editing technologies, such as CRISPR, have enabled the modeling of associated variants at their native loci, including non-coding loci, empowering the identification of underlying biological mechanisms of disease with potential causal genes. However, genome editing is largely manual today severely limiting scale, and forcing the use of rational filters to prioritize which variants to investigate functionally.

In this GEN webinar, we will discuss several strategies enabling large-scale functional investigation of disease-associated variants in a cost- and time-effective manner, including different types of pooled CRISPR-based screens and the development of a fully automated genome engineering platform. We will also review how optimization of genome engineering on this platform enables the engineering of disease-associated variants at scale in pluripotent cells.

  • They will be presenting on use of wide scale CRSPR screens to validate druggable targets
  • The presenters will also discuss new platforms for these wide scale screens

Martin Kampmann, PhD UCSF

  • Multiple genetic variants associated with disease
  • Big gap between accumulation of genetic variant information and functions of these variants
  • CRSPRi or CRSPa (siRNA coupled or enhancer coupled CRSPR guides)
  • Arrayed screens: multiplate guide RNAs and phenotype measured (phenotype can be morphology, complex biological systems like organoids or non autonomous functions
  • Using pooled screens and use of suitable cell model critical for this strategy
  • For example in iPSC vs. neurons has different expression patterns upon same CRSPR of UBA1
  • Advantage is using CRSPR to take iPSC from diseased variant patient to make a corrected isogenic control then introduce gRNAs and use modifier screens to determine phenotypes
  • Generated a platform called CRISPRbrain.org to do bioinformatics on various experiments with different guide RNAs (CRSPRs)

Abhi Saharia, PhD Syntheco

  • Target identification with CSRSPR at Scale
  • Nature medicine paper did GWAS and found 27 SNV associated with high risk disease and a rational filter focused on 1 SNV in noncoding region but why study a single variant and if studied all 27 would they have been able to identify a more representative druggable set?
  • Goal is to reduce or eliminate these rational filters
  • HALO (scalable RNA guide), ECLIPSE platform (automated generation of modified cell lines, BIOINFORMATIC platform (integrated informatics)
  • Syntheco uses an electroporation with ribonucleic proteins (RNP) to give highest efficiency and minimizes off target as complex is only in cells for a short period of time
  • They confirm they are doing single cell cloning by using automated microscopy to confirm single cell growth in each cloning well

Kevin Holden, Head of Science at Syntheco

  • Engineering iPSc genetically modified cells at scale
  • The closer you get to your target site the more efficient your CRSPR so a big factor when making guides, especially for knock-in CRSPR
  • Adding a small molecule non homologous end joining inhibitor increases efficiency to 95%
  • Cold shocking the cells also assists in homologous repair
  • Use cleavage resistant templates

III. CRISPR/CAS9 AS A DIAGNOSTIC TOOL

     In the journal Science, Omar Abudayyeh and Jonathan Gootenberg discuss how CRISPR-based diagnostic (CRISPR-dx) tools offer a solution, and multiple CRISPR-dx products for detection of the SARS-CoV-2 RNA genome have been authorized by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).  In addition they discuss the work by Jiao et al. in combining this technique to develop a rapid and sensitive SARS-CoV2 diagnostic test.

Omar O. Abudayyeh, Jonathan S. Gootenberg. Science  28 May 2021: CRISPR Diagnostics
Vol. 372, Issue 6545, pp. 914-915; DOI: 10.1126/science.abi9335

Summary

Although clinical diagnostics take many forms, nucleic acid–based testing has become the gold standard for sensitive detection of many diseases, including pathogenic infections. Quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) has been widely adopted for its ability to detect only a few DNA or RNA molecules that can unambiguously specify a particular disease. However, the complexity of this technique restricts application to laboratory settings. The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has underscored the need for the development and deployment of nucleic acid tests that are economical, easily scaled, and capable of being run in low-resource settings, without sacrifices in speed, sensitivity or specificity. CRISPR-based diagnostic (CRISPR-dx) tools offer a solution, and multiple CRISPR-dx products for detection of the SARS-CoV-2 RNA genome have been authorized by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). On page 941 of this issue, Jiao et al. (1) describe a new CRISPR-based tool to distinguish several SARS-CoV-2 variants in a single reaction.

Although clinical diagnostics take many forms, nucleic acid–based testing has become the gold standard for sensitive detection of many diseases, including pathogenic infections. Quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) has been widely adopted for its ability to detect only a few DNA or RNA molecules that can unambiguously specify a particular disease. However, the complexity of this technique restricts application to laboratory settings. The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has underscored the need for the development and deployment of nucleic acid tests that are economical, easily scaled, and capable of being run in low-resource settings, without sacrifices in speed, sensitivity or specificity. CRISPR-based diagnostic (CRISPR-dx) tools offer a solution, and multiple CRISPR-dx products for detection of the SARS-CoV-2 RNA genome have been authorized by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). On page 941 of this issue, Jiao et al. (1) describe a new CRISPR-based tool to distinguish several SARS-CoV-2 variants in a single reaction.

There are multiple types of CRISPR systems comprising basic components of a single protein or protein complex, which cuts a specific DNA or RNA target programmed by a complementary guide sequence in a CRISPR-associated RNA (crRNA). The type V and VI systems and the CRISPR-associated endonucleases Cas12 (2, 3) and Cas13 (4, 5) bind and cut DNA or RNA, respectively. Furthermore, upon recognizing a target DNA or RNA sequence, Cas12 and Cas13 proteins exhibit “collateral activity” whereby any DNA or RNA, respectively, in the sample is cleaved regardless of its nucleic acid sequence (4, 6). Thus, reporter DNAs or RNAs, which allow for visual or fluorescent detection upon cleavage, can be added to a sample to infer the presence or absence of specific DNA or RNA species (4–8).

Initial versions of CRISPR-dx utilizing Cas13 alone were sensitive to the low picomolar range, corresponding to a limit of detection of millions of molecules in a microliter sample. To improve sensitivity, preamplification methods, such as recombinase polymerase amplification (RPA), PCR, loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP), or nucleic acid sequence–based amplification (NASBA), can be used with Cas12 or Cas13 to enable a limit of detection down to a single molecule (8). This preamplification approach, applicable to both Cas12 and Cas13 (6, 7), enabled a suite of detection methods and multiplexing up to four orthogonal targets (7). Additional developments expanded CRISPR-dx readouts beyond fluorescence, including lateral flow (7), colorimetric (9), and electronic or material responsive readouts (10), allowing for instrument-free approaches. In addition, post–collateral-cleavage amplification methods, such as the use of the CRISPR-associated enzyme Csm6, have been combined with Cas13 to further increase the speed of CRISPR-dx tests (7). As an alternative to collateral-cleavage–based detection, type III CRISPR systems, which involve large multiprotein complexes capable of targeting both DNA and RNA, have been used for SARS-CoV-2 detection through production of colorimetric or fluorometric readouts (11).

FDA-authorized CRISPR-dx tests are currently only for use in centralized labs, because the most common CRISPR detection protocols require fluid handling steps and two different incubations, precluding their immediate use at the point of care. Single-step formulations have been developed to overcome this limitation, and these “one-pot” versions of CRISPR-dx are simple to run, operate at a single temperature, and run without complex equipment, producing either fluorescence or lateral flow readouts. The programmability of CRISPR makes new diagnostic tests easier to develop, and within months of the release of the SARS-CoV-2 genome, many COVID-19–specific CRISPR tests were reported and distributed around the world.

The broader capability for Cas enzyme–enhanced nucleic acid binding or cleavage has led to several other detection modalities. Cas9-based methods for cleaving nucleic acids in solution for diagnostic purposes have been combined with other detection platforms, such as destruction of undesired amplicons for preparation of next-generation sequencing libraries (12), or selective removal of alleles for nucleotide-specific detection (13). Alternatively, the programmable cleavage event from the Cas nuclease can be used to initiate an amplification reaction (14). Cas9-based DNA targeting has also been used for nucleotide detection in combination with solid-state electronics, promising an amplification-free platform for detection. In this platform, called CRISPR-Chip, the Cas9 protein binds nucleotide targets of interest (often in the context of the native genome) to graphene transistors, where the presence of these targets alters either current or voltage (15). By utilizing additional Cas9 orthologs and specific guide designs, CRISPR-Chip approaches have been tuned for single–base-pair sensitivity (15). Because they are integrated with electronic readers, CRISPR-Chip platforms may allow facile point-of-care detection with handheld devices.

 

Different classes of CRISPR diagnostics. GRAPHIC: ERIN DANIEL


Jiao et al. use a distinct characteristic of type II CRISPR systems, which involve Cas9, to develop a new type of noncollateral based CRISPR detection. Unlike Cas12s and Cas13, Cas9-crRNA complex formation requires an additional RNA known as the trans-activating CRISPR RNA (tracrRNA). By sequencing RNAs bound to Cas9 from Campylobacter jejuni in its natural host, the authors identified unexpected crRNAs, called noncanonical crRNA (ncrRNA), that corresponded to endogenous transcripts. Upon investigation of this surprising observation, it became clear that the tracrRNA was capable of hybridizing to semi-complementary sequences from a variety of RNA sources, leading to biogenesis of ncrRNAs of various sizes. Recognizing that they could program tracrRNAs to target a transcript of interest, the authors generated a reprogrammed tracrRNA (Rptr) that could bind and cleave a desired transcript, converting a piece of that transcript into a functional guide RNA. By then creating fluorescent DNA sensors that would be cleaved by the Rptr and ncrRNAs, the sensing of RNA by Cas9 could be linked to a detectable readout. This platform, called LEOPARD (leveraging engineered tracrRNAs and on-target DNAs for parallel RNA detection), can be combined with gel-based readouts and enables multiplexed detection of several different sequences in a single reaction (see the figure).

Jiao et al. also combined LEOPARD with PCR in a multistep workflow to detect SARS-CoV-2 genomes from patients with COVID-19. Although more work is needed to integrate this Cas9-based detection modality into a single step with RPA or LAMP to create a portable and sensitive isothermal test, an advantage of this approach is the higher-order multiplexing that can be achieved, allowing multiple pathogens, diseases, or variants to be detected simultaneously. More work is also needed to combine this technology with extraction-free methods for better ease of use; alternative readouts to gel-based readouts, such as lateral flow and colorimetric readouts, would be beneficial for point-of-care detection.

In just 5 years, the CRISPR-dx field has rapidly expanded, growing from a set of peculiar molecular biology discoveries to multiple FDA-authorized COVID-19 tests and spanning four of the six major subtypes of CRISPR systems. Despite the tremendous promise of CRISPR-dx, substantial challenges remain to adapting these technologies for point-of-care and at-home settings. Simplification of the chemistries to operate as a single reaction in a matter of minutes would be revolutionary, especially if the reaction could be run at room temperature without any complex or expensive equipment. These improvements to CRISPR-dx assays can be achieved by identification or engineering of additional Cas enzymes with lower-temperature requirements, higher sensitivity, or faster kinetics, enabling rapid and simple amplification-free detection with single-molecule sensitivity.

Often overlooked is the necessity for a sample DNA or RNA preparation step that is simple enough to be added directly to the CRISPR reaction to maintain a simple workflow for point-of-care testing. In addition, higher-order multiplexing developments would allow for expansive testing menus and approach the possibility of testing for all known diseases. As these advancements are realized, innovative uses of CRISPR-dx will continue in areas such as surveillance, integration with biomaterials, and environmental monitoring. In future years, CRISPR-dx assays may become universal in the clinic and at home, reshaping how diseases are diagnosed.

References and Notes

  1. ↵
  2. ↵
  3. ↵
  4. ↵
  5. ↵
  6. ↵
  7. ↵
  8. ↵
  9. ↵
  10. ↵
  11. ↵
  12. ↵
  13. ↵
  14. ↵
  15. ↵

Other related articles on CRISPR/Cas9 were published in this Open Access Online Scientific Journal, include the following:

Search Results for ‘CRISPR’

Where is the most promising avenue to success in Pharmaceuticals with CRISPR-Cas9?

CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing tool for Staphylococcus aureus Cas9 complex (SaCas9) @ MIT’s Broad Institute

Delineating a Role for CRISPR-Cas9 in Pharmaceutical Targeting

Using CRISPR to investigate pancreatic cancer

Simple technology makes CRISPR gene editing cheaper

RNAi, CRISPR, and Gene Editing: Discussions on How To’s and Best Practices @14th Annual World Preclinical Congress June 10-12, 2015 | Westin Boston Waterfront | Boston, MA

CRISPR/Cas9: Contributions on Endoribonuclease Structure and Function, Role in Immunity and Applications in Genome Engineering

CRISPR-CAS editing brings cloning of woolly mammoth one step closer to reality

GUIDE-seq: First genome-wide method of detecting off-target DNA breaks induced by CRISPR-Cas nucleases

The Patents for CRISPR, the DNA editing technology as the Biggest Biotech Discovery of the Century

CRISPR: Applications for Autoimmune Diseases @UCSF

Read Full Post »

Metabolic Genomics and Pharmaceutics, Vol. 1 of BioMed Series D available on Amazon Kindle

Metabolic Genomics and Pharmaceutics, Vol. 1 of BioMed Series D available on Amazon Kindle

Reporter: Stephen S Williams, PhD

Article ID #180: Metabolic Genomics and Pharmaceutics, Vol. 1 of BioMed Series D available on Amazon Kindle. Published on 8/15/2015

WordCloud Image Produced by Adam Tubman

Leaders in Pharmaceutical Business Intelligence would like to announce the First volume of their BioMedical E-Book Series D:

Metabolic Genomics & Pharmaceutics, Vol. I

SACHS FLYER 2014 Metabolomics SeriesDindividualred-page2

which is now available on Amazon Kindle at

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B012BB0ZF0.

This e-Book is a comprehensive review of recent Original Research on  METABOLOMICS and related opportunities for Targeted Therapy written by Experts, Authors, Writers. This is the first volume of the Series D: e-Books on BioMedicine – Metabolomics, Immunology, Infectious Diseases.  It is written for comprehension at the third year medical student level, or as a reference for licensing board exams, but it is also written for the education of a first time baccalaureate degree reader in the biological sciences.  Hopefully, it can be read with great interest by the undergraduate student who is undecided in the choice of a career. The results of Original Research are gaining value added for the e-Reader by the Methodology of Curation. The e-Book’s articles have been published on the Open Access Online Scientific Journal, since April 2012.  All new articles on this subject, will continue to be incorporated, as published with periodical updates.

We invite e-Readers to write an Article Reviews on Amazon for this e-Book on Amazon.

All forthcoming BioMed e-Book Titles can be viewed at:

http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/biomed-e-books/

Leaders in Pharmaceutical Business Intelligence, launched in April 2012 an Open Access Online Scientific Journal is a scientific, medical and business multi expert authoring environment in several domains of  life sciences, pharmaceutical, healthcare & medicine industries. The venture operates as an online scientific intellectual exchange at their website http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com and for curation and reporting on frontiers in biomedical, biological sciences, healthcare economics, pharmacology, pharmaceuticals & medicine. In addition the venture publishes a Medical E-book Series available on Amazon’s Kindle platform.

Analyzing and sharing the vast and rapidly expanding volume of scientific knowledge has never been so crucial to innovation in the medical field. WE are addressing need of overcoming this scientific information overload by:

  • delivering curation and summary interpretations of latest findings and innovations on an open-access, Web 2.0 platform with future goals of providing primarily concept-driven search in the near future
  • providing a social platform for scientists and clinicians to enter into discussion using social media
  • compiling recent discoveries and issues in yearly-updated Medical E-book Series on Amazon’s mobile Kindle platform

This curation offers better organization and visibility to the critical information useful for the next innovations in academic, clinical, and industrial research by providing these hybrid networks.

Table of Contents for Metabolic Genomics & Pharmaceutics, Vol. I

Chapter 1: Metabolic Pathways

Chapter 2: Lipid Metabolism

Chapter 3: Cell Signaling

Chapter 4: Protein Synthesis and Degradation

Chapter 5: Sub-cellular Structure

Chapter 6: Proteomics

Chapter 7: Metabolomics

Chapter 8:  Impairments in Pathological States: Endocrine Disorders; Stress

                   Hypermetabolism and Cancer

Chapter 9: Genomic Expression in Health and Disease 

 

Summary 

Epilogue

 

 

Read Full Post »

Cancer Biology and Genomics for Disease Diagnosis (Vol. I) Now Available for Amazon Kindle

Cancer Biology and Genomics for Disease Diagnosis (Vol. I) Now Available for Amazon Kindle

Reporter: Stephen J Williams, PhD

Article ID #179: Cancer Biology and Genomics for Disease Diagnosis (Vol. I) Now Available for Amazon Kindle. Published on 8/14/2015

WordCloud Image Produced by Adam Tubman

Leaders in Pharmaceutical Business Intelligence would like to announce the First volume of their BioMedical E-Book Series C: e-Books on Cancer & Oncology

Volume One: Cancer Biology and Genomics for Disease Diagnosis

CancerandOncologyseriesCcoverwhich is now available on Amazon Kindle at                          http://www.amazon.com/dp/B013RVYR2K.

This e-Book is a comprehensive review of recent Original Research on Cancer & Genomics including related opportunities for Targeted Therapy written by Experts, Authors, Writers. This ebook highlights some of the recent trends and discoveries in cancer research and cancer treatment, with particular attention how new technological and informatics advancements have ushered in paradigm shifts in how we think about, diagnose, and treat cancer. The results of Original Research are gaining value added for the e-Reader by the Methodology of Curation. The e-Book’s articles have been published on the Open Access Online Scientific Journal, since April 2012.  All new articles on this subject, will continue to be incorporated, as published with periodical updates.

We invite e-Readers to write an Article Reviews on Amazon for this e-Book on Amazon. All forthcoming BioMed e-Book Titles can be viewed at:

http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/biomed-e-books/

Leaders in Pharmaceutical Business Intelligence, launched in April 2012 an Open Access Online Scientific Journal is a scientific, medical and business multi expert authoring environment in several domains of  life sciences, pharmaceutical, healthcare & medicine industries. The venture operates as an online scientific intellectual exchange at their website http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com and for curation and reporting on frontiers in biomedical, biological sciences, healthcare economics, pharmacology, pharmaceuticals & medicine. In addition the venture publishes a Medical E-book Series available on Amazon’s Kindle platform.

Analyzing and sharing the vast and rapidly expanding volume of scientific knowledge has never been so crucial to innovation in the medical field. WE are addressing need of overcoming this scientific information overload by:

  • delivering curation and summary interpretations of latest findings and innovations
  • on an open-access, Web 2.0 platform with future goals of providing primarily concept-driven search in the near future
  • providing a social platform for scientists and clinicians to enter into discussion using social media
  • compiling recent discoveries and issues in yearly-updated Medical E-book Series on Amazon’s mobile Kindle platform

This curation offers better organization and visibility to the critical information useful for the next innovations in academic, clinical, and industrial research by providing these hybrid networks.

Table of Contents for Cancer Biology and Genomics for Disease Diagnosis

Preface

Introduction  The evolution of cancer therapy and cancer research: How we got here?

Part I. Historical Perspective of Cancer Demographics, Etiology, and Progress in Research

Chapter 1:  The Occurrence of Cancer in World Populations

Chapter 2.  Rapid Scientific Advances Changes Our View on How Cancer Forms

Chapter 3:  A Genetic Basis and Genetic Complexity of Cancer Emerge

Chapter 4: How Epigenetic and Metabolic Factors Affect Tumor Growth

Chapter 5: Advances in Breast and Gastrointestinal Cancer Research Supports Hope for Cure

Part II. Advent of Translational Medicine, “omics”, and Personalized Medicine Ushers in New Paradigms in Cancer Treatment and Advances in Drug Development

Chapter 6:  Treatment Strategies

Chapter 7:  Personalized Medicine and Targeted Therapy

Part III.Translational Medicine, Genomics, and New Technologies Converge to Improve Early Detection

Chapter 8:  Diagnosis                                     

Chapter 9:  Detection

Chapter 10:  Biomarkers

Chapter 11:  Imaging In Cancer

Chapter 12: Nanotechnology Imparts New Advances in Cancer Treatment, Detection, &  Imaging                                 

Epilogue by Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FACP: Envisioning New Insights in Cancer Translational Biology

 

Read Full Post »

Treatment of Lymphomas [2.4.4C]

Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FCAP, Author, Curator, Editor

http://pharmaceuticalinnovation.com/2015/8/11/larryhbern/Treatment-of-Lymphomas-[2.4.4C]

 

Lymphoma treatment

Overview

http://www.emedicinehealth.com/lymphoma/page8_em.htm#lymphoma_treatment

The most widely used therapies are combinations of chemotherapyand radiation therapy.

  • Biological therapy, which targets key features of the lymphoma cells, is used in many cases nowadays.

The goal of medical therapy in lymphoma is complete remission. This means that all signs of the disease have disappeared after treatment. Remission is not the same as cure. In remission, one may still have lymphoma cells in the body, but they are undetectable and cause no symptoms.

  • When in remission, the lymphoma may come back. This is called recurrence.
  • The duration of remission depends on the type, stage, and grade of the lymphoma. A remission may last a few months, a few years, or may continue throughout one’s life.
  • Remission that lasts a long time is called durable remission, and this is the goal of therapy.
  • The duration of remission is a good indicator of the aggressiveness of the lymphoma and of the prognosis. A longer remission generally indicates a better prognosis.

Remission can also be partial. This means that the tumor shrinks after treatment to less than half its size before treatment.

The following terms are used to describe the lymphoma’s response to treatment:

  • Improvement: The lymphoma shrinks but is still greater than half its original size.
  • Stable disease: The lymphoma stays the same.
  • Progression: The lymphoma worsens during treatment.
  • Refractory disease: The lymphoma is resistant to treatment.

The following terms to refer to therapy:

  • Induction therapy is designed to induce a remission.
  • If this treatment does not induce a complete remission, new or different therapy will be initiated. This is usually referred to as salvage therapy.
  • Once in remission, one may be given yet another treatment to prevent recurrence. This is called maintenance therapy.

Chemotherapy

Many different types of chemotherapy may be used for Hodgkin lymphoma. The most commonly used combination of drugs in the United States is called ABVD. Another combination of drugs, known as BEACOPP, is now widely used in Europe and is being used more often in the United States. There are other combinations that are less commonly used and not listed here. The drugs that make up these two more common combinations of chemotherapy are listed below.

ABVD: Doxorubicin (Adriamycin), bleomycin (Blenoxane), vinblastine (Velban, Velsar), and dacarbazine (DTIC-Dome). ABVD chemotherapy is usually given every two weeks for two to eight months.

BEACOPP: Bleomycin, etoposide (Toposar, VePesid), doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan, Neosar), vincristine (Vincasar PFS, Oncovin), procarbazine (Matulane), and prednisone (multiple brand names). There are several different treatment schedules, but different drugs are usually given every two weeks.

The type of chemotherapy, number of cycles of chemotherapy, and the additional use of radiation therapy are based on the stage of the Hodgkin lymphoma and the type and number of prognostic factors.

Adult Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Treatment (PDQ®)

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/treatment/adult-non-hodgkins/Patient/page1

Key Points for This Section

Adult non-Hodgkin lymphoma is a disease in which malignant (cancer) cells form in the lymph system.

Because lymph tissue is found throughout the body, adult non-Hodgkin lymphoma can begin in almost any part of the body. Cancer can spread to the liver and many other organs and tissues.

Non-Hodgkin lymphoma in pregnant women is the same as the disease in nonpregnant women of childbearing age. However, treatment is different for pregnant women. This summary includes information on the treatment of non-Hodgkin lymphoma during pregnancy

Non-Hodgkin lymphoma can occur in both adults and children. Treatment for children, however, is different than treatment for adults. (See the PDQ summary on Childhood Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Treatment for more information.)

There are many different types of lymphoma.

Lymphomas are divided into two general types: Hodgkin lymphoma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. This summary is about the treatment of adult non-Hodgkin lymphoma. For information about other types of lymphoma, see the following PDQ summaries:

Age, gender, and a weakened immune system can affect the risk of adult non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

If cancer is found, the following tests may be done to study the cancer cells:

  • Immunohistochemistry : A test that uses antibodies to check for certain antigens in a sample of tissue. The antibody is usually linked to a radioactive substance or a dye that causes the tissue to light up under a microscope. This type of test may be used to tell the difference between different types of cancer.
  • Cytogenetic analysis : A laboratory test in which cells in a sample of tissue are viewed under a microscope to look for certain changes in the chromosomes.
  • Immunophenotyping : A process used to identify cells, based on the types of antigens ormarkers on the surface of the cell. This process is used to diagnose specific types of leukemia and lymphoma by comparing the cancer cells to normal cells of the immune system.

Certain factors affect prognosis (chance of recovery) and treatment options.

The prognosis (chance of recovery) and treatment options depend on the following:

  • The stage of the cancer.
  • The type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
  • The amount of lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) in the blood.
  • The amount of beta-2-microglobulin in the blood (for Waldenström macroglobulinemia).
  • The patient’s age and general health.
  • Whether the lymphoma has just been diagnosed or has recurred (come back).

Stages of adult non-Hodgkin lymphoma may include E and S.

Adult non-Hodgkin lymphoma may be described as follows:

E: “E” stands for extranodal and means the cancer is found in an area or organ other than the lymph nodes or has spread to tissues beyond, but near, the major lymphatic areas.

S: “S” stands for spleen and means the cancer is found in the spleen.

Stage I adult non-Hodgkin lymphoma is divided into stage I and stage IE.

  • Stage I: Cancer is found in one lymphatic area (lymph node group, tonsils and nearby tissue, thymus, or spleen).
  • Stage IE: Cancer is found in one organ or area outside the lymph nodes.

Stage II adult non-Hodgkin lymphoma is divided into stage II and stage IIE.

  • Stage II: Cancer is found in two or more lymph node groups either above or below the diaphragm (the thin muscle below the lungs that helps breathing and separates the chest from the abdomen).
  • Stage IIE: Cancer is found in one or more lymph node groups either above or below the diaphragm. Cancer is also found outside the lymph nodes in one organ or area on the same side of the diaphragm as the affected lymph nodes.

Stage III adult non-Hodgkin lymphoma is divided into stage III, stage IIIE, stage IIIS, and stage IIIE+S.

  • Stage III: Cancer is found in lymph node groups above and below the diaphragm (the thin muscle below the lungs that helps breathing and separates the chest from the abdomen).
  • Stage IIIE: Cancer is found in lymph node groups above and below the diaphragm and outside the lymph nodes in a nearby organ or area.
  • Stage IIIS: Cancer is found in lymph node groups above and below the diaphragm, and in the spleen.
  • Stage IIIE+S: Cancer is found in lymph node groups above and below the diaphragm, outside the lymph nodes in a nearby organ or area, and in the spleen.

In stage IV adult non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the cancer:

  • is found throughout one or more organs that are not part of a lymphatic area (lymph node group, tonsils and nearby tissue, thymus, or spleen), and may be in lymph nodes near those organs; or
  • is found in one organ that is not part of a lymphatic area and has spread to organs or lymph nodes far away from that organ; or
  • is found in the liver, bone marrow, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), or lungs (other than cancer that has spread to the lungs from nearby areas).

Adult non-Hodgkin lymphomas are also described based on how fast they grow and where the affected lymph nodes are in the body.  Indolent & aggressive.

The treatment plan depends mainly on the following:

  • The type of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma
  • Its stage (where the lymphoma is found)
  • How quickly the cancer is growing
  • The patient’s age
  • Whether the patient has other health problems
  • If there are symptoms present such as fever and night sweats (see above)

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »