Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘gene editing’

Current Advances in Medical Technology

Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FCAP, Curator

LPBI

Pumpkin-Shaped Molecule Enables 100-Fold Improved MRI Contrast

Tue, 10/13/2015 – 9:16amby Forschungsverbund Berlin e.V. (FVB)

http://www.mdtmag.com/news/2015/10/pumpkin-shaped-molecule-enables-100-fold-improved-mri-contrast

Assuming that we could visualize pathological processes such as cancer at a very early stage and additionally distinguish the various different cell types, this would represent a giant step for personalized medicine. Xenon magnetic resonance imaging has the potential to fulfil this promise – if suitable contrast media are found that react sensitively enough to the “exposure”. Researchers at the Leibniz-Institut für Molekulare Pharmakologie in Berlin have now found that a class of pumpkin-shaped molecules called cucurbiturils together with the inert gas xenon, enables particularly good image contrast – namely around 100 times better than has been possible up to now. This finding published in the November issue cover article of Chemical Science by the Royal Society of Chemistry points the way to the tailoring of new contrast agents to different cell types and has the potential to enable molecular diagnostics even without tissue samples in the future.

Personalized medicine instead of one treatment for all – especially in cancer medicine, this approach has led to a paradigm shift. Molecular diagnostics is the key that will give patients access to tailor-made therapy. However, if tumors are located in poorly accessible areas of the body or several tumor foci are already present, this often fails due to a lack of sufficient sensitivity of the diagnostic imaging. But such sensitivity is needed to determine the different cell types, which differ considerably even within a tumor. Although even the smallest of tumor foci and other pathological changes can be detected using the PET-CT, a differentiation according to cell type is usually not possible.

Scientists from the FMP are therefore focusing on xenon magnetic resonance imaging: The further development of standard magnetic resonance imaging makes use of the “illuminating power” of the inert gas xenon, which can provide a 10,000-fold enhanced signal in the MRI. To do this, it must be temporarily captured by so-called “cage molecules” in the diseased tissue. This has been more or less successful with the molecules used to date, but the experimental approach is still far from a medical application.

Cucurbituril Provides Stunning Image Contrasts
The research group led by Dr. Leif Schröder at the Leibniz-Institut für Molekulare Pharmakologie (FMP) has now discovered a molecule class for this purpose that eclipses all of the molecules used to date. Cucurbituril exchanges around 100 times more xenon per unit of time than its fellow molecules, which leads to a much better image contrast. “It very quickly became clear that cucurbituril might be suitable as a contrast medium,” reports Leif Schröder. “However, it was surprising that areas marked with it were imaged with a much better contrast than previously.” The explanation is to be found in the speed. Upon exposure, so to speak, cucurbituril generates contrast more rapidly than all molecules used to date, as it only binds the xenon very briefly and thus transmits the radio waves to detect the inert gas to very many xenon atoms within a fraction of a second. In this way, the inert gas is passed through the molecule much more efficiently.

In the study, which appeared in the specialist journal “Chemical Science”, the world’s first MRI images with cucurbituril have been achieved. With the aid of a powerful laser and a vaporized alkali metal, the researchers initially greatly strengthened the magnetic properties of normal xenon. The hyperpolarized gas was then introduced into a test solution with the cage molecules. A subsequent MRI image showed the distribution of the xenon in the object. In a second image, the curcurbituril together with radio waves destroyed the magnetization of the xenon, leading to dark spots on the images.

“Comparison of the two images demonstrates that only the xenon in the cages has the right resonance frequency to produce a dark area,” explains Schröder. “This blackening is possible to a much better degree with cucurbituril than with previous cage molecules, for it works like a very light-sensitive photographic paper. The contrast is around 100 times stronger.”

Time-of-Flight IC Revolutionizes Object Detection and Distance Measurement

Tue, 10/13/2015 – 9:07amby Intersil

New ISL29501 signal processing IC detects objects up to two meters

http://www.mdtmag.com/product-release/2015/10/time-flight-ic-revolutionizes-object-detection-and-distance-measurement
Intersil Corporation has introduced an innovative time-of-flight (ToF) signal processing IC that provides a complete object detection and distance measurement solution when combined with an external emitter (LED or laser) and photodiode. The ISL29501 ToF device offers one-of-a-kind functionality, including ultra-small size, low-power consumption and superior performance ideal for connected devices that make up the Internet of Things (IoT), as well as consumer mobile devices and the emerging commercial drone market.

The ISL29501 overcomes the shortcomings of traditional amplitude-based proximity sensors and other ToF solutions that perform poorly in lighting conditions above 2,000 lux, or cannot provide distance information unless the object is perpendicular to the sensor.

The ISL29501 applies Intersil’s power management expertise to save power and extend battery life through several innovations.

“Prior to Intersil’s time-of-flight technology breakthrough, there was no practical way to measure distance up to two meters in a small form factor,” said Andrew Cowell, senior vice president of Mobile Power Products at Intersil. “The innovative ISL29501 provides customers a cost-effective, small footprint solution that also gives them the flexibility to use multiple devices to increase the field of view to a full 360 degrees for enhanced object detection capabilities.”

Key Features and Specifications

  • On-chip DSP calculates ToF for accurate proximity detection and distance measurement up to two meters
  • Modulation frequency of 4.5MHz prevents interference with other consumer products such as IR TV remote controls that operate at 40kHzOn-chip emitter DAC with programmable current up to 255mA
  • Allows designers to choose the desired current level to optimize distance measurement and power budget
  • Operates in single shot mode for initial object detection and approximate distance measurement, while continuous mode improve distance accuracy
  • On-chip active ambient light rejection minimizes or eliminates the influence of ambient light during distance measurement
  • Programmable distance zones: allows the user to define three ToF distance zones for determining interrupt alerts
  • Interrupt controller generates interrupt alerts using distance measurements and user defined thresholds
  • Automatic gain control sets optimum analog signal levels to achieve best SNR response
  • Supply voltage range of 2.7V to 3.3V
  • I2C interface supports 1.8V and 3.3V bus

The ISL29501 can be combined with the ISL9120 buck-boost regulator to further reduce power consumption and extend battery life in consumer and home automation applications.

Optoelectronic Implantable Could Enable Two-Way Communication with Brain

Mon, 10/12/2015 – 4:04pmby Brown University

http://www.mdtmag.com/news/2015/10/optoelectronic-implantable-could-enable-two-way-communication-brain

Brown University researchers have created a new type of optoelectronic implantable device to access brain microcircuits, synergizing a technique that enables scientists to control the activity of brains cells using pulses of light. The invention, described in the journal Nature Methods, is a cortical microprobe that can stimulate multiple neuronal targets optically by specific patterns on micrometer scale while simultaneously recording the effects of that stimulation in the underlying neural microcircuits of interest with millisecond precision.

“We think this is a window-opener,” said Joonhee Lee, a senior research associate in Professor Arto Nurmikko’s lab in the School of Engineering at Brown and one of the lead authors of the new paper. “The ability to rapidly perturb neural circuits according specific spatial patterns and at the same time reconstruct how the circuits involved are perturbed, is in our view a substantial advance.”

First introduced around 2005, optogenetics has enriched ability of scientists seeking to understand brain function at the neuronal level. The technique involves genetically engineering neurons to express light-sensitive proteins on their membranes. With those proteins expressed, pulses of light can be used to either promote or suppress activity in those particular cells. The method gives researchers in principle unprecedented ability to control specific brain cells at specific times.

But until now, simultaneous optogenetic stimulation and recording of brain activity rapidly across multiple points within a brain microcircuit of interest has proven difficult. Doing it requires a device that can both generate a spatial pattern of light pulses and detect the dynamical patterns of electrical reverberations generated by excited cellular activity. Previous attempts to do this involved devices that cobbled together separate components for light emission and electrical sensing. Such probes were physically bulky, not ideal for insertion into a brain. And because the emitters and the sensors were necessarily a hundreds of micrometers apart, a sizable distance, the link between stimulation and recorded signal was ambiguous.

The new compact, integrated device developed by Nurmikko’s lab begins with the unique advantages endowed by a so-called wide bandgap semiconductor called zinc oxide. It is optically transparent yet able readily to conduct an electrical current.

“Very few materials have that pair of physical properties,” Lee said. “The combination makes it possible to both stimulate and detect with the same material.”

Joonhee Lee, with Assistant Research Professor Ilker Ozden and Professor Yoon-Kyu Song at Seoul National University in Korea, co-developed a novel microfabrication method with Nurmikko to shape the material into a monolithic chip just a few millimeters square with sixteen micrometer sized pin-like “optoelectrodes,” each capable of both delivering light pulses and sensing electrical current. The array of optoelectrodes enables the device to couple to neural microcircuits composed of many neurons rather than single neurons.

Such ability to stimulate and record at the network level on spatial and time scales at which they operate is key, Nurmikko says. Brain functions are driven by neural circuits rather than single neurons.

“For example, when I move my hand, that’s an example of action driven by specific network-level activity in the brain,” he said. “Our new device approach gives scientists and engineers a tool in applying the full power of optogenetics as a means of neural stimulation, while providing the means to read activity of perturbed networks at multiple points at high spatial precision and time resolution.”

Ozden led the initial testing of the device in rodent models. The researchers looked at the extent to which different light intensities could stimulate network activity. The tests showed that increasing optical power led to distinct recruitment of neuronal circuits revealing functional connectivity in the targeted network.

“We went over a range of optical power that was large–over three orders of magnitude–and in so doing we got a range of network-related responses, in particular we could replicate an activity pattern naturally occurring in the brain.” Ozden said. “It gave us a new insight into how optogenetics operates on the network level. This gives us encouragement to go ahead and extend the repertoire and application of the device technology.”

Nurmikko’s group together with the Song lab in Seoul plan to continue further development of the device, ultimately include an access via wireless means. Their next steps anticipate the use of the new device technology as chronic implant in non-human primates at potentially hundreds of points and, depending on progress in worldwide research on optogenetics ahead, perhaps even one day in humans.

“At least, the initial building blocks are here,” Nurmikko said, who conceived the idea with his Korean colleague Song.

Study Advances Possibility of Mind-Controlled Devices

Mon, 10/12/2015 – 10:50amby Ryan Bushey, Associate Editor, R&D

A study published in the journal Nature Medicine has shown a possible path to creating effective neural prosthetics.

http://www.mdtmag.com/blog/2015/10/study-advances-possibility-mind-controlled-devices

The study’s subjects, only listed as T6 and T7, have Amyotropic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS). The scientists performed surgery on them one year ago to place a “neural recording device” in the part of the brain in charge of controlling hand function, notes Bloomberg.

The test documented in the study required T6 and T7 to perform a variety of tasks, such as moving a cursor to hit different targets on a computer screen. The device receives electrical impulses from the brain and morphs them into a computer signal to operate the cursor.

Both test subjects had the highest published performance so far, and even doubled the results of the previous clinical trial participant, according to the study.

The hope is that these devices can improve quality of life for people suffering from paralysis.

You can watch how T6 performed in her test below.

https://youtu.be/9P-qsiIORVU

Removing 62 Barriers to Pig–to–Human Organ Transplant in One Fell Swoop

Mon, 10/12/2015 – 9:09amby Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering

The largest number of simultaneous gene edits ever accomplished in the genome could help bridge the gap between organ transplant scarcity and the countless patients who need them

http://www.mdtmag.com/news/2015/10/removing-62-barriers-pig%E2%80%93%E2%80%93human-organ-transplant-one-fell-swoop

Never before have scientists been able to make scores of simultaneous genetic edits to an organism’s genome. But now in a landmark study by George Church, Ph.D., and his team at the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard University and Harvard Medical School, the gene editing system known as “CRISPR–Cas9” has been used to genetically engineer pig DNA in 62 locations – an explosive leap forward in CRISPR’s capability when compared to its previous record maximum of just six simultaneous edits. The 62 edits were executed by the team to inactivate retroviruses found natively in the pig genome that have so far inhibited pig organs from being suitable for transplant in human patients. With the retroviruses safely removed via genetic engineering, however, the road is now open toward the possibility that humans could one day receive life–saving organ transplants from pigs.

Church is a Wyss Core Faculty member, the Robert Winthrop Professor of Genetics at Harvard Medical School (HMS) and Professor of Health Sciences and Technology at Harvard and MIT. The advance, reported by Church and his team including the study’s lead author Luhan Yang, Ph.D., a Postdoctoral Fellow at HMS and the Wyss Institute, was published in the October 11 issue of Science.

The concept of xenotransplantation, which is the transplant of an organ from one species to another, is nothing new. Researchers and clinicians have long hoped that one of the major challenges facing patients suffering from organ failure – which is the lack of available organs in the United States and worldwide – could be alleviated through the availability of suitable animal organs for transplant. Pigs in particular have been especially promising candidates due to their similar size and physiology to humans. In fact, pig heart valves are already commonly sterilized and de–cellularized for use repairing or replacing human heart valves.

This artistic rendering shows pig chromosomes (background) which reside in the nucleus of pig cells and contain a single strand of RNA, and the Cas9 protein targeting DNA (foreground). The CRISPR–Cas9 gene editing system works like molecular scissors to precisely edit genes of interest. A new advance reported in Science by Wyss Core Faculty member George Church and his team used Cas9 to make 62 edits to the pig genome to remove latent retroviruses, presenting a solution to one of the largest safety concerns that has so far blocked progress in making pig organs compatible for xenotransplant in humans. (Credit: Wyss Institute at Harvard University)

But the transplant of whole, functional organs comprised of living cells and tissue constructs has presented a unique set of challenges for scientists. One of the primary problems has been the fact that most mammals including pigs contain repetitive, latent retrovirus fragments in their genomes – present in all their living cells – that are harmless to their native hosts but can cause disease in other species.

“The presence of this type of virus found in pigs – known as porcine endogenous retroviruses or PERVs – brought over a billion of dollars of pharmaceutical industry investments into developing xenotransplant methods to a standstill by the early 2000s,” said Church. “PERVs and the lack of ability to remove them from pig DNA was a real showstopper on what had been a promising stage set for xenotransplantation.”

Now – using CRISPR–Cas9 like a pair of molecular scissors – Church and his team have inactivated all 62 repetitive genes containing a PERV in pig DNA, surpassing a significant obstacle on the path to bringing xenotransplantation to clinical reality. With more than 120,000 patients currently in the United States awaiting transplant and less than 30,000 transplants on average occurring annually, xenotransplantation could give patients and clinicians an alternative in the future.

“Pig kidneys can already function experimentally for months in baboons, but concern about the potential risks of PERVs has posed a problem for the field of xenotransplantation for many years,” said David H. Sachs, M.D., Director of the TBRC Laboratories at Massachusetts General Hospital, Paul S. Russell Professor of Surgery Emeritus at Harvard Medical School, and Professor of Surgical Sciences at Columbia University’s Center for Translational Immunology. Sachs has been developing special pigs for xenotransplantation for more than 30 years and is currently collaborating with Church on further genetic modifications of his pigs. “If Church and his team are able to produce pigs from genetically engineered embryos lacking PERVs by the use of CRISPR-Cas9, they would eliminate an important potential safety concern facing this field.”

Yang says the team hopes eventually they can completely eliminate the risk that PERVs could cause disease in clinical xenotransplantation by using modified pig cells to clone a line of pigs that would have their PERV genes inactivated.

“This advance overcomes a major hurdle that has until now halted the progress of xenotransplantation research and development,” said Wyss Institute Founding Director Donald Ingber, M.D., Ph.D., who is also the Judah Folkman Professor of Vascular Biology at Harvard Medical School and Professor of Bioengineering at the Harvard John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences. “The real value and potential impact is in the number of lives that could be saved if we can one day use xenotransplants to close the huge gap between the number of available functional organs and the number of people who desperately need them.”

The remarkable and newly demonstrated capability for CRISPR to edit tens of repetitive genes such as PERVs will also unlock new ways for scientists to study and understand repetitive regions in the genome, which has been estimated to comprise more than two–thirds of our own human genome.

Contributors to the work also included: co–lead authors Marc Güell of the Wyss Institute and Harvard Medical School Department of Genetics, Dong Niu of HMS Dept. of Genetics and Zhejiang University’s College of Animal Sciences, and Haydy George of HMS Dept. of Genetics; and co–authors Emal Lesha, Dennis Grishin, Jürgen Poci, Ellen Shrock, and Rebeca Cortazio of HMS Dept. of Genetics, Weihong Xu of Massachusetts General Hospital Department of Surgery, and Robert Wilkinson and Jay Fishman of MGH’s Transplant Infection Disease & Compromised Host Program.

Novel Gut-on-a-Chip Nearly Indistinguishable from Human GI Tract

Fri, 10/09/2015 – 1:17pmby University of North Carolina Healthcare

http://www.mdtmag.com/news/2015/10/novel-gut-chip-nearly-indistinguishable-human-gi-tract?et_cid=4876632&et_rid=535648082

A team of researchers from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and NC State University has received a $5.3 million, five-year Transformative Research (R01) Award from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to create fully functioning versions of the human gut that fit on a chip the size of a dime.

Such “organs-on-a-chip” have become vital for biomedical research, as researchers seek alternatives to animal models for drug discovery and testing. The new grant will fund a technology that represents a major step forward for the field, overcoming limitations that have mired other efforts.

The technology will use primary cells derived directly from human biopsies, which are known to provide more relevant results than the immortalized cell lines used in current approaches. In addition, the device will sculpt these cells into the sophisticated architecture of the gut, rather than the disorganized ball of cells that are created in other miniature organ systems.

This is a picture of a schematic of colonic epithelial tissue. Crypt units are pointed down, flat surface faces center of the gut tube. Stem cells are red, progenitor cells are pink, differentiated cells are grey, blue and green. Yellow cells are stem cell niche cells. Lumenal surface is above crypts. (Credit: Scott Magness, PhD, UNC School of Medicine)

“We are building a device that goes far beyond the organ-on-a-chip,” said Nancy L. Allbritton, MD, PhD, professor and chair of the UNC-NC State joint department of biomedical engineering and one of four principle investigators on the NIH grant. “We call it a ‘simulacrum,’ a term used in science fiction to describe a duplicate. The idea is to create something that is indistinguishable from your own gut.”

Allbritton is an expert at microfabrication and microengineering. Also on the team are intestinal stem cell expert Scott T. Magness, PhD, associate professor of medicine, biomedical engineering, and cell and molecular physiology in the UNC School of Medicine; microbiome expert Scott Bultman, PhD, associate professor of genetics in the UNC School of Medicine; and bioinformatics expert Shawn Gomez, associate professor of biomedical engineering at UNC-Chapel Hill and NC State.

The impetus for the “organ-on-chip” movement comes largely from the failings of the pharmaceutical industry. For just a single drug to go through the discovery, testing, and approval process can take as many as 15 years and as much as $5 billion dollars. Animal models are expensive to work with and often don’t respond to drugs and diseases the same way humans do. Human cells grown in flat sheets on Petri dishes are also a poor proxy. Three-dimensional “organoids” are an improvement, but these hollow balls are made of a mishmash of cells that doesn’t accurately mimic the structure and function of the real organ.

Basically, the human gut is a 30-foot long hollow tube made up of a continuous single-layer of specialized cells. Regenerative stem cells reside deep inside millions of small pits or “crypts” along the tube, and mature differentiated cells are linked to the pits and live further out toward the surface. The gut also contains trillions of microbes, which are estimated to outnumber human cells by ten to one. These diverse microbial communities — collectively known as the microbiota — process toxins and pharmaceuticals, stimulate immunity, and even release hormones to impact behavior.

These are fluorescent images of the side view of two synthetic crypts. Blue: nuclei of the cells. Red: proliferating stem cells in similar location to those in the human colon. (Credit: Scott Magness, PhD, UNC School of Medicine)

To create a dime-sized version of this complex microenvironment, the UNC-NC State team borrowed fabrication technologies from the electronics and microfluidics world. The device is composed of a polymer base containing an array of imprinted or shaped “hydrogels,” a mesh of molecules that can absorb water like a sponge. These hydrogels are specifically engineered to provide the structural support and biochemical cues for growing cells from the gut. Plugged into the device will be various kinds of plumbing that bring in chemicals, fluids, and gases to provide cues that tell the cells how and where to differentiate and grow. For example, the researchers will engineer a steep oxygen gradient into the device that will enable oxygen-loving human cells and anaerobic microbes to coexist in close proximity.

“The underlying concept — to simply grow a piece of human tissue in a dish — doesn’t seem that groundbreaking,” said Magness. “We have been doing that for a long time with cancer cells, but those efforts do not replicate human physiology. Using native stem cells from the small intestine or colon, we can now develop gut tissue layers in a dish that contains stem cells and all the differentiated cells of the gut. That is the thing stem cell biologists and engineers have been shooting for, to make real tissue behave properly in a dish to create better models for drug screening and cell-based therapies. With this work, we made a big leap toward that goal.”

Right now, the team has a working prototype that can physically and chemically guide mouse intestinal stem cells into the appropriate structure and function of the gut. For several years, Magness has been isolating and banking human stem cells from samples from patients undergoing routine colonoscopies at UNC Hospitals. As part of the grant, he will work with the rest of the team to apply these stem cells to the new device and create “simulacra” that are representative of each patient’s individual gut. The approach will enable researchers to explore in a personalized way how both the human and microbial cells of the gut behave during healthy and diseased states.

“Having a system like this will advance microbiota research tremendously,” said Bultman. “Right now microbiota studies involve taking samples, doing sequencing, and then compiling an inventory of all the microbes in the disease cases and healthy controls. These studies just draw associations, so it is difficult to glean cause and effect. This device will enable us to probe the microbiota, and gain a better understanding of whether changes in these microbial communities are the cause or the consequence of disease.”

On-Chip Optical Sensing Technique Detects Multiple Flu Strains

Tue, 10/06/2015 – 10:11amby University of California – Santa Cruz

http://www.mdtmag.com/news/2015/10/chip-optical-sensing-technique-detects-multiple-flu-strains?et_cid=4876632&et_rid=535648082

A schematic view shows the optical waveguide intersecting a fluidic microchannel containing target particles. Targets are optically excited as they flow past well-defined excitation spots created by multi-mode interference; fluorescence is collected by the liquid-core waveguide channel and routed into solid-core waveguides (red). (Credit: Ozcelik et al., PNAS 2015)

New chip-based optical sensing technologies developed by researchers at UC Santa Cruz and Brigham Young University enable the rapid detection and identification of multiple biomarkers. In a paper published October 5 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, researchers describe a novel method to perform diagnostic assays for multiple strains of flu virus on a small, dedicated chip.

“A standard flu test checks for about ten different flu strains, so it’s important to have an assay that can look at ten to 15 things at once. We showed a completely new way to do that on an optofluidic chip,” said senior author Holger Schmidt, the Kapany Professor of Optoelectronics in the Baskin School of Engineering at UC Santa Cruz.

Over the past decade, Schmidt and his collaborators at BYU have developed chip-based technology to optically detect single molecules without the need for high-end laboratory equipment. Diagnostic instruments based on their optofluidic chips could provide a rapid, low-cost, and portable option for identifying specific disease-related molecules or virus particles.

In the new study, Schmidt demonstrated a novel application of a principle called wavelength division multiplexing, which is widely used in fiber-optic communications. By superimposing multiple wavelengths of light in an optical waveguide on a chip, he was able to create wavelength-dependent spot patterns in an intersecting fluidic channel. Virus particles labeled with fluorescent markers give distinctive signals as they pass through the fluidic channel depending on which wavelength of light the markers absorb.

“Each color of light produces a different spot pattern in the channel, so if the virus particle is labeled to respond to blue light, for example, it will light up nine times as it goes through the channel, if it’s labeled for red it lights up seven times, and so on,” Schmidt explained.

The researchers tested the device using three different influenza subtypes labeled with different fluorescent markers. Initially, each strain of the virus was labeled with a single dye color, and three wavelengths of light were used to detect them in a mixed sample. In a second test, one strain was labeled with a combination of the colors used to label the other two strains. Again, the detector could distinguish among the viruses based on the distinctive signals from each combination of markers. This combinatorial approach is important because it increases the number of different targets that can be detected with a given number of wavelengths of light.

For these tests, each viral subtype was separately labeled with fluorescent dye. For an actual diagnostic assay, fluorescently labeled antibodies could be used to selectively attach distinctive fluorescent markers to different strains of the flu virus.

While previous studies have shown the sensitivity of Schmidt’s optofluidic chips for detection of single molecules or particles, the demonstration of multiplexing adds another important feature for on-chip bioanalysis. Compact instruments based on the chip could provide a versatile tool for diagnostic assays targeting a variety of biological particles and molecular markers.

The optofluidic chip was fabricated by Schmidt’s collaborators at Brigham Young University led by Aaron Hawkins. The joint first authors of the PNAS paper are Damla Ozcelik and Joshua Parks, both graduate students in Schmidt’s lab at UC Santa Cruz. Other coauthors include Hong Cai and Joseph Parks at UC Santa Cruz and Thomas Wall and Matthew Stott at BYU.

In another recent paper, published September 25 in Nature Scientific Reports, Schmidt’s team reported the development of a hybrid device that integrates an optofluidic chip for virus detection with a microfluidic chip for sample preparation.

“These two papers represent important milestones for us. Our goal has always been to use this technology to analyze clinically relevant samples, and now we are doing it,” Schmidt said.

Boom in Gene-Editing Studies amid Ethics Debate over Its Use

Mon, 10/12/2015 – 1:54pmby Lauran Neergaard, AP Medical Writer

http://www.mdtmag.com/news/2015/10/boom-gene-editing-studies-amid-ethics-debate-over-its-use-0

The hottest tool in biology has scientists using words like revolutionary as they describe the long-term potential: wiping out certain mosquitoes that carry malaria, treating genetic diseases like sickle cell, preventing babies from inheriting a life-threatening disorder.

It may sound like sci-fi, but research into genome editing is booming. So is a debate about its boundaries, what’s safe and what’s ethical to try in the quest to fight disease.

Does the promise warrant experimenting with human embryos? Researchers in China already have, and they’re poised to in Britain.

Should we change people’s genes in a way that passes traits to future generations? Beyond medicine, what about the environmental effects if, say, altered mosquitoes escape before we know how to use them?

“We need to try to get the balance right,” said Jennifer Doudna, a biochemist at the University of California, Berkeley. She helped develop new gene-editing technology and hears from desperate families, but urges caution in how it’s eventually used in people.

The U.S. National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine will bring international scientists, ethicists and regulators together in December to start determining that balance. The biggest debate is whether it ever will be appropriate to alter human heredity by editing an embryo’s genes.

“This isn’t a conversation on a cloud,” but something that families battling devastating rare diseases may want, Dr. George Daley of Boston Children’s Hospital told specialists meeting this week to plan the ethics summit. “There will be a drive to move this forward.”

Laboratories worldwide are embracing a technology to precisely edit genes inside living cells — turning them off or on, repairing or modifying them — like a biological version of cut-and-paste software. Researchers are building stronger immune cells, fighting muscular dystrophy in mice and growing human-like organs in pigs for possible transplant. Biotech companies have raised millions to develop therapies for sickle cell disease and other disorders.

The technique has a wonky name — CRISPR-Cas9 — and a humble beginning.

Doudna was studying how bacteria recognize and disable viral invaders, using a protein she calls “a genetic scalpel” to slice DNA. That system turned out to be programmable, she reported in 2012, letting scientists target virtually any gene in many species using a tailored CRISPR recipe.

There are older methods to edit genes, including one that led to an experimental treatment for the AIDS virus, but the CRISPR technique is faster and cheaper and allows altering of multiple genes simultaneously.

“It’s transforming almost every aspect of biology right now,” said National Institutes of Health genomics specialist Shawn Burgess.

In this photo provided by UC Berkeley Public Affairs, taken June 20, 2014 Jennifer Doudna, right, and her lab manager, Kai Hong, work in her laboratory in Berkeley, Calif. The hottest tool in biology has scientists using words like revolutionary as they describe the long-term potential: wiping out certain mosquitoes that carry malaria, treating genetic diseases like sickle-cell, preventing babies from inheriting a life-threatening disorder. “We need to try to get the balance right,” said Doudna. She helped develop new gene-editing technology and hears from desperate families, but urges caution in how it’s eventually used in people. (Cailey Cotner/UC Berkeley via AP)

CRISPR’s biggest use has nothing to do with human embryos. Scientists are engineering animals with human-like disorders more easily than ever before, to learn to fix genes gone awry and test potential drugs.

Engineering rodents to harbor autism-related genes once took a year. It takes weeks with CRISPR, said bioengineer Feng Zhang of the Broad Institute at MIT and Harvard, who also helped develop and patented the CRISPR technique. (Doudna’s university is challenging the patent.)

A peek inside an NIH lab shows how it works. Researchers inject a CRISPR-guided molecule into microscopic mouse embryos, to cause a gene mutation that a doctor suspects of causing a patient’s mysterious disorder. The embryos will be implanted into female mice that wake up from the procedure in warm blankets to a treat of fresh oranges. How the resulting mouse babies fare will help determine the gene defect’s role.

Experts predict the first attempt to treat people will be for blood-related diseases such as sickle cell, caused by a single gene defect that’s easy to reach. The idea is to use CRISPR in a way similar to a bone marrow transplant, but to correct someone’s own blood-producing cells rather than implanting donated ones.

“It’s like a race. Will the research provide a cure while we’re still alive?” asked Robert Rosen of Chicago, who has one of a group of rare bone marrow abnormalities that can lead to leukemia or other life-threatening conditions. He co-founded the MPN Research Foundation, which has begun funding some CRISPR-related studies.

So why the controversy? CRISPR made headlines last spring when Chinese scientists reported the first-known attempt to edit human embryos, working with unusable fertility clinic leftovers. They aimed to correct a deadly disease-causing gene but it worked in only a few embryos and others developed unintended mutations, raising fears of fixing one disease only to cause another.

If ever deemed safe enough to try in pregnancy, that type of gene change could be passed on to later generations. Then there are questions about designer babies, altered for other reasons than preventing disease.

In the U.S., the NIH has said it won’t fund such research in human embryos.

In Britain, regulators are considering researchers’ request to gene-edit human embryos — in lab dishes only — for a very different reason, to study early development.

Medicine aside, another issue is environmental: altering insects or plants in a way that ensures they pass genetic changes through wild populations as they reproduce. These engineered “gene drives” are in very early stage research, too, but one day might be used to eliminate invasive plants, make it harder for mosquitoes to carry malaria or even spread a defect that gradually kills off the main malaria-carrying species, said Kevin Esvelt of Harvard’s Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering.

No one knows how that might also affect habitats, Esvelt said. His team is calling for the public to weigh in and for scientists to take special precautions. For example, Esvelt said colleagues are researching a tropical mosquito species unlikely to survive cold Boston even if one escaped locked labs.

“There is no societal precedent whatsoever for a widely accessible and inexpensive technology capable of altering the shared environment,” Esvelt told a recent National Academy of Sciences hearing.

Researchers Use ‘Avatar’ Experiments to Get Leg Up On Locomotion

Mon, 10/12/2015 – 5:09pmby North Carolina State University

North Carolina State University scientists take a giant leap closer to understanding locomotion from the leg up

http://www.mdtmag.com/news/2015/10/researchers-use-avatar-experiments-get-leg-locomotion

Simple mechanical descriptions of the way people and animals walk, run, jump and hop liken whole leg behavior to a spring or pogo stick.

But until now, no one has mapped the body’s complex physiology – which in locomotion includes multiple leg muscle-tendons crossing the hip, knee and ankle joints, the weight of a body, and control signals from the brain – with the rather simple physics of spring-like limb behavior.

Using an “Avatar”-like bio-robotic motor system that integrates a real muscle and tendon along with a computer controlled nerve stimulator acting as the avatar’s spinal cord, North Carolina State University researchers have taken a giant leap closer to understanding locomotion from the leg up. The findings could help create robotic devices that begin to merge human and machine in order to assist human locomotion.

Despite the complicated physiology involved, NC State biomedical engineer Greg Sawicki and Temple University post-doctoral researcher Ben Robertson show that if you know the mass, the stiffness and the leverage of the ankle’s primary muscle-tendon unit, you can predict neural control strategies that will result in spring-like behavior.

“We tried to build locomotion from the bottom up by starting with a single muscle-tendon unit, the basic power source for locomotion in all things that move,” said Greg Sawicki, associate professor in the NC State and UNC-Chapel Hill Joint Department of Biomedical Engineering and co-author of a paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that describes the work. “We connected that muscle-tendon unit to a motor inside a custom robotic interface designed to simulate what the muscle-tendon unit ‘feels’ inside the leg, and then electrically stimulated the muscle to get contractions going on the benchtop.”

The researchers showed that resonance tuning is a likely mechanism behind springy leg behavior during locomotion. That is, the electrical system – in this case the body’s nervous system – drives the mechanical system – the leg’s muscle-tendon unit – at a frequency which provides maximum ‘bang for the buck’ in terms of efficient power output.

Sawicki likened resonance tuning to interacting with a slinky toy. “When you get it oscillating well, you hardly have to move your hand – it’s the timing of the interaction forces that matters.

“In locomotion, resonance comes from tuning the interaction between the nervous system and the leg so they work together,” Sawicki said. “It turns out that if I know the mass, leverage and stiffness of a muscle-tendon unit, I can tell you exactly how often I should stimulate it to get resonance in the form of spring-like, elastic behavior.”

The findings have design implications relevant to designing exoskeletons for able-bodied individuals, as well as exoskeleton or prosthetic systems for people with mobility impairments.

“In the end, we found that the same simple underlying principles that govern resonance in simple mechanical systems also apply to these extraordinarily complicated physiological systems,” said Robertson, the corresponding author of the paper.

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 611:00am – 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. AbudayyehJonathan 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 (23) and Cas13 (45) 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 (46). 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 (48).

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 (67), 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

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 »

Delineating a Role for CRISPR-Cas9 in Pharmaceutical Targeting

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

 

Chief Scientific Officer, Leaders in Pharmaceutical Intelligence, Boston, MA

http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com

Correspondence:
larry.bernstein@gmail.com

2.1.2.2

Delineating a Role for CRISPR-Cas9 in Pharmaceutical Targeting, 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

Abstract

The recent development of advanced methods for genome engineering has superceded methods already in used in recent years of the 21st century.  The CRISPR-Cas9 application for genome editing has real potential for pharmaceutical development, and perhaps also for diagnostics.  The importance of conjoint development of diagnostics and therapeutics can’t be overstressed. Further, the limitations of the method have to be viewed in the light of the historical development of inborn errors of human metabolism, and current understanding of complex polygenomic and environmental risk factors.

Key words: classic model, CRISPR-Cas9, DNA, genome, genome editing, genetic diseases, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, inborn errors of metabolism, polygenetic diseases, RNA, RNAi, translation.

Abbreviations: CRISPR-Cas9; DNA; HWE; RNA.

Introduction.

Genome editing technologies enable the deletion, insertion or correction of DNA at specific targeted sites within an organism’s genome. The power of the technology lies in its ability to specifically target any site in the genome and to alter the DNA sequence at that site. This has opened the door to potentially curing diseases caused by genetic defects, whether inherited or acquired.

Genome editing can be applied across many diverse fields of science. It has allowed researchers to gain a much deeper understanding of the role played by individual genes. Researchers working in the biomedical field use these techniques to address diseases that are known to have a genetic origin.

Early genome-editing research focused on the use of zinc finger nucleases and transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALENs), which laid important foundations in establishing genome engineering as a potential approach for treating human diseases.

The recent discovery of CRISPR-Cas9, followed by work demonstrating its advantages over traditional approaches, promises a step-change in the use of genome editing to develop transformative medicines for serious human diseases.

Cas9* is an endonuclease (an enzyme) that can be easily programmed with RNA to cut DNA at targeted sites within the genome, enabling the deletion, insertion or correction of target genes, including those that cause diseases, with surgical precision. By using CRISPR-Cas9* genome-editing technology, scientists and clinicians are conducting pioneering research with a view to tackling both recessive and dominant genetic defects.

In order to find a place for CRISPR-Cas9 in gene therapy, it becomes necessary to consider inborn errors of metabolism and the evolution of traditional approaches to genetic diseases. Traditional gene therapy approaches to date have only been useful in correcting some recessive genetic disorders. Thanks to its ease of use and broad applicability, CRISPR-Cas9 has truly democratized genome editing and transformed many areas of research. Thousands of academic laboratories across the world are carrying out research using the technology. To this point, the technology known as CRISPR-Cas9 has been a science project, a research tool with enormous potential.

Genetic Disorders

genetic disorder is a genetic problem caused by one or more abnormalities in the genome, especially a condition that is present from birth (congenital). Most genetic disorders are quite rare and affect one person in every several thousands or millions.

Genetic disorders may or may not be heritable, i.e., passed down from the parents’ genes. In non-heritable genetic disorders, defects may be caused by new mutations or changes to the DNA. In such cases, the defect will only be heritable if it occurs in the germ line. The same disease, such as some forms of cancer, may be caused by an inherited genetic condition in some people, by new mutations in other people, and mainly by environmental causes in still other people. Whether, when and to what extent a person with the genetic defect or abnormality will actually suffer from the disease is almost always affected by the environmental factors and events in the person’s development.

single-gene disorder is the result of a single mutated gene. Over 4000 human diseases are caused by single-gene defects.[4] Single-gene disorders can be passed on to subsequent generations in several ways. Genomic imprinting and uniparental disomy, however, may affect inheritance patterns. The divisions betweenrecessive and dominant types are not “hard and fast”, although the divisions between autosomal and X-linked types are (since the latter types are distinguished purely based on the chromosomal location of the gene). For example, achondroplasia is typically considered a dominant disorder, but children with two genes for achondroplasia have a severe skeletal disorder of which achondroplasics could be viewed as carriers. Sickle-cell anemia is also considered a recessive condition, but heterozygous carriers have increased resistance to malaria in early childhood, which could be described as a related dominant condition.[5] When a couple where one partner or both are sufferers or carriers of a single-gene disorder wish to have a child, they can do so through in vitro fertilization, which means they can then have a preimplantation genetic diagnosis to check whether the embryo has the genetic disorder.[6]

Prevalence of some single-gene disorders[citation needed]
Disorder prevalence (approximate)
Autosomal dominant
Familial hypercholesterolemia 1 in 500
Polycystic kidney disease 1 in 1250
Neurofibromatosis type I 1 in 2,500
Hereditary spherocytosis 1 in 5,000
Marfan syndrome 1 in 4,000[2]
Huntington’s disease 1 in 15,000[3]
Autosomal recessive
Sickle cell anaemia 1 in 625
Cystic fibrosis 1 in 2,000
Tay-Sachs disease 1 in 3,000
Phenylketonuria 1 in 12,000
Mucopolysaccharidoses 1 in 25,000
Lysosomal acid lipase deficiency 1 in 40,000
Glycogen storage diseases 1 in 50,000
Galactosemia 1 in 57,000

Heritable Diseases and Normal Variants

Identification of Genes for Childhood Heritable Diseases

Annual Review of Medicine Jan 2014; 65: 19-31

Boycott KM, Dyment DA, Sawyer SL, Vanstone MR, and Beaulieu CL.

Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, K1H 8L1 Canada

http://dx.doi.org:/10.1146/annurev-med-101712-122108

Genes causing rare heritable childhood diseases are being discovered at an accelerating pace driven by the decreasing cost and increasing accessibility of next-generation DNA sequencing combined with the maturation of strategies for successful gene identification. The findings are shedding light on the biological mechanisms of childhood disease and broadening the phenotypic spectrum of many clinical syndromes. Still, thousands of childhood disease genes remain to be identified, and given their increasing rarity, this will require large-scale collaboration that includes mechanisms for sharing phenotypic and genotypic data sets. Nonetheless, genomic technologies are poised for widespread translation to clinical practice for the benefit of children and families living with these rare diseases.

Single gene defects result in abnormalities in the synthesis or catabolism of proteins, carbohydrates, fats, or complex molecules. Most are due to a defect in an enzyme or transport protein, which results in a block in a metabolic pathway. Effects are due to toxic accumulations of substrates before the block, intermediates from alternative metabolic pathways, defects in energy production and use caused by a deficiency of products beyond the block, or a combination of these metabolic deviations. Nearly every metabolic disease has several forms that vary in age of onset, clinical severity, and, often, mode of inheritance.

There is a large number of inborn errors of metabolism.

A few examples are:

Fructose intolerance
Galactosemia
Maple sugar urine disease (MSUD)
Phenylketonuria (PKU)

Newborn screening tests can identify some of these disorders

Categories of inborn errors of metabolism, or IEMs, are as follows:

  • Disorders that result in toxic accumulation
    • Disorders of protein metabolism (eg, amino acidopathies, organic acidopathies, urea cycle defects)
    • Disorders of carbohydrate intolerance
    • Lysosomal storage disorders
  • Disorders of energy production, utilization
    • Fatty acid oxidation defects
    • Disorders of carbohydrate utilization, production (ie, glycogen storage disorders, disorders of gluconeogenesis and glycogenolysis)
    • Mitochondrial disorders
    • Peroxisomal disorders

 

 

Giants in the 20th century study of genetic medicine

  1. Victor Almon McKusick

 

 
Victor McKusick 
Known for Mendelian Inheritance in Man,OMIM and McKusick–Kaufman syndrome
Notable awards William Allan Award (1977)
Lasker Award (1997)
Japan Prize (2008)

 

Victor Almon McKusick (October 21, 1921 – July 22, 2008), an internist and medical geneticist, was the University Professor of Medical Genetics and Professor of Medicine at the Johns Hopkins HospitalBaltimore, MD, USA.[1] He was a proponent of the mapping of the human genome due to its use for studying congenital diseases. He is well known for his studies of the Amish and, what he called, “little people”. He was the original author and, until his death, remained chief editor of Mendelian Inheritance in Man (MIM) and its online counterpart Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM). He is widely known as the “father of medical genetics”.[2]

McKusick traveled to Copenhagen to speak about the heritable disorders of connective tissue at the first international congress of human genetics. The meeting looms as the birthplace of the medical genetics field.[2] In the following decades, McKusick created and chaired a new Division of Medical Genetics at Hopkins beginning in 1957. In 1973, he served as Physician-in-Chief, William Osler Professor of Medicine, and Chairman of the Department of Medicine at Johns Hopkins Hospital and School of Medicine.[6]  He held concurrent appointments as University Professor of Medical Genetics at the McKusick–Nathans Institute of Genetic Medicine, Professor of Medicine at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Professor of Epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, and Professor of Biology at Johns Hopkins University.[5] He co-founded Genomics in 1987 with Dr. Frank Ruddle, and served as an editor.[6] He was a lead investigator in determining if Abraham Lincoln had Marfan syndrome.[8]

  1. Elizabeth F. Neufeld

Born in France, Elizabeth Neufeld immigrated to the United States in 1940. She obtained a BS from Queens College, New York and a Ph.D. from the University of California Berkeley. After postdoctoral training in, she moved to the NIH in Bethesda, MD, where she began her studies of a rare group of genetic diseases. She moved back to California in 1984 as Chair of the Department of Biological Chemistry – a position that she occupied till 2004.

The brain in a mouse model of a genetic lysosomal disorder, Sanfilippo syndrome type B

Our interests have long been the cause, consequences and treatment of human genetic diseases due to deficiency of lysosomal enzymes. The disease currently under investigation is the Sanfilippo syndrome type B (MPS III B). It is caused by mutation in the NAGLU gene, with resulting deficiency of the lysosomal enzyme alpha-N-acetyl-glucosaminidase and accumulation of its substrate (heparan sulfate). The disease manifests itself in childhood by severe mental retardation and intractable behavioral problems. The neurologic deterioration progresses to dementia, with death usually in the second decade. We use a mouse knockout model (Naglu -/-) in order to study the pathophysiology of the disease and to develop therapy. Because of the special cell biology of lysosomal enzymes, which can be taken up by receptor-mediated endocytosis, exogenous administration of the enzyme could theoretically cure the disease. Unfortunately, the blood-brain barrier (BBB) prevents the therapeutic enzyme from reaching the brain. Part of our current research is to develop a novel technology to get lysosomal enzymes across the BBB. We also study changes in gene and protein expression in some specific parts of the brain, in which there is accumulation of certain lipids and proteins which seem unrelated biochemically to each other or to the primary defect. We try to understand the cause and consequences of these accumulations. Although they are secondary defects, they may be relevant to the pathophysiology of the dieease and may have represent targets for pharmacologic intervention.

Neufeld began her scientific studies at a time when few women chose science as a career. The historical bias against women in science, compounded with an influx of men coming back from the Second World War and going to college, made positions for women rare; few women could be found in the science faculties of colleges and universities.

When she first began working on Hurler syndrome in 1967, she initially thought the problem might stem from faulty regulation of the sugars, but experiments showed the problem was in fact the abnormally slow rate at which the sugars were broken down. Working with fellow scientist Joseph Fratantoni, Neufeld attempted to isolate the problem by tagging mucopolysaccharides with radioactive sulfate, as well as mixing normal cells with MPS patient cells. Fratantoni inadvertently mixed cells from a Hurler patient and a Hunter patient—and the result was a nearly normal cell culture. The two cultures had essentially “cured” each other.

In 1973 Neufeld was named chief of NIH’s Section of Human Biochemical Genetics, and in 1979 she was named chief of the Genetics and Biochemistry Branch of the National Institute of Arthritis, Diabetes, and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIADDK). She served as deputy director in NIADDK’s Division of Intramural Research from 1981 to 1983. In 1984 Neufeld went back to the University of California, this time the Los Angeles campus, as chair of the biological chemistry department.

Neufeld’s research opened the way for prenatal diagnosis of such life-threatening fetal disorders as Hurler syndrome. Neufeld chaired the Scientific Advisory Board of the National MPS Society and was president of the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology from 1992 to 1993. She was elected to both the National Academy of Sciences (USA) and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1977 and named a fellow of the American Association for Advancement in Science in 1988. In 1990 she was named California Scientist of the Year. She was awarded the Wolf Prize, the Albert Lasker Award for Clinical Medical Research, and was awarded the National Medal of Science in 1994 “for her contributions to the understanding of the lysosomal storage diseases, demonstrating the strong linkage between basic and applied scientific investigation.”[3]

  1. Jarvis “Jay” Edwin Seegmiller, M.D.

“Jay Seegmiller was one of the giants of American medicine,” said Edward Holmes, M.D., Vice Chancellor of Health Sciences and dean of the School of Medicine at UCSD. “He and his trainees have made innumerable contributions to our understanding of the pathogenesis of many human disorders. Seegmiller was one of the country’s leading researchers in intermediary metabolism, with a focus on purine metabolism and inherited metabolism.  He worked in the field of human biochemical genetics, with a special interest in the mechanisms by which genetically determined defects of metabolism lead to various forms of arthritis.  His laboratory identified a wide range of primary metabolic defects in metabolism responsible for development of gout.

He is perhaps best known for his discovery of the enzyme defect in Lesch-Nyhan Syndrome, a fatal disorder of the nervous system causing severe mental retardation and self-mutilation impulses.  As Director of the Human Biochemical Genetics Program at UCSD, Seegmiller’s investigations into the translation of genetic research and methods of prevention, detection and treatment of hereditary diseases led to Congressional testimony on the possibility of controlling genetic disease in the United States.  As a result, genetic referral centers have been established throughout the country.

He joined the newly established UCSD School of Medicine in 1969 as head of the Arthritis Division of the Department of Medicine. There, he directed a research program in human biochemical genetics involving senior faculty from five departments within the School of Medicine.  While a professor at UCSD, he served as a Macy Scholar both at Oxford University and at the Basel Institute in Switzerland, as well as a Guggenheim Fellow at the Swiss Institute for Experimental Cancer Research in Lausanne.

In 1983, he became the founding director of what is today UCSD’s Stein Institute for Research on Aging (SIRA). Even after his retirement, he continued to serve as Associate Director of SIRA from 1990 until his death.

“He had the foresight of proposing the formation of and then establishing a new Institute on Aging at UCSD before there was any such Institute in the entire UC system,” said Dilip Jeste, M.D., the Estelle and Edgar Levi Chair in Aging, Professor of Psychiatry and Neurosciences and current Director of SIRA.   “He was himself a role model of successful aging, and continued working in the SIRA till his very last days.

Seegmiller received his Doctor of Medicine with honors from the University of Chicago in 1948.  After he completed his internship at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland, he trained with Bernard Horecker of the National Institute of Arthritis and Metabolic Disease at the National Institutes of Health.

Seegmiller was appointed Senior Investigator of the National Institute of Arthritis and Metabolic Disease in 1954, where he carried out biochemical and clinical studies of human hereditary disease, with a special interest in those causing various forms of arthritis.  He became Assistant Scientific Director of the Institute in 1960, and was appointed Chief of the section on Human Biochemical Genetics in 1966, becoming one of several NIH leaders recruited to help launch UC San Diego’s new medical school.

Seegmiller’s clinical activities included studies in life longevity in South America.  In 1974, he joined a team of notable scientists and traveled to the remote village of Vilcabamba in Ecuador, to find out what role genetic factors played in the population of the Andean villagers who comprised some of the longest-living people in the world.  His later work led to the discovery of free radicals and their damaging effects in the human ability to withstand diseases, bringing forward new investigations on human aging at SIRA.

Seegmiller was a member of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and was the recipient of numerous prizes and awards in honor of his extraordinary achievements in science and medicine.  He received the United States Public Health Distinguished Service Award in 1969; and was honored as Master of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) in 1992. He was on the advisory boards for the National Genetics Foundation, the City of Hope Medical Center in Duarte, California, the Task Force on Endocrinology and Metabolism for NIH, the Executive Editorial Board for Analytical Biochemistry, and was President of the Western Association of Physicians in 1979.

What has changed?

The 21st century has seen the mapping of the human genome. The huge focus on the genome came after the Watson and Crick discovery put the genome at the center of the translational network with the central hypothesis. What followed was transcription of RNA into placement of an amino acid into protein. The central hypothesis is DNA           RNA           protein.  However, RNAi and non-translational RNA are now also important.  RNA has a role in suppressing translation, as do proteins by allosteric effects. In addition, the most common diseases involved in age related change are strongly responsive to extracellular matrix effects, ionic fluxes, effects on the cellular matrix, and involve multicentric genome expression. This mode of expression leads one to think hard about the therapeutic target, or targets. The effect of RNA or of protein interacting with the genome is not an element of the classic construct.

Identifying a part of the problem

Type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypertension, arrhythmias, atherosclerotic plaque development, cancer, congestive heart disease, pulmonary hypertension, pulmonary interstitial sclerosis, and renovascular disease are among the common diseases that develop during a lifetime. The phenotypic presentations may have genomic associations, and there may also be population variants.  There is also a cross-talk between these phenotypic expressions. Classically, medical terminology has been based on signs and symptoms of disease.  In the increasingly complex experience, the laboratory has played an increased role in the diagnosis as well as prognostication. The laboratory experience with respect to the practice of medicine has heavily relied of either proteins, enzymes, or the products of chemical reactions.  The use of genomic profiling has rapidly emerged in the laboratory armamentarium, but has had a slow ascent in practice.

Case in Point. Pompe’s disease

William Canfield is a glycobiologist, chief scientific officer and founder of an Oklahoma City-based biotechnology company, Novazyme, which was acquired by Genzyme in August 2001 and developed, among other things, an enzyme that can stabilize (but not cure) Pompe disease, based on Canfield’s ongoing research since 1998.[1][2]   

John Crowley took over a position as a CEO in Novazyme after leaving Bristol-Myers Squibb in March 2000 and together with Dr. Y. T. Chen[4] at Duke University pushed for expedited approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of a new drug compound, NZ-1001 under orphan drug designation for the treatment of Glycogen storage disease type II in October 2005. The FDA stated: “We have determined that Novazyme’s recombinant human highly phosphorylated acid alpha-glucosidase (rhHPGAA) qualifies for orphan designation for enzyme replacement therapy in patients with all subtypes of glycogen storage disease type II (Pompe’s disease).” [5][6] Subsequent research at Genzyme on NZ-1001 along with three other potential compounds brought approval of the first enzyme replacement therapy for Pompe’s disease – Alglucosidase alfa (Myozyme or Lumizyme, Genzyme Inc) in 2006.[7]

William Canfields work with Pompes Disease was fictionalized and made the subject of a 2010 movie Extraordinary Measures in which he is called Dr. Robert Stonehill and played by Harrison Ford.[8]

Case in point.  Polymorphisms in the long non-coding RNA

Hypertension (HT) is a complex disorder influenced by both genetic and environmental factors. Recent genome-wide association studies have identified a major risk locus for atherosclerosis on chromosome 9p21.3 (chr9p21.3). SNPs within the coding sequences of CDKN2A/B proteins and the long non-coding RNA CDKN2B-AS1 could potentially contribute to HT development. Such a study has now been done. The findings suggest that SNPs rs10757274, rs2383207, rs10757278, and rs1333049, particularly those within the CDKN2B-AS1 gene, and related haplotypes may confer increased susceptibility to HT development. (unpublished)

Case in point. Lipoprotein Lipase and Atherosclerosis

Lipoprotein lipase (LPL) plays a pivotal role in lipids and metabolism of lipoprotein. Dysfunctions of LPL have been found to be associated with dyslipidemia, obesity and insulin resistance.Dyslipidemia, obesity and insulin resistance are risk factor of atherosclerosis. Japanese investigators have  hypothesized that elevating LPL activity would cause protection of atherosclerosis. (unpublished).

Case in  point. Holocaust survivors pass on stress.

Descendants of Holocaust Survivors Have Altered Stress Hormones

Parents’ traumatic experience may hamper their offspring’s ability to bounce back from trauma

Case in point. Genome engineering with CRISPR-Cas9

The new frontier of genome engineering with CRISPR-Cas9

GENOME EDITING

Jennifer A. Doudna* and Emmanuelle Charpentier*
Science Nov 2014; 346(6213) 1258096:1077 – 1087.
http://dx.doi.org:/10.1126/science.1258096

BACKGROUND: Technologies for making and manipulating DNA have enabled advances in biology ever since the discovery of the DNA double helix. But introducing site-specific modifications in the genomes of cells and organisms remained elusive. Early approaches relied on the principle of site-specific recognition of DNA sequences by oligonucleotides, small molecules, or self-splicing introns. More recently, the site-directed zinc finger nucleases (ZFNs) and TAL effector nucleases (TALENs) using the principles of DNAprotein recognition were developed. However, difficulties of protein design, synthesis, and validation remained a barrier to

SUMMARY

The field of biology is now experiencing a transformative phase with the advent of facile genome engineering in animals and plants using RNA-programmable CRISPR-Cas9. The CRISPR-Cas9 technology originates from type II CRISPR-Cas systems, which provide bacteria with adaptive immunity to viruses and plasmids. The CRISPR associated protein Cas9 is an endonuclease that uses a guide sequence within an RNA duplex, tracrRNA:crRNA, to form base pairs with DNA target sequences, enabling Cas9 to introduce a site-specific double-strand break in the DNA. The dual tracrRNA:crRNA was engineered as a single guide RNA (sgRNA) that retains two critical features: a sequence at the 5  side that determines the DNA target site by Watson-Crick base-pairing and a duplex RNA structure at the 3 side that binds to Cas9. This finding created a simple two-component system in which changes in the guide sequence of the sgRNA program Cas9 to target any DNA sequence of interest. The simplicity of CRISPR-Cas9 programming, together with a unique DNA cleaving mechanism, the capacity for multiplexed target recognition, and the existence of many natural type II CRISPR-Cas system variants, has enabled remarkable developments using this cost-effective and easy-to-use technology to precisely and efficiently target, edit, modify, regulate, and mark genomic loci of a wide array of cells and organisms.

Figure (not shown)

The Cas9 enzyme (blue) generates breaks in double-stranded DNA by using its two catalytic centers (blades) to cleave each strand of a DNA target site (gold) next to a PAM sequence (red) and matching the 20-nucleotide sequence (orange) of the single guide RNA (sgRNA). The sgRNA includes a dual-RNA sequence derived from CRISPR RNA (light green) and a separate transcript (tracrRNA, dark green) that binds and stabilizes the Cas9 protein. Cas9-sgRNA–mediated DNA cleavage produces a blunt double-stranded break that triggers repair enzymes to disrupt or replace DNA sequences at or near the cleavage site. Catalytically inactive forms of Cas9 can also be used for programmable regulation of transcription and visualization of genomic loci.

This Review illustrates the power of the technology to systematically analyze gene functions in mammalian cells, study genomic rearrangements and the progression of cancers or other diseases, and potentially correct genetic mutations responsible for inherited disorders. CRISPR-Cas9 is having a major impact on functional genomics conducted in experimental systems. Its application in genome-wide studies will enable large-scale screening for drug targets and other phenotypes and will facilitate the generation of engineered animal models that will benefit pharmacological studies and the understanding of human diseases. CRISPR-Cas9 applications in plants and fungi also promise to change the pace and course of agricultural research. Future research directions to improve the technology will include engineering or identifying smaller Cas9 variants with distinct specificity that may be more amenable to delivery in human cells. Understanding the homology-directed repair mechanisms that follow Cas9-mediated DNA cleavage will enhance insertion of new or corrected sequences into genomes. The development of specific methods for efficient and safe delivery of Cas9 and its guide RNAs to cells and tissues will also be critical for applications of the technology in human gene therapy.

Case in point.

ZFN, TALEN and CRISPR/Cas-based methods for genome engineering

Thomas Gaj1,2,3, Charles A. Gersbach4,5, and Carlos F. Barbas III1,2,3 1The Skaggs Institute for Chemical Biology, The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, CA, USA 2Department of Molecular Biology, The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, CA, USA 3Department of Chemistry, The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, CA, USA 4Department of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA 5Institutes for Genome Sciences and Policy, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA

Trends Biotechnol . 2013 July ; 31(7): 397–405. http://dx.doi.org:/10.1016/j.tibtech.2013.04.004

Abstract Zinc-finger nucleases (ZFNs) and transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALENs) comprise a powerful class of tools that are redefining the boundaries of biological research. These chimeric nucleases are composed of programmable, sequence-specific DNA-binding modules linked to a non-specific DNA cleavage domain. ZFNs and TALENs enable a broad range of genetic modifications by inducing DNA double-strand breaks that stimulate error-prone nonhomologous end joining or homology-directed repair at specific genomic locations. Here, we review achievements made possible by site-specific nuclease technologies and discuss applications of these reagents for genetic analysis and manipulation. In addition, we highlight the therapeutic potential of ZFNs and TALENs and discuss future prospects for the field, including the emergence of CRISPR/Cas-based RNA-guided DNA endonucleases.

Keywords zinc-finger; TALE; CRISPR; nuclease; genome engineering

Classical and contemporary approaches for establishing gene function With the development of new and affordable methods for whole-genome sequencing, and the design and implementation of large-scale genome annotation projects, scientists’ are poised to deliver upon the promises of the Genomic Revolution to transform basic science and personalized medicine. The resulting wealth of information presents researchers with a new primary challenge of converting this enormous amount of data into functionally and clinically relevant knowledge. Central to this problem is the need for efficient and reliable methods that enable investigators to determine how genotype influences phenotype. Targeted gene inactivation via homologous recombination is a powerful method capable of providing conclusive information for evaluating gene function.

Several factors impede the use of these methods:

  • the low efficiency at which engineered constructs are correctly inserted into the chromosomal target site,
  • the need for time-consuming and labor-insensitive selection/screening strategies, and
  • the potential for adverse mutagenic effects.

Targeted gene knockdown by RNA interference (RNAi) has provided researchers with a rapid, inexpensive and high-throughput alternative to homologous recombination. However, knockdown by RNAi is incomplete, varies between experiments and laboratories, has unpredictable off-target effects, and provides only temporary inhibition of gene function. These restrictions impede researchers’ ability to directly link phenotype to genotype and limit the practical application of RNAi technology.

In the past decade, a new approach has emerged that enables investigators to directly manipulate virtually any gene in a diverse range of cell types and organisms. This core technology – commonly referred to as “genome editing” – is based on the use of engineered nucleases composed of sequence-specific DNA-binding domains fused to a non-specific DNA cleavage module. These chimeric nucleases enable efficient and precise genetic modifications by inducing targeted DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) that stimulate the cellular DNA repair mechanisms, including error-prone non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) and homology-directed repair (HDR).

Case in point.

CRISPR/Cas9 and Targeted Genome Editing: A New Era in Molecular Biology

The development of efficient and reliable ways to make precise, targeted changes to the genome of living cells is a long-standing goal for biomedical researchers. Recently, a new tool based on a bacterial CRISPR-associated protein-9 nuclease (Cas9) from Streptococcus pyogenes has generated considerable excitement. This follows several attempts over the years to manipulate gene function, including homologous recombination and RNA interference (RNAi).

RNAi, in particular, became a laboratory staple enabling inexpensive and high-throughput interrogation of gene function, but it is hampered by providing only temporary inhibition of gene function and unpredictable off-target effects. Other recent approaches to targeted genome modification – zinc-finger nucleases (ZFNs), and transcription-activator like effector nucleases (TALENs) – enable researchers to generate permanent mutations by introducing double stranded breaks to activate repair pathways. These approaches are costly and time-consuming to engineer, limiting their widespread use, particularly for large scale, high-throughput studies.

The Biology of Cas9

The functions of CRISPR (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats) and CRISPR-associated (Cas) genes are essential in adaptive immunity in select bacteria and archaea, enabling the organisms to respond to and eliminate invading genetic material. These repeats were initially discovered in the 1980s in E. coli, but their function wasn’t confirmed until 2007 by Barrangou and colleagues, who demonstrated that S. thermophilus can acquire resistance against a bacteriophage by integrating a genome fragment of an infectious virus into its CRISPR locus.

Three types of CRISPR mechanisms have been identified, of which type II has been the most studied. In this case, invading DNA from viruses or plasmids is cut into small fragments and incorporated into a CRISPR locus amidst a series of short repeats (around 20 bps). The loci are transcribed, and transcripts are then processed to generate small RNAs (crRNA – CRISPR RNA), which are used to guide effector endonucleases that target invading DNA based on sequence complementarity (Figure 1) (not shown).

In the acquisition phase, foreign DNA is incorporated into the bacterial genome at the CRISPR loci. CRISPR loci is then transcribed and processed into crRNA during crRNA biogenesis. During interference, Cas9 endonuclease complexed with a crRNA and separate tracrRNA cleaves foreign DNA containing a 20-nucleotide crRNA complementary sequence adjacent to the PAM sequence.

Investment in CRISPR technology

CRISPR Therapeutics is a biopharmaceutical company created to translate CRISPR-Cas9, a breakthrough genome-editing technology, into transformative medicines for serious human diseases. We are uniquely positioned to translate CRISPR-Cas9 technology into human therapeutics, thanks to its multi-disciplinary team of world-renowned academics, clinicians and drug developers.

CRISPR Therapeutics’ vision is to cure serious human diseases at the molecular level using CRISPR-Cas9. The company is headquartered in Basel, Switzerland and has operations in London, UK and Cambridge, Massachusetts.

The biopharmaceutical company that is focused on translating CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing technology into transformative medicines for serious human diseases, congratulates its scientific founder, Dr. Emmanuelle Charpentier, for being named to TIME Magazine’s TIME 100 Most Influential People in the World alongside fellow CRISPR-Cas9 discoverer, Dr. Jennifer Doudna. In addition, Dr. Emmanuelle was awarded the Louis Jeantet Prize for Medicine, considered the most prestigious European award for researchers in the life sciences, for her discovery of the CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing tool. She will receive the award in a ceremony in Geneva, Switzerland, on April 22, 2015.

Dr. Charpentier has received numerous additional awards for her research, including in 2014 the Alexander von Humboldt Professorship, the Dr Paul Janssen Award, the Grand-Prix Jean-Pierre Lecocq (French Academy of Sciences), the Göran Gustafsson Prize (Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences) and in 2015 the Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences. She was also selected as one of the American Foreign Policy magazine’s 100 Leading Global Thinkers for 2014.

Cambridge-based Editas Medicine announced a $120 million Series B round led by Bill Gates’s chief advisor for science and technology, Boris Nikolic. The list of financiers teaming with Nikolic reads like a rolodex of so-called crossover investors. Nikolic, who joined Editas’ board, made the investment through what’s been called “bng0,” a new U.S.-based investment company backed by “large family offices with a global presence and long-term investment horizon” and formed specifically to invest in Editas. CEO Katrine Bosley confirmed that Gates is one of the individuals investing in Editas alongside Nikolic. Editas has become the first of the group not only to attract crossover backers, but to begin discussing the diseases that its targeting.

Caribou Biosciences, one of the biotech startups working to advance a much-watched new technology for precise gene editing, has raised an $11 million Series A round from venture capital firms and Swiss drug giant Novartis.

The money will help Berkeley, CA-based Caribou speed up its efforts to adapt a versatile genome editing technique co-discovered by one of its founders, UC Berkeley professor Jennifer Doudna, for a range of uses, including drug research and development, and industrial technology.

Doudna and her collaborator, Emmanuelle Charpentier of the Helmholtz Center for Infection Research in Braunschweig, Germany, and Umeå University in Sweden, figured out how to transform a bacterial defense against viral infection into a tool to edit out abnormal sections of genes, such as those that cause hereditary diseases.

Caribou’s gene editing platform is based on two elements of that bacterial molecular machinery: a guiding mechanism called CRISPR (clustered, regularly interspaced palindromic repeats), and an enzyme called Cas9, or CRISPR-associated protein 9, molecular scissors that cut a segment of DNA. Caribou was founded in 2011 to commercialize the work from Doudna’s lab.

 

 

Read Full Post »

Demet Sag, PhD, CRA, GCP

 

Gene engineering and editing specifically are becoming more attractive. There are many applications derived from microbial origins to correct genomes in many organisms including human to find solutions in health.

There are four customizable DNA specific binding protein applications to edit the gene expression in translational genomics. The targeted DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) could greatly stimulate genome editing through HR-mediated recombination events.  We can mainly name these site-specific DNA DSBs:

 

  1. meganucleases derived from microbial mobile genetic elements (Smith et al., 2006),
  2. zinc finger (ZF) nucleases based on eukaryotic transcription factors (Urnov et al., 2005;Miller et al., 2007),
  3. transcription activator-like effectors (TALEs) from Xanthomonasbacteria (Christian et al., 2010Miller et al., 2011Boch et al., 2009; Moscou and Bogdanove, 2009), and
  4. most recently the RNA-guided DNA endonuclease Cas9 from the type II bacterial adaptive immune system CRISPR (Cong et al., 2013;Mali et al., 2013a).

There is a new ground breaking study published in Science by Valentino Gantz and Ethan Bier of the University of California, San Diego, described an approach called mutagenic chain reaction (MCR).

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.

 

Development and Applications of CRISPR-Cas9 for Genome Engineeri

Structural and Metagenomic Diversity of Cas9 Orthologs

(A) Crystal structure of Streptococcus pyogenes Cas9 in complex with guide RNA and target DNA.

(B) Canonical CRISPR locus organization from type II CRISPR systems, which can be classified into IIA-IIC based on their cas gene clusters. Whereas type IIC CRISPR loci contain the minimal set of cas9, cas1, andcas2, IIA and IIB retain their signature csn2 and cas4 genes, respectively.

(C) Histogram displaying length distribution of known Cas9 orthologs as described in UniProt, HAMAP protein family profile MF_01480.

(D) Phylogenetic tree displaying the microbial origin of Cas9 nucleases from the type II CRISPR immune system. Taxonomic information was derived from greengenes 16S rRNA gene sequence alignment, and the tree was visualized using the Interactive Tree of Life tool (iTol).

(E) Four Cas9 orthologs from families IIA, IIB, and IIC were aligned by ClustalW (BLOSUM). Domain alignment is based on the Streptococcus pyogenes Cas9, whereas residues highlighted in red indicate highly conserved catalytic residues within the RuvC I and HNH nuclease domains.

(Cell. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 Feb 27.Published in final edited form as:

Cell. 2014 Jun 5; 157(6): 1262–1278.doi:  10.1016/j.cell.2014.05.010)

 

The uniqueness of this study comes from:

 

  • There is a big difference between the new type of mutation and traditional mutation is expressivity of the character since previously mutations were passive and non-transferable at 100% rate. However,  in classical Mendelian Genetics, only one fourth f the recessive traits can be presented in new generation. Yet, in this case this can be achieve about 97% plus transferred to new generation.

 

  • MCR alterations is active that is they convert matching sequences at the same target site so mutated sites took over the wild type character without degenerating by wild type alleles segregating independently during the breeding process

 

  • Therefore, the altered sequences routinely replace the wild type (original) sequences at that site. The data demonstrated that among 92 flies, only one female became wild type but remaining 41 females had yellow eyes yet all 50 males showed wild type eye coloring at the second generation.

 

  • The genetic engineering of the genome occurred in a single generation with high efficiency.

 

Their technique developed by Gantz and Bier had three basic parts:

 

  1. Both somatic and germline cells expressed a Cas9 gene,

 

  1. A guide RNA (gRNA) targeted to a genomic sequence of interest,

 

  1. The Cas9/gRNA cassettes have the flanking homolog arms that matches the two genomic sequences immediately adjacent to either side of the target cut site

 

There are many applications in translational genomics that requires multiple steps to make it perfect for complicated organisms, such as plants, mosquitoes and human diseases.

Short Walk from Past to the Future of CRISPR/Cas9

Development and Applications of CRISPR-Cas9 for Genome Engineeri

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.

The latest ground-breaking technology for genome editing is based on RNA-guided engineered nucleases, which already hold great promise due to their:

  • simplicity,
  • efficiency and
  • versality

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).

 

The most widely used system is the type II clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeat (CRISPR)/Cas9 (CRISPR-associated) system from Streptococcus pyogenes (Jinek et al., 2012).

Then, five independent groups demonstrated that the two-component system was functional in eukaryotes (human, mouse and zebrafish), indicating that the other functions of the CRISPR locus genes were supported by endogenous eukaryotic enzymes (Cho et al., 2013Cong et al., 2013Hwang et al., 2013Jinek et al., 2013 and Mali et al., 2013).

Beginning with target design, gene modifications can be achieved within as little as 1-2 weeks, and modified colonial cell lines can be derived within 2-3 weeks

 

Development and Applications of CRISPR-Cas9 for Genome Engineeri

Genome editing with site-specific nucleases.

Double-strand breaks induced by a nuclease at a specific site can be repaired either by non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) or homologous recombination (HR).  In most cases, NHEJ causes random insertions or deletions (indels), which can result in frameshift mutations if they occur in the coding region of a gene, effectively creating a gene knockout.

Alternatively, when the DSB generates overhangs, NHEJ can mediate the targeted introduction of a double-stranded DNA template with compatible overhangs

Even though the generation of breaks in both DNA strands induces recombination at specific genomic loci, NHEJ is by far the most common DSB repair mechanism in most organisms, including higher plants, and the frequency of targeted integration by HR remains much lower than random integration.

  • Unlike its predecessors, the CRISPR/Cas9 system does not require any protein engineering steps, making it much more straightforward to test multiple gRNAs for each target gene

 

  • Unlike ZFNs and TALENs, the CRISPR/Cas9 system can cleave methylated DNA in human cells (Hsu et al., 2013), allowing genomic modifications that are beyond the reach of the other nucleases (Ding et al., 2013).

 

  • The main practical advantage of CRISPR/Cas9 compared to ZFNs and TALENs is the ease of multiplexing. The simultaneous introduction of DSBs at multiple sites can be used to edit several genes at the same time (Li et al., 2013; Mao et al., 2013) and can be particularly useful to knock out redundant genes or parallel pathways.

 

  • Finally, the open access policy of the CRISPR research community has promoted the widespread uptake and use of this technology in contrast, for example, to the proprietary nature of the ZFN platform.

The community provides access to plasmids (e.g., via the non-profit repository Addgene), web tools for selecting gRNA sequences and predicting specificity:

Downside:

One area that will likely need to be addressed when moving to more complex genomes, for instance, is off-target CRISPR/Cas9 activity since fruit fly has only four chromosomes and less likely to have off-target effects. However, this study provided proof of principle.

  • Yet, this critics is not new since one of the few criticisms of the CRISPR/Cas9 technology is the relatively high frequency of off-target mutations reported in some of the earlier studies (Cong et al., 2013; Fu et al., 2013; Hsu et al., 2013; Jiang et al., 2013a; Mali et al., 2013; Pattanayak et al., 2013).

 

Several strategies have been developed to reduce off-target genome editing, the most important of which is the considered design of the gRNA.

 

  • fusions of catalytically inactive Cas9 and FokI nuclease have been generated, and these show comparable efficiency to the nickases but substantially higher (N140-fold) specificity than the wild-type enzyme (Guilinger et al., 2014; Tsai et al., 2014)

 

  • Altering the length of the gRNA can also minimize non-target modifications. Guide RNAs with two additional guanidine residues at the 5′ end were able to avoid off-target sites more efficiently than normal gRNAs but were also slightly less active at on-target sites (Cho et al., 2014)

Development and Applications of CRISPR-Cas9 for Genome Engineeri

What more:

The CRISPR/Cas9 system can be used for several purposes in addition to genome editing:

  • The ectopic regulation of gene expression, which can provide useful information about gene functions and can also be used to engineer novel genetic regulatory circuits for synthetic biology applications.

 

  • The external control of gene expression typically relies on the use of inducible or repressible promoters, requiring the introduction of a new promoter and a particular treatment (physical or chemical) for promoter activation or repression.

 

  • Disabled nucleases can be used to regulate gene expression because they can still bind to their target DNA sequence. This is the case with the catalytically inactive version of Cas9 which is known as dead Cas9 (dCas9).

 

  • Preparing the host for an immunotherapy is possible if it is combined with TLR mechanism:

On the other hand, the host mechanism needs to be review carefully for the design of an effective outcome.

The mechanism of microbial response and infectious tolerance are complex.

 

During microbial responses, Toll-like receptors (TLRs) play a role to differentiate and determine the microbial structures as a ligand to initiate production of cytokines and pro-inflammatory agents to activate specific T helper cells.

 

Uniqueness of TLR comes from four major characteristics of each individual TLR :

 

  1. ligand specificity,
  2. signal transduction pathways,
  3. expression profiles and
  4. cellular localization.

 

Thus, TLRs are important part of the immune response signaling mechanism to initiate and design adoptive responses from innate (naïve) immune system to defend the host.

 

TLRs are expressed cell type specific patterns and present themselves on APCs (DCs, MQs, monocytes) with a rich expression  levels Specific TLR stimulat ion links innate and acquired responses through simple recognition of pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs) or co-stimulation of PAMPs with other TLR or non-TLR receptors, or even better with proinflammatory cytokines.

 

Some examples of ligand – TLR specificity shown in Table1, which are bacterial lipopeptides, Pam3Cys through TLR2, double stranded (ds) RNAs through TLR3, lipopolysaccharide (LPS) through TLR4, bacterial flagellin through TLR5, single stranded RNAs through TLR7/8, synthetic anti-viral compounds imiquinod through TLR 7 and resiquimod through TLR8, unmethylated CpG DNA motifs through TLR9.

 

The specificity is established by correct pairing of a TLR with its proinflammatory cytokine(s), so that these permutations influence creation and maintenance of cell differentiat ion.

Development and Applications of CRISPR-Cas9 for Genome Engineeri

 

  • Immunotherapy: The immune cells can be used as a sensor to scavenger the circulating malformed cells in vivo diagnostics or attack and remember them, for instance, relapse of cancer, re-infection with a same or similar agent (bacteria or virus) etc.

Not only using unique microbial and other model organism properties but also using the human host defense mechanism during innate immune responses may bring a new combat to create a new method of precision medicine. This can be a new type of immunotherapy, immune cell mediated gene therapy or vaccine even a step for an in vivo diagnostics.

 

Molecular Genetics took a long road from discovery of restriction enzymes, developing PCR assays, cloning were the beginning. Now, having technology to sequence and compare the sequences between organisms also help to design more sophisticated methods.

Generating mutant lines in Drosophila with the classical genetics methods relies on P elements, a type of transposon and balancers after crossing selected flies with specific markers. This fly pushing is a very tedious work but powerful to identify primary pathways, mechanisms and gene interactions in system and translational  genomics.

 Thus, Microbial Immunomodulation is an important factor not only using the microorganisms or their mechanisms but also modulating the immune cells based on the host interaction may generate new types of diagnostics and targeted therapy tools.

 

Microbial immunomodulation. Microbes from the environment, and from the various microbiota, modulate the immune system. Some of this is due to direct effects of defined microbial products on elements of the immune system. But modulation of the immune system also secondarily alters the host–microbiota relationship and leads to changes in the composition of the microbiota, and so to further changes in immunoregulation (shown as indirect pathways). At the end of the day balance is the key for survival.

microbial immunomodulationGrahamnihms199923f2 A. W. Rook,*,1 Christopher A. Lowry,2 and Charles L. Raison3  Microbial ‘Old Friends’, immunoregulation and stress resilience  Evol Med Public Health. 2013; 2013(1): 46–64. Published online 2013 Apr 9. doi:  10.1093/emph/eot004 PMCID: PMC3868387

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2881665/bin/nihms199923f2.jpg

 

CRISPR-Cas9 mediated NHEJ in transient transfection experiments.

Table 1.
Species Transformation method Cas9 codon optimization Promoters (Cas9,  gRNA) Target Mutation frequency Detection method Off-target (no. of sites analyzed) Detection method Multiplex (deletion) Reference
Arabidopsis thaliana PEG-protoplast transfection Arabidopsis (with intron) CaMV35SPDK, AtU6 PDS3<comma> FLS2 1.1–5.6% PCR + sequencing Li et al. (2013)
A. thaliana Leaf agroinfiltration Arabidopsis (with intron) CaMV35SPDK, AtU6 PDS3 2.70% PCR + sequencing Yes (48 bp) Li et al. (2013)
A. thaliana PEG-protoplast transfection Arabidopsis (with intron) CaMV35SPDK,  AtU6 RACK1b<comma> RACK1c 2.5–2.7% PCR + sequencing No (1 site) PCR + sequencing Li et al. (2013)
A. thaliana Leaf agroinfiltration C. reinhardtii CaMV35S, AtU6 Co-transfected GFP n.a. Pre-digested PCR + RE Jiang et al. 2013a and Jiang et al. 2013b
Nicotiana benthamiana PEG-protoplast transfection Arabidopsis (with intron) CaMV35SPDK, AtU6 PDS3 37.7–38.5% PCR + sequencing Li et al. (2013)
N. benthamiana Leaf agroinfiltration Arabidopsis (with intron) CaMV35SPDK,  AtU6 PDS3 4.80% PCR + sequencing Li et al. (2013)
N. benthamiana Leaf agroinfiltration Human CaMV35S,  AtU6 PDS 1.8–2.4% PCR + RE No (18 sites) PCR + RE Nekrasov et al. (2013)
N. benthamiana Leaf agroinfiltration C. reinhardtii CaMV35S, AtU6 Co-transfected GFP n.a. pre-digested PCR + RE Jiang et al. 2013a and Jiang et al. 2013b
N. benthamiana Leaf agroinfiltration Human CaMV35S, CaMV35S PDS 12.7–13.8% Upadhyay et al. (2013)
Nicotiana tabacum PEG-protoplast transfection Tobacco 2xCaMV35S, AtU6 PDS<comma> PDR6 16.27–20.3% PCR + RE Yes (1.8 kb) Gao et al. (2014)
Oryza sativa PEG-protoplast transfection Rice 2xCaMV35S, OsU3 PDS<comma> BADH2<comma> MPK2<comma> Os02g23823 14.5–38.0% PCR + RE Noa (3 sites) PCR + RE Shan et al. (2013)
O. sativa PEG-protoplast transfection Human CaMV35S,  OsU3 or OsU6 MPK5 3–8% RE + qPCR and T7E1 assay No (2 sites) Yes (1 site with a mismatch at position 12) RE + PCR Xie and Yang (2013)
O. sativa PEG-protoplast transfection Rice CaMV35S,  OsU6 SWEET14 n.a. pre-digested PCR + RE Jiang et al. 2013a and Jiang et al. 2013b
O. sativa PEG-protoplast transfection Rice ZmUbi,  OsU6 KO1 KOL5; CPS4 CYP99A2; CYP76M5 CYP76M6 n.a. PCR + sequencing Yes (115<comma> 170<comma> 245 kb) Zhou et al. (2014)
Triticum aestivum PEG-protoplast transfection Rice 2xCaMV35S, TaU6 MLO 28.50% PCR + RE Shan et al. (2013)
T. aestivum PEG-protoplast transfection Plant ZmUbi, TaU6 MLO-A1 36% T7E1 Wang et al. 2014a and Wang et al. 2014b
T. aestivum Agrotransfection of cells from immature embryos Human CaMV35S,  CaMV35S PDS<comma> INOX 18–22% PCR + sequencing Upadhyay et al. (2013)
T. aestivum Agrotransfection of cells from immature embryos Human CaMV35S,  CaMV35S INOX PCR + sequencing No* PCR + RE Yes (53 bp) Upadhyay et al. (2013)
Zea mays PEG-protoplast transfection Rice 2xCaMV35S,  ZmU3 IPK 16.4–19.1% PCR + RE Liang et al. (2014)
Citrus sinensis Leaf agroinfiltration Human CaMv35S,  CaMV35S PDS 3.2–3.9% PCR + RE No (8 sites) PCR + RE Jia et al. (2014)

 

 

 

References:

A brief overview of CRISPR-mediated immunity and explain how the emerging new properties of this defense system are being repurposed for genome engineering in bacteria, yeast, human cells, insects, fish, worms, plants, frogs, pigs, and rodents.

Also look at F1000Prime Rep. 2014; 6: 3. For the list of microorganisms use in CRISPR applications.

Bikard D, Jiang W, Samai P, Hochschild A, Zhang F, Marraffini LA. Programmable repression and activation of bacterial gene expression using an engineered CRISPR-Cas system. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013;41:7429–37. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkt520.

Jiang W, Bikard D, Cox D, Zhang F, Marraffini LA. RNA-guided editing of bacterial genomes using CRISPR-Cas systems. Nat Biotechnol. 2013;31:233–9. doi: 10.1038/nbt.2508.

Qi LS, Larson MH, Gilbert LA, Doudna JA, Weissman JS, Arkin AP, Lim WA. Repurposing CRISPR as an RNA-guided platform for sequence-specific control of gene expression. Cell. 2013;152:1173–83. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2013.02.022

Esvelt KM, Mali P, Braff JL, Moosburner M, Yaung SJ, Church GM. Orthogonal Cas9 proteins for RNA-guided gene regulation and editing. Nat Methods.2013;10:1116–21. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.2681.

Gilbert LA, Larson MH, Morsut L, Liu Z, Brar GA, Torres SE, Stern-Ginossar N, Brandman O, Whitehead EH, Doudna JA, Lim WA, Weissman JS, Qi LS. CRISPR-mediated modular RNA-guided regulation of transcription in eukaryotes.Cell. 2013;154:442–51. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2013.06.044.

DiCarlo JE, Norville JE, Mali P, Rios X, Aach J, Church GM. Genome engineering in Saccharomyces cerevisiae using CRISPR-Cas systems. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013;41:4336–43. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkt135.

Cheng AW, Wang H, Yang H, Shi L, Katz Y, Theunissen TW, Rangarajan S, Shivalila CS, Dadon DB, Jaenisch R. Multiplexed activation of endogenous genes by CRISPR-on, an RNA-guided transcriptional activator system. Cell Res.2013;23:1163–71. doi: 10.1038/cr.2013.122.

 Hou Z, Zhang Y, Propson NE, Howden SE, Chu L, Sontheimer EJ, Thomson JA. Efficient genome engineering in human pluripotent stem cells using Cas9 from Neisseria meningitidis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2013;110:15644–9. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1313587110.

Ran FA, Hsu PD, Lin C, Gootenberg JS, Konermann S, Trevino AE, Scott DA, Inoue A, Matoba S, Zhang Y, Zhang F. Double nicking by RNA-guided CRISPR Cas9 for enhanced genome editing specificity. Cell. 2013;154:1380–9. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2013.08.021.

Cho SW, Kim S, Kim JM, Kim J. Targeted genome engineering in human cells with the Cas9 RNA-guided endonuclease. Nat Biotechnol. 2013;31:230–2. doi: 10.1038/nbt.2507.

Le Cong, Ran FA, Cox D, Lin S, Barretto R, Habib N, Hsu PD, Wu X, Jiang W, Marraffini LA, Zhang F. Multiplex genome engineering using CRISPR/Cas systems.Science. 2013;339:819–23. doi: 10.1126/science.1231143.

Cradick TJ, Fine EJ, Antico CJ, Bao G. CRISPR/Cas9 systems targeting β-globin and CCR5 genes have substantial off-target activity. Nucleic Acids Res.2013;41:9584–92. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkt714.

Ding Q, Regan SN, Xia Y, Oostrom LA, Cowan CA, Musunuru K. Enhanced efficiency of human pluripotent stem cell genome editing through replacing TALENs with CRISPRs. Cell Stem Cell. 2013;12:393–4. doi: 10.1016/j.stem.2013.03.006.

Ebina H, Misawa N, Kanemura Y, Koyanagi Y. Harnessing the CRISPR/Cas9 system to disrupt latent HIV-1 provirus. Sci Rep. 2013;3:2510. doi: 10.1038/srep02510.

Fu Y, Foden JA, Khayter C, Maeder ML, Reyon D, Joung JK, Sander JD. High-frequency off-target mutagenesis induced by CRISPR-Cas nucleases in human cells.Nat Biotechnol. 2013;31:822–6. doi: 10.1038/nbt.2623.

Hsu PD, Scott DA, Weinstein JA, Ran FA, Konermann S, Agarwala V, Li Y, Fine EJ, Wu X, Shalem O, Cradick TJ, Marraffini LA, Bao G, Zhang F. DNA targeting specificity of RNA-guided Cas9 nucleases. Nat Biotechnol. 2013;31:827–32. doi: 10.1038/nbt.2647.

Jinek M, East A, Cheng A, Lin S, Ma E, Doudna J. RNA-programmed genome editing in human cells. Elife. 2013;2:e00471. doi: 10.7554/eLife.00471.

Maeder ML, Linder SJ, Cascio VM, Fu Y, Ho QH, Joung JK. CRISPR RNA-guided activation of endogenous human genes. Nat Methods. 2013;10:977–9. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.2598.

Mali P, Aach J, Stranges PB, Esvelt KM, Moosburner M, Kosuri S, Yang L, Church GM. CAS9 transcriptional activators for target specificity screening and paired nickases for cooperative genome engineering. Nat Biotechnol. 2013;31:833–8. doi: 10.1038/nbt.2675.

Mali P, Yang L, Esvelt KM, Aach J, Guell M, DiCarlo JE, Norville JE, Church GM. RNA-guided human genome engineering via Cas9. Science. 2013;339:823–6. doi: 10.1126/science.1232033.

Pattanayak V, Lin S, Guilinger JP, Ma E, Doudna JA, Liu DR. High-throughput profiling of off-target DNA cleavage reveals RNA-programmed Cas9 nuclease specificity. Nat Biotechnol. 2013;31:839–43. doi: 10.1038/nbt.2673.

Perez-Pinera P, Kocak DD, Vockley CM, Adler AF, Kabadi AM, Polstein LR, Thakore PI, Glass KA, Ousterout DG, Leong KW, Guilak F, Crawford GE, Reddy TE, Gersbach CA. RNA-guided gene activation by CRISPR-Cas9-based transcription factors. Nat Methods. 2013;10:973–6. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.2600.

Yang L, Guell M, Byrne S, Yang JL, Los Angeles A de, Mali P, Aach J, Kim-Kiselak C, Briggs AW, Rios X, Huang P, Daley G, Church G. Optimization of scarless human stem cell genome editing. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013;41:9049–61. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkt555.

Bassett AR, Tibbit C, Ponting CP, Liu J. Highly efficient targeted mutagenesis of Drosophila with the CRISPR/Cas9 system. Cell Rep. 2013;4:220–8. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2013.06.020.

Gratz SJ, Cummings AM, Nguyen JN, Hamm DC, Donohue LK, Harrison MM, Wildonger J, O’Connor-Giles KM. Genome engineering of Drosophila with the CRISPR RNA-guided Cas9 nuclease. Genetics. 2013;194:1029–35. doi: 10.1534/genetics.113.152710.

Yu Z, Ren M, Wang Z, Zhang B, Rong YS, Jiao R, Gao G. Highly efficient genome modifications mediated by CRISPR/Cas9 in Drosophila. Genetics.2013;195:289–91. doi: 10.1534/genetics.113.153825.

Kondo S, Ueda R. Highly improved gene targeting by germline-specific cas9 expression in Drosophila. Genetics. 2013;195:715–21. doi: 10.1534/genetics.113.156737.

Chang N, Sun C, Gao L, Zhu D, Xu X, Zhu X, Xiong J, Xi JJ. Genome editing with RNA-guided Cas9 nuclease in zebrafish embryos. Cell Res. 2013;23:465–72. doi: 10.1038/cr.2013.45.

Hwang WY, Fu Y, Reyon D, Maeder ML, Kaini P, Sander JD, Joung JK, Peterson RT, Yeh JJ. Heritable and precise zebrafish genome editing using a CRISPR-Cas system. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:e68708. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0068708.

Hwang WY, Fu Y, Reyon D, Maeder ML, Tsai SQ, Sander JD, Peterson RT, Yeh JJ, Joung JK. Efficient genome editing in zebrafish using a CRISPR-Cas system.Nat Biotechnol. 2013;31:227–9. doi: 10.1038/nbt.2501.

Jao L, Wente SR, Chen W. Efficient multiplex biallelic zebrafish genome editing using a CRISPR nuclease system. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2013;110:13904–9. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1308335110.

Xiao A, Wang Z, Hu Y, Wu Y, Luo Z, Yang Z, Zu Y, Li W, Huang P, Tong X, Zhu Z, Lin S, Zhang B. Chromosomal deletions and inversions mediated by TALENs and CRISPR/Cas in zebrafish. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013;41:e141. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkt464.

Chen C, Fenk LA, Bono M de. Efficient genome editing in Caenorhabditis elegans by CRISPR-targeted homologous recombination. Nucleic Acids Res.2013;41:e193. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkt805.

Chiu H, Schwartz HT, Antoshechkin I, Sternberg PW. Transgene-Free Genome Editing in Caenorhabditis elegans Using CRISPR-Cas. Genetics. 2013;195:1167–71. doi: 10.1534/genetics.113.155879.

Cho SW, Lee J, Carroll D, Kim J, Lee J. Heritable Gene Knockout in Caenorhabditis elegans by Direct Injection of Cas9-sgRNA Ribonucleoproteins.Genetics. 2013;195:1177–80. doi: 10.1534/genetics.113.155853.

Friedland AE, Tzur YB, Esvelt KM, Colaiácovo MP, Church GM, Calarco JA. Heritable genome editing in C. elegans via a CRISPR-Cas9 system. Nat Methods.2013;10:741–3. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.2532.

Katic I, Großhans H. Targeted Heritable Mutation and Gene Conversion by Cas9-CRISPR in Caenorhabditis elegans. Genetics. 2013;195:1173–6. doi: 10.1534/genetics.113.155754.

Lo T, Pickle CS, Lin S, Ralston EJ, Gurling M, Schartner CM, Bian Q, Doudna JA, Meyer BJ. Precise and heritable genome editing in evolutionarily diverse nematodes using TALENs and CRISPR/Cas9 to engineer insertions and deletions.Genetics. 2013;195:331–48. doi: 10.1534/genetics.113.155382.

Tzur YB, Friedland AE, Nadarajan S, Church GM, Calarco JA, Colaiácovo MP. Heritable Custom Genomic Modifications in Caenorhabditis elegans via a CRISPR-Cas9 System. Genetics. 2013;195:1181–5. doi: 10.1534/genetics.113.156075.

Waaijers S, Portegijs V, Kerver J, Lemmens BBLG, Tijsterman M, van den Heuvel S, Boxem M. CRISPR/Cas9-Targeted Mutagenesis in Caenorhabditis elegans. Genetics. 2013;195:1187–91. doi: 10.1534/genetics.113.156299.

Dickinson DJ, Ward JD, Reiner DJ, Goldstein B. Engineering the Caenorhabditis elegans genome using Cas9-triggered homologous recombination.Nat Methods. 2013;10:1028–34. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.2641.

Feng Z, Zhang B, Ding W, Liu X, Yang D, Wei P, Cao F, Zhu S, Zhang F, Mao Y, Zhu J. Efficient genome editing in plants using a CRISPR/Cas system. Cell Res.2013;23:1229–32. doi: 10.1038/cr.2013.114.

Li J, Norville JE, Aach J, McCormack M, Zhang D, Bush J, Church GM, Sheen J. Multiplex and homologous recombination-mediated genome editing in Arabidopsis and Nicotiana benthamiana using guide RNA and Cas9. Nat Biotechnol. 2013;31:688–91. doi: 10.1038/nbt.2654.

Nekrasov V, Staskawicz B, Weigel D, Jones JDG, Kamoun S. Targeted mutagenesis in the model plant Nicotiana benthamiana using Cas9 RNA-guided endonuclease. Nat Biotechnol. 2013;31:691–3. doi: 10.1038/nbt.2655.

Shan Q, Wang Y, Li J, Zhang Y, Chen K, Liang Z, Zhang K, Liu J, Xi JJ, Qiu J, Gao C. Targeted genome modification of crop plants using a CRISPR-Cas system.Nat Biotechnol. 2013;31:686–8. doi: 10.1038/nbt.2650.

 Xie K, Yang Y. RNA-Guided Genome Editing in Plants Using a CRISPR-Cas System. Mol Plant. 2013;6:1975–83. doi: 10.1093/mp/sst119.

Miao J, Guo D, Zhang J, Huang Q, Qin G, Zhang X, Wan J, Gu H, Qu L. Targeted mutagenesis in rice using CRISPR-Cas system. Cell Res. 2013;23:1233–6. doi: 10.1038/cr.2013.123.

Jiang W, Zhou H, Bi H, Fromm M, Yang B, Weeks DP. Demonstration of CRISPR/Cas9/sgRNA-mediated targeted gene modification in Arabidopsis, tobacco, sorghum and rice. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013;41:e188. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkt780.

Upadhyay SK, Kumar J, Alok A, Tuli R. RNA Guided Genome Editing for Target Gene Mutations in Wheat. G3 (Bethesda) 2013

Nakayama T, Fish MB, Fisher M, Oomen-Hajagos J, Thomsen GH, Grainger RM. Simple and efficient CRISPR/Cas9-mediated targeted mutagenesis in Xenopus tropicalis. Genesis. 2013 doi: 10.1002/dvg.22720.

Tan W, Carlson DF, Lancto CA, Garbe JR, Webster DA, Hackett PB, Fahrenkrug SC. Efficient nonmeiotic allele introgression in livestock using custom endonucleases. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2013;110:16526–31. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1310478110.

Li D, Qiu Z, Shao Y, Chen Y, Guan Y, Liu M, Li Y, Gao N, Wang L, Lu X, Zhao Y, Liu M. Heritable gene targeting in the mouse and rat using a CRISPR-Cas system.Nat Biotechnol. 2013;31:681–3. doi: 10.1038/nbt.2661.

Li W, Teng F, Li T, Zhou Q. Simultaneous generation and germline transmission of multiple gene mutations in rat using CRISPR-Cas systems. Nat Biotechnol.2013;31:684–6. doi: 10.1038/nbt.2652.

Shen B, Zhang J, Wu H, Wang J, Ma K, Li Z, Zhang X, Zhang P, Huang X. Generation of gene-modified mice via Cas9/RNA-mediated gene targeting. Cell Res. 2013;23:720–3. doi: 10.1038/cr.2013.46.

Wang H, Yang H, Shivalila CS, Dawlaty MM, Cheng AW, Zhang F, Jaenisch R. One-step generation of mice carrying mutations in multiple genes by CRISPR/Cas-mediated genome engineering. Cell. 2013;153:910–8. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2013.04.025.

 

Previously Published at Leaders in Pharmaceutical Intelligence:

 

CRISPR/Cas9: Contributions on Endoribonuclease Structure and Function, Role in Immunity and Applications in Genome Engineering larryhbern 2015/03/27
Published
CRISPR-CAS editing brings cloning of woolly mammoth one step closer to reality 2012pharmaceutical 2015/03/26
Published
GUIDE-seq: First genome-wide method of detecting off-target DNA breaks induced by CRISPR-Cas nucleases 2012pharmaceutical 2014/12/22
Published
The Patents for CRISPR, the DNA editing technology as the Biggest Biotech Discovery of the Century 2012pharmaceutical 2014/12/05
Published
CRISPR: Applications for Autoimmune Diseases @UCSF 2012pharmaceutical 2014/11/04
Published
“Gene Editing at CRISPR Speed”: Services and Tools 2012pharmaceutical 2014/10/29
Published
Licensing CRISPR-Cas9 Technology from Broad Institute: Clontech, Horizon Discovery, Sage Labs 2012pharmaceutical 2014/10/28
Published
CRISPR-Cas9 Discovery and Development of Programmable Genome Engineering – Gabbay Award Lectures in Biotechnology and Medicine – Hosted by Rosenstiel Basic Medical Sciences Research Center, 10/27/14 3:30PM Brandeis University, Gerstenzang 121 2012pharmaceutical 2014/10/26
Published
Inactivation of the human papillomavirus E6 or E7 gene in cervical carcinoma cells using a bacterial CRISPR/Cas 2012pharmaceutical 2014/10/24
Published
CRISPR-Cas9 Foundational Technology originated at UC, Berkeley & UCSF, Broad Institute is developing Biotech Applications — Intellectual Property emerging as Legal Potential Dispute 2012pharmaceutical 2014/06/18
Published
2:15 – 2:45, 6/13/2014, Jennifer Doudna “The biology of CRISPRs: from genome defense to genetic engineering” 2012pharmaceutical 2014/06/13
Published
CRISPR @MIT – Genome Surgery 2012pharmaceutical 2014/04/21
Published
Gene Therapy and the Genetic Study of Disease: @Berkeley and @UCSF – New DNA-editing technology spawns bold UC initiative as Crispr Goes Global 2012pharmaceutical 2014/03/27
Published
Evaluate your Cas9 Gene Editing Vectors: CRISPR/Cas Mediated Genome Engineering – Is your CRISPR gRNA optimized for your cell lines? 2012pharmaceutical 2014/03/25
Published
CRISPR-Cas: A powerful new tool for precise genetic engineering 2012pharmaceutical 2013/11/29
Published
A NEW ERA OF GENETIC MANIPULATION   Demet Sag, Ph.D., CRA, GCP 31 mins ago
Published
Manipulate Signaling Pathways [7.6] larryhbern 2015/04/08
Published
RNAi – On Transcription and Metabolic Control larryhbern 2015/03/26
Published
Real Time Conference Coverage for Scientific and Business Media: Unique Twitter Hashtags and Handles per Conference Presentation/Session 2012pharmaceutical 2015/03/24
Published
Advances in Gene Editing Technology: New Gene Therapy Options in Personalized Medicine 2012pharmaceutical 2015/03/16
Published
Annual Margaret Pittman Lecture, honors the NIH’s first female lab chief, March 11, 2015, 3:00:00 PM by Jennifer Doudna, Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley 2012pharmaceutical 2015/03/11
Published
Protecting Your Biotech IP and Market Strategy: Notes from Life Sciences Collaborative 2015 Meeting sjwilliamspa 2015/03/11
Published
Genomics Diagnostics Companies attractive to Institutional Investors 2012pharmaceutical 2015/03/10
Published
attn #1: Investors in HealthCare — Platforms in the Ecosystem of Regulatory & Reimbursement – Integrated Informational Platforms in Medical Devices, Global Oncology Drugs Market and Peer-Reviewed Curations: Cancer, Genomics and Cardiovascular – Draft 2012pharmaceutical 2015/02/24
Last Modified
attn #2: Investors in HealthCare — Cardiovascular Medical Devices: Platforms in the Ecosystem of Regulatory & Reimbursement with Integrated Informational Platforms of Peer-Reviewed Global Scientific Curations on Medical Devices and Cardiac Surgery, Interventional Cardiology and Cardiovascular Imaging – Draft 2012pharmaceutical 2015/02/24
Last Modified
attn #3: Investors in HealthCare — Platforms in the Ecosystem of Regulatory & Reimbursement – Integrated Informational Platforms in Orthopedic Medical Devices, and Global Peer-Reviewed Scientific Curations: Bone Disease and Orthopedic Medicine – Draft 2012pharmaceutical 2015/02/23
Last Modified
attn #7: Investors in HealthCare — Platforms in the Ecosystem of Regulatory & Reimbursement – Integrated Informational Platforms in Medical Devices, Global Oncology Drugs Market and Peer-Reviewed Curations: Cancer, Genomics and Cardiovascular – Draft 2012pharmaceutical 2015/02/22
Last Modified
attn #6: Investors in HealthCare — Platforms in the Ecosystem of Regulatory & Reimbursement – Integrated Informational Platforms in Medical Devices, Global Oncology Drugs Market and Peer-Reviewed Curations: Cancer, Genomics and Cardiovascular – Draft 2012pharmaceutical 2015/02/22
Last Modified
attn #5: Investors in HealthCare — Platforms in the Ecosystem of Regulatory & Reimbursement – Integrated Informational Platforms in Medical Devices, Global Oncology Drugs Market and Peer-Reviewed Curations: Cancer, Genomics and Cardiovascular – Draft 2012pharmaceutical 2015/02/22
Last Modified
attn #4: Investors in HealthCare — Platforms in the Ecosystem of Regulatory & Reimbursement – Integrated Informational Platforms in Medical Devices, Global Oncology Drugs Market and Peer-Reviewed Curations: Cancer, Genomics and Cardiovascular – Draft 2012pharmaceutical 2015/02/22
Last Modified
7:55AM – 9AM, January 26, 2015 – Introduction and Overview – LIVE @Silicon Valley 2015 Personalized Medicine World Conference, Mountain View, CA 2012pharmaceutical 2015/01/26
Published
Litigation on the Way: Broad Institute Gets Patent on Revolutionary Gene-Editing Method 2012pharmaceutical 2014/12/05
Published
3:15PM 11/12/2014 – Discussion Complex Disorders @10th Annual Personalized Medicine Conference at the Harvard Medical School, Boston 2012pharmaceutical 2014/11/12
Published
Twitter is Becoming a Powerful Tool in Science and Medicine sjwilliamspa 2014/11/06
Published
New Frontiers in Gene Editing: Transitioning From the Lab to the Clinic, February 19-20, 2015 | The InterContinental San Francisco | San Francisco, CA 2012pharmaceutical 2014/10/29
Published
Geneticist George Church: A Future Without Limits 2012pharmaceutical 2014/10/24
Published
Metabolomics is about Metabolic Systems Integration larryhbern 2014/10/13
Published
Using RNA-seq and targeted nucleases to identify mechanisms of drug resistance in acute myeloid leukemia 2012pharmaceutical 2014/09/26
Published
New Frontiers in Gene Editing — Cambridge Healthtech Institute’s Inaugural, February 19-20, 2015 | The Inter Continental San Francisco | San Francisco, CA 2012pharmaceutical 2014/08/27
Published
The role and importance of transcription factors larryhbern 2014/08/06
Published
  Pathology Emergence in the 21st Century larryhbern 2014/08/03
Published
  Regulation of somatic stem cell Function larryhbern 2014/07/29
Published
  Prediction of the Winner RNA Technology, the FRONTIER of SCIENCE on RNA Biology, Cancer and Therapeutics & The Start Up Landscape in Boston 2012pharmaceutical 2014/06/16
Published
  Lecture Contents delivered at Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research, Summer Symposium 2014: RNA Biology, Cancer and Therapeutic Implications, June 13, 2014 @MIT 2012pharmaceutical 2014/06/16
Published
  3:45 – 4:15, 2014, Scott Lowe “Tumor suppressor and tumor maintenance genes” 2012pharmaceutical 2014/06/13
Published
  11:30 – 12:00, 6/13/2014, Daniel Anderson “Intracellular RNA delivery” 2012pharmaceutical 2014/06/13
Published
  9:10 – 9:30, 6/13/2014, Phillip Sharp “Why RNA Biology?” Phillip Sharp, PhD Institute Professor, Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2012pharmaceutical 2014/06/13
Published
  The SCID Pig II: Researchers Develop Another SCID Pig, And Another Great Model For Cancer Research sjwilliamspa 2014/06/11
Published
  Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research @MIT – Summer Symposium 2014: RNA Biology, Cancer and Therapeutic Implications, June 13, 2014 8:30AM – 4:30PM, Kresge Auditorium @MIT 2012pharmaceutical 2014/06/04
Published
  An expanded-DNA Biology from Scripps Research Institute: Beyond A-T and C-G: Applications for new Medicines and Nanotechnology 2012pharmaceutical 2014/05/11
Published
  Foundation Medicine reported 4,702 Clinical Tests in Q1, 715 were the FoundationOne Heme Cancer Test, average Reimbursement of $3,400 per Test 2012pharmaceutical 2014/05/08
Published
  The Cancer Research Concentration @ Leaders in Pharmaceutical Business Intelligence sjwilliamspa 2014/05/06
Published
  Aviva’s Perspective on New Oncology Database Asset Positioning by Business Scenario – Password protected 2012pharmaceutical 2014/05/05
Published
  Cancer Research: Curations and Reporting: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN 2012pharmaceutical 2014/04/20
Published
  Predictions on Biotech Sector’s Two-year Boom 2012pharmaceutical 2014/03/27
Published
  DNA: One man’s trash is another man’s treasure, but there is no JUNK after all Demet Sag, Ph.D., CRA, GCP 2013/06/24
Published
  Ribozymes and RNA Machines – Work of Jennifer A. Doudna 2012pharmaceutical 2013/04/15
Published
  Zebrafish—Susceptible to Cancer larryhbern 2013/04/02
Published
  Diagnosing Diseases & Gene Therapy: Precision Genome Editing and Cost-effective microRNA Profiling 2012pharmaceutical 2013/03/28
Published
  Directions for Genomics in Personalized Medicine larryhbern 2013/01/27
Published

 

 

About the author:

Dr Sag has a Bachelor’s degree in Basic and Industrial Microbiology as a Sum cum Laude among 450 graduating class of Science faculty,  an MSc in Microbial Engineering and Biotechnology (Bioprocessing improvement) and PhD in Molecular and Developmental Genetics (Functional Genome and Stem Cell Biology).

She is an translational functional genomic scientist to develop diagnostics and targeted therapies by non-invasive methods for personalized medicine from bench to bedside and engineering tools through clinical trials and regulatory affairs.

You may contact with her at 858-729-4942 or by demet.sag@gmail.com if you have questions.

 

 

Read Full Post »

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

Writer and Curator:Larry H Bernstein, MD, FCAP 

2.2.25

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

This is the fourth contribution to a series on transcriptional control and cellular remodeling. The previous dealt with RNAs – mRNA, miRNA, RNAi, siRNA, shRNA, small RNAs, lncRNAs, DICER, SLICER, RISC, recombination, and related processes.  It is clear that the classical model was limited, is history, and could not predict a large universe encompassing DNA, RNA, transcription, translation, signaling, proteins, protein conformation, mRNA-miRNA interactions, protein-protein interactions, inter- and intracellular interactions, and cellular remodeling.

Cutting it close: CRISPR-associated endoribonuclease structure and function
Hochstrasser ML and Doudna JA
Trends in Biochemical Sciences, Jan 2015; 40(1):58-66
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tibs.2014.10.007

RNAi pathways in eukaryotes, as in archaea, possess an adaptive immune system consisting of repetitive genetic elements known as clustered regularly clustered interspersed short palindromic repeats (CRISPERS) and CRISPR-associated (cas) proteins. CRISPR-cas systems require small RNAs for sequence-specific detection and degradation of complex nucleic acids. Cas 5 and cas 6 enzymes have evolved to specifically recognize and process CRISPR-derived transcripts to function as small RNAs used as guides by interference complexes.

Figure 1. Overview of CRISPR RNA (crRNA) processing and comparison between CRISPR–Cas interference systems. There are three main pathways of CRISPR adaptive immunity (Types I–III) and several subtypes, each typified by a different set of Cas proteins. The first stage of the CRISPR–Cas system is acquisition, in which a foreign DNA sequence is incorporated into the host CRISPR locus. Next, the entire repeat-spacer array is transcribed into a long precursor crRNA (pre-crRNA). A single cleavage within each repeat sequence generates shorter, mature crRNAs. Some crRNAs undergo an additional trimming step. The enzymes responsible for catalysis and exact mode of crRNA processing differ in each system. The crRNA is loaded into an interference complex where it serves as a guide for targeting invasive DNA, or in Type III-B systems, RNA.

Figure 2. Fundamental structural features of CRISPR endoRNases. (A) Topology diagram of a typical Cas6 C-terminal RRM fold with key structural features labeled. (B) Two views of Thermus thermophilus Cas6e (PDB: 2Y8W) colored as in (A). For clarity, the N-terminal RRM fold has been omitted in the left panel. (C) Comparison of structures of Cas6 and Cas5c enzymes associated with different CRISPR subtypes (in parentheses), highlighting shared structural elements, colored as in (A) and (B), with the Cas5 ‘thumb’ in black (PDB: 4ILL, 2XLK, 3UFC, 4F3M). Note that no active site residues are shown for Pyrococcus furiosus Cas6-3nc because this protein is non-catalytic.

Figure 3. Structure and sequence-specific RNA binding by Cas6 enzymes. (A) First two images: Thermus thermophilus Cas6A in the apo form and bound to its product CRISPR RNA (crRNA) (PDB: apo – 4C97, product-bound – 4C8Z). Second two images: electrostatic surface potential rendering of the same enzyme in two views with the first eight nucleotides of the Pyrococcus furiosus crRNA 30 handle (PDB: 3PKM) modeled onto the structure based on alignment of the two proteins, as in Niewoehner et al. [30]. For simplicity, only one subunit of the non-crystallographic dimer is shown. (B) Pseudomonas aeruginosa Cas6f bound to its cognate RNA (PDB: 2XLK). Close-up views highlight the active site and sequence-specific interactions by the groove-binding element. (C) Sulfolobus solfataricus Cas6-1A bound to its pre-crRNA substrate (PDB: 4ILL). The active site and sequence-specific contacts made by the glycine-rich loop are shown in detail. For simplicity, only one subunit of the SsoCas6-1A dimer is shown.

CRISPRs (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats) are DNA loci containing short repetitions of base sequences. Each repetition is followed by short segments of “spacer DNA” from previous exposures to a virus.[2]

CRISPRs are found in approximately 40% of sequenced bacteria genomes and 90% of sequenced archaea.[3][4]

CRISPRs are often associated with cas genes that code for proteins related to CRISPRs. The CRISPR/Cas system is a prokaryotic immune system that confers resistance to foreign genetic elements such as plasmids and phages[5][6] and provides a form of acquired immunity. CRISPR spacers recognize and cut these exogenous genetic elements in a manner analogous to RNAi in eukaryotic organisms.[2]

Since 2013, the CRISPR/Cas system has been used for gene editing (adding, disrupting or changing the sequence of specific genes) and gene regulation in species throughout the tree of life.[7] By delivering the Cas9 protein and appropriate guide RNAs into a cell, the organism’s genome can be cut at any desired location.

It may be possible to use CRISPR to build RNA-guided gene drives capable of altering the genomes of entire populations.

Gene-editing predecessors

In the early 2000s, researchers developed zinc finger nucleases, synthetic proteins whose DNA-binding domains enable them to cut DNA at specific spots. Later, synthetic nucleases called TALENs provided an easier way to target specific DNA and were predicted to surpass zinc fingers. They both depend on making custom proteins for each DNA target, a more cumbersome procedure than guide RNAs. CRISPRs are more efficient and can target more genes than these earlier techniques.

Repeats and spacers

CRISPR loci range in size from 24 to 48 base pairs. They usually show some dyad symmetry, implying the formation of a secondary structure such as a hairpin, but are not truly palindromic. Repeats are separated by spacers of similar length. Some CRISPR spacer sequences exactly match sequences from plasmids and phages, although some spacers match the prokaryote’s genome (self-targeting spacers). New spacers can be added rapidly in response to phage infection.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRISPR

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5f/Crispr.png/1024px-Crispr.png

http://www.frontiersin.org/files/Articles/58953/fgene-04-00193-r2/image_m/fgene-04-00193-g001.jpg

http://2013.igem.org/wiki/images/thumb/c/c0/CRISPR_Cooperativity_2.png/720px-CRISPR_Cooperativity_2.png

http://img.scoop.it/2Y0f1M2hXSr35d9-xn4WVTl72eJkfbmt4t8yenImKBVvK0kTmF0xjctABnaLJIm9

A CRISPR CASe for high-throughput silencing

A CRISPR CASe for high-throughput silencing

dual gRNA vector

dual gRNA vector

Genome editing with RNA-guided Cas9 nuclease in Zebrafish embryos

Genome editing with RNA-guided Cas9 nuclease in Zebrafish embryos

The role of CRISPR–Cas systems in adaptive immunity and beyond

Barrangue R
Current Opinion in Immunology 2015; 32:36–41
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.coi.2014.12.008

CRISPR–Cas immune systems. CRISPR-encoded immunization and interference. In the adaptation stage, exogenous DNA is sampled and a novel spacer is integrated into the CRISPR locus; in the expression stage, the CRISPR array is transcribed and processed into small interfering CRISPR RNAs (crRNAs) that guide Cas endonucleases towards target complementary DNA in the interference stage.

Cas-mediated DNA targeting and cleavage. The Cas9 endonuclease forms a ribonucleoprotein complex in combination with the dual guide RNA (crRNA and tracrRNA), and the target dsDNA. First, the Cas9:guide RNA complex binds to proto-spacer adjacent motif (PAM) and drives the formation of an R-loop in the target DNA for genesis of a double stranded break using the RuvC and HNH nickase domains. The former primarily involves the recognition (REC) Cas9 lobe (top), and the latter is primarily driven by the nuclease (NUC) lobe (bottom). Cas-mediated targeting can aim at phage DNA for antiviral resistance (cleaved viral DNA cannot replicate), plasmid DNA to preclude the uptake and dissemination of plasmids (cleaved plasmid DNA cannot replicate), and chromosomal DNA for genome editing (insertion of mutations using endogenous DNA repair systems at the site of cleavage) or transcriptional control (dCas9 binding blocks RNA polymerase).

CRISPR-Cas9 Knockin Mice for Genome Editing and Cancer Modeling
Cell Oct 9, 2014; 159:440–455
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2014.09.014

Figure2. Ex Vivo Genome Editing of Primary Immune Cells Derived from Constitutive Cas9-Expressing Mice (A) Schematic of ex vivo genome editing experimental flow. (B)Flow cytometry histogram of bone marrow cells from constitutive Cas9-expressing (green) and wild-type (blue) mice, showing Cas9-P2A-EGFP expressiononlyinCas9mice.Dataareplottedasa percentage of the total number of cells. (C) sgRNA design for targeting the mouse Myd88 locus. (D) sgRNA design for targeting the mouse A20 locus. (E) Myd88 indel analysis of constitutive Cas9expressing DCs transduced with either a Myd88targeting sgRNA (sgMyd88-1 and sgMyd88-2) or controls (CTR, average of four control sgRNAs), showing indel formation only in Myd88-targeted cells. Data are plotted as the percent of Illumina sequencing reads containing indels at the target site. Mutations are categorized as frameshift (fs, yellow bar) or non-frameshift (nfs, orange bar). (F) A20 indel analysis of constitutive Cas9-expressing DCs transduced with either an A20-targeting sgRNA (sgA20-1) or controls (CTR, average of four control sgRNAs), showing indel formation only in A20-targeted cells. Data are plotted as the percent of Illumina sequencing reads containing indels at the target site. Mutations are categorized as frameshift (fs, yellow bar) or non-frameshift (nfs, orange bar). (G) Myd88 mRNA quantification of constitutive Cas9-expressing DCs transduced with either Myd88-targeting sgRNA (sgMyd88-1 or sgMyd882) or controls (CTR, average of six control sgRNAs), showing reduced expression only in Myd88-targeted cells. Data are plotted as Myd88 mRNA levels from Nanostring nCounter analysis. (H) Immunoblot of constitutive Cas9-expressing DCs transduced with either Myd88-targeting sgRNA (sgMyd88-1 or sgMyd88-2) or controls (four control sgRNAs), showing depletion of MyD88 protein only in Myd88-targeted cells. b-actin was used as a loading control. (*) Overexposed, repeated-measurement. (I) Nanostring nCounter analysis of constitutive Cas9-expressing DCs transduced with either Myd88-targeting sgRNA (sgMyd88-1 or sgMyd882) or shRNA (shMyd88), A20-targeting sgRNA (sgA20-1 or sgA20-2), or shRNA (shA20), showing analtered LPS response.(Inset)Theclustershowing the highest difference between Myd88- and A20 targeting sgRNAs, including key inflammatory genes(IL1a,IL1b,Cxcl1,Tnf,etc.).(Red)High;(blue) low; (white) unchanged; based on fold change relative to measurements with six control sgRNAs. See also Figure S2.

Figure 5. In Vivo Tumor Formation in AAV9-KPL-Injected Mice (A) Lung mCT images of Cre-dependent Cas9 mice injected with either AAV9-KPL or AAV9-sgLacZ 2 months posttransduction, showing tumor formation (indicated by the arrowhead) only in AAV9-KPL injected mice. (B)LungmCT3DrenderingofCre-dependent Cas9 mice injected with AAV9-KPL 2 months posttransduction, showing tumor formation (indicated by a yellow oval). (C) Major tumor burden quantification of Cre-dependent Cas9 mice injected with either AAV9-KPL or AAV9-sgLacZ, showing significant tumor burden in AAV9KPL-injected mice. Data are plotted as mean ± SEM. **p < 0.005. (D) Representative lung H&E images of Cre-dependent Cas9 mice injected with either AAV9-KPL or AAV9-sgLacZ 9 weeks posttransduction, showing heterogeneous tumor formation in AAV9-KPL-injected mice. Arrowheads highlight a representative subset of tumors within the lungs of AAV9-KPL injected mice.

Development and Applications of CRISPR-Cas9 for Genome Engineering
Zhu PD, Lander ES, Zhang F
Cell Jun 5, 2014; 157:1262-1278
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2014.05.010

Figure 1. Applications of Genome Engineering Genetic and epigenetic control of cells with genome engineering technologies is enabling a broad range of applications from basic biology to biotechnology and medicine. (Clockwise from top) Causal genetic mutations or epigenetic variants associated with altered biological function or disease phenotypes can nowberapidlyandefficientlyrecapitulated inanimalorcellularmodels (Animal models, Genetic variation). Manipulating biological circuits couldalso facilitate the generation of useful synthetic materials, such as algae-derived, silicabased diatoms for oral drug delivery (Materials). Additionally, precise genetic engineering of important agricultural crops could confer resistance to environmental deprivation or pathogenic infection, improving food security while avoiding the introduction of foreign DNA (Food). Sustainable and cost-effective biofuels are attractive sources for renewable energy, which could be achieved by creating efficient metabolic pathways for ethanol production in algae or corn (Fuel). Direct in vivo correction of genetic or epigenetic defects in somatic tissue would be permanent genetic solutions that address the root cause of genetically encoded disorders (Gene surgery). Finally, engineering cells to optimize high yield generation of drug precursors in bacterial factories could significantly reduce the cost and accessibility of useful therapeutics (Drug development).

Figure 2. Genome Editing Technologies Exploit Endogenous DNA Repair Machinery (A) DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) are typically repaired by nonhomologous end-joining (NHEJ) or homology-directed repair (HDR). In the errorprone NHEJ pathway, Ku heterodimers bind to DSB ends and serve as a molecular scaffold for associated repair proteins. Indels are introduced when the complementary strands undergo end resection and misaligned repair due to microhomology, eventually leading to frameshift mutations and gene knockout. Alternatively, Rad51 proteins may bind DSB ends during the initial phase of HDR, recruiting accessory factors that direct genomic recombination with homology arms on an exogenous repair template. Bypassing the matching sister chromatid facilitates the introduction of precise gene modifications. (B) Zinc finger (ZF) proteins and transcription activator-like effectors (TALEs) are naturally occurring DNA-binding domains that can be modularly assembled to target specific sequences. ZF and TALE domains each recognize 3 and 1 bp of DNA, respectively. Such DNA-binding proteins can be fused to the FokI endonuclease to generate programmable site-specific nucleases. (C) The Cas9 nuclease from the microbial CRISPR adaptive immune system is localized to specific DNA sequences via the guide sequence on its guide RNA (red), directly base-pairing with the DNA target. Binding of a protospacer-adjacent motif (PAM, blue) downstream of the target locus helps to direct Cas9-mediated DSBs.

Figure 3. Key Studies Characterizing and Engineering CRISPR Systems Cas9 has also been referred to as Cas5, Csx12, and Csn1 in literature prior to 2012. For clarity, we exclusively adopt the Cas9 nomenclature throughout this Review. CRISPR, clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats; Cas, CRISPR-associated; crRNA, CRISPR RNA; DSB, double-strand break; tracrRNA, trans-activating CRISPR RNA.

Figure 4. Natural Mechanisms of Microbial CRISPR Systems in Adaptive Immunity Following invasion of the cell by foreign genetic elements from bacteriophages or plasmids (step 1: phage infection), certain CRISPR-associated (Cas) enzymes acquire spacers from the exogenous protospacer sequences and install them into the CRISPR locus within the prokaryotic genome (step 2: spacer acquisition). These spacers are segregated between direct repeats that allow the CRISPR system to mediate self and nonself recognition. The CRISPR array is a noncoding RNA transcript that is enzymatically maturated through distinct pathways that are unique to each type of CRISPR system (step 3: crRNA biogenesis and processing). In types I and III CRISPR, the pre-crRNA transcript is cleaved within the repeats by CRISPR-associated ribonucleases, releasing multiple small crRNAs. Type III crRNA intermediates are further processed at the 30 end by yet-to-be-identified RNases to produce the fully mature transcript. In type II CRISPR, an associated trans-activating CRISPR RNA (tracrRNA) hybridizes with the direct repeats, forming an RNA duplex that is cleaved and processed by endogenous RNase III and other unknown nucleases. Maturated crRNAs from type I and III CRISPR systems are then loaded onto effector protein complexes for target recognition and degradation. In type II systems, crRNA-tracrRNA hybrids complex with Cas9 to mediate interference. Both type I and III CRISPR systems use multiprotein interference modules to facilitate target recognition. In type I CRISPR, the Cascade complex is loaded with a crRNA molecule, constituting a catalytically inert surveillance complex that recognizes target DNA. The Cas3 nuclease is then recruited to the Cascade-bound R loop, mediating target degradation. In type III CRISPR, crRNAs associate either with Csm or Cmr complexes that bind and cleave DNA and RNA substrates, respectively. In contrast, the type II system requires only the Cas9 nuclease to degrade DNA matching its dual guide RNA consisting of a crRNA-tracrRNA hybrid.

Figure 5. Structural and Metagenomic Diversity of Cas9 Orthologs (A) Crystal structure of Streptococcus pyogenes Cas9 in complex with guide RNA and target DNA. (B) Canonical CRISPR locus organization from type II CRISPR systems, which can be classified into IIA-IIC based on their cas gene clusters. Whereas type IIC CRISPR loci contain the minimal set of cas9, cas1, and cas2, IIA and IIB retain their signature csn2 and cas4 genes, respectively. (C) Histogram displaying length distribution of known Cas9 orthologs as described in UniProt, HAMAP protein family profile MF_01480. (D) Phylogenetic tree displaying the microbial origin of Cas9 nucleases from the type II CRISPR immune system. Taxonomic information was derived from greengenes 16S rRNA gene sequence alignment, and the tree was visualized using the Interactive Tree of Life tool (iTol). (E) Four Cas9 orthologs from families IIA, IIB, and IIC were aligned by ClustalW (BLOSUM). Domain alignment is based on the Streptococcus pyogenes Cas9, whereas residues highlighted in red indicate highly conserved catalytic residues within the RuvC I and HNH nuclease domains.

Figure 6. Applications ofCas9 as aGenome Engineering Platform (A) The Cas9 nuclease cleaves DNA via its RuvC and HNHnucleasedomains,eachofwhichnicks a DNA strand to generate blunt-end DSBs. Either catalytic domain can be inactivated to generate nickase mutants that cause single-strand DNA breaks. (B) Two Cas9 nickase complexes with appropriatelyspacedtargetsitescanmimictargetedDSBs viacooperative nicks, doubling thelengthof target recognition without sacrificing cleavage efficiency. (C) Expression plasmids encoding the Cas9 gene and a short sgRNA cassette driven by the U6 RNA polymerase III promoter can be directly transfected into cell lines of interest. (D) Purified Cas9 protein and in vitro transcribed sgRNA can be microinjected into fertilized zygotes for rapid generation of transgenic animal models. (E) For somatic genetic modification, high-titer viral vectors encoding CRISPR reagents can be transduced into tissues or cells of interest. (F) Genome-scale functional screening can be facilitated by mass synthesis and delivery of guide RNA libraries. (G) Catalytically dead Cas9 (dCas9) can be converted into a general DNA-binding domain and fused to functional effectors such as transcriptional activators or epigenetic enzymes. The modularity of targeting and flexible choice of functional domains enable rapid expansion of the Cas9 toolbox. (H) Cas9 coupled to fluorescent reporters facilitates live imaging of DNA loci for illuminating the dynamics of genome architecture. (I) Reconstituting split fragments of Cas9 via chemical or optical induction of heterodimer domains, such as the cib1/cry2 system from Arabidopsis, confers temporal control of dynamic cellular processes.

Characterization and Optimization of the CRISPR/Cas System for Applications in Genome Engineering
http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:12407619

Two important advances in the last several decades have propelled our understanding of molecular processes far beyond descriptions of biology at macroscopic levels and fundamentally altered the way that we comprehend organisms, tissues, and cells. First, growing hand in hand with the exponential expansion of computing power, the development of genome sequencing technology, enabling high resolution mapping of DNA sequences, has allowed us to define, down to the nucleotide level, differences between multiple species, members of a species, and within an individual, between classes of cells, as well as diseased and malignant cells. At this point, our ability to make sense of this wealth of genomic information is only limited by our ability to make ever-more precise cellular and genomic alterations to which we may ascribe a phenotypic change. To achieve this, we have concurrently created tools that have allowed us to query the functions of genes and genetic variations from scales large to small by means of first random and then targeted mutagenesis, followed by increasingly refined means of manipulating either the genome directly or the activity of the genes themselves at the level of RNA or protein.

The ability to precisely manipulate the genome in a targeted manner is fundamental to driving both basic science research and development of medical therapeutics. Until recently, this has been primarily achieved through coupling of a nuclease domain with customizable protein modules that recognize DNA in a sequence-specific manner such as zinc finger or transcription activator-like effector domains. Though these approaches have allowed unprecedented precision in manipulating the genome, in practice they have been limited by the reproducibility, predictability, and specificity of targeted cleavage, all of which are partially attributable to the nature of protein-mediated DNA sequence recognition. It has been recently shown that the microbial CRISPR-Cas system can be adapted for eukaryotic genome editing. Cas9, an RNA guided DNA endonuclease, is directed by a 20-nt guide sequence via Watson-Crick base-pairing to its genomic target. Cas9 subsequently induces a double-stranded DNA break that results in targeted gene disruption through non-homologous end-joining repair or gene replacement via homologous recombination. Finally, the RNA guide and protein nuclease dual component system allows simultaneous delivery of multiple guide RNAs (sgRNA) to achieve multiplex genome editing with ease and efficiency.

The potential effects of off-target genomic modification represent a significant caveat to genome editing approaches in both research and therapeutic applications. Prior work from our lab and others has shown that Cas9 can tolerate some degree of mismatch with the guide RNA to target DNA base pairing. To increase substrate specificity, we devised a technique that uses a Cas9 nickase mutant with appropriately paired guide RNAs to efficiently inducing double-stranded breaks via simultaneous nicks on both strands of target DNA. As single-stranded nicks are repaired with high fidelity, targeted genome modification only occurs when the two opposite-strand nicks are closely spaced. This double nickase approach allows for marked reduction of off-target genome modification while maintaining robust on-target cleavage efficiency, making a significant step towards addressing one of the primary concerns regarding the use of genome editing technologies.

The ability to multiplex genome engineering by simply co-delivering multiple sgRNAs is a versatile property unique to the CRISPR-Cas system. While co-transfection of multiple guides is readily feasible in tissue culture, many in vivo and therapeutic applications would benefit from a compact, single vector system that would allow robust and reproducible multiplex editing. To achieve this, we first generated and functionally validated alternate sgRNA architectures to characterize the structure-function relationship of the Cas9 protein with the sgRNA in DNA recognition and cleavage. We then applied this knowledge towards the development and optimization of a tandem synthetic guide RNA (tsgRNA) scaffold that allows for a single promoter to drive expression of a single RNA transcript encoding two sgRNAs, which are subsequently processed into individual active sgRNAs.

A programmable genome editing tool fundamentally consists of two key elements: a DNA recognition domain conferring target specificity and a nuclease domain, ideally without any sequence specificity on its own. A key breakthrough came with the observation that the restriction enzyme FokI has molecularly distinct binding and cleavage domains, and that swapping of recognition domains could alter FokI targeting specificity. Prior to this realization, zinc fingers were discovered as a class of protein motifs in X. laevi, and found to be frequently occurring in mammalian cells as transcription factors where bind DNA in a modular, sequence specific manner. Each individual module of a Cys2-His2 zinc finger domain, the most commonly used ZF-type domain in genome engineering applications, contains approximately 30 amino acids that fold to interact with 3-bp of DNA.

With the creation of custom zinc-finger arrays capable of targeting any DNA sequence, either through stringing together of pre-defined modules with known, predicted 3bp-binding affinity or selection-based protocols with randomized ZF array libraries to account and optimize for inter-modular interactions, the pairing of the DNA-targeting ZF and FokI nuclease components created a new class of zinc finger nucleases (ZFNs) that quickly proved to be an adaptable and efficient method for targeting specific genomic loci in a variety of model organisms. While zinc finger technology can in theory target any specific genomic sequence, the difficulty of accurately predicting protein conformational folding and DNA-protein interactions prior to array assembly can make ZFN construction a somewhat tedious and costly process involving a substantial validation phase prior to practical use.

More recently, an analogous, simpler alternative was developed following the deciphering of the DNA recognition patterns of another class of proteins: the transcription activator-like effector proteins (TALEs). First observed in the rice pathogen Xanthomonas, these proteins consisted of naturally occurring modular arrays of 33-35 amino acid domains, each interacting with a single base pair. Although the single base discrimination of TALE modules compared to 3bp recognition in ZF domains provides greater ease and flexibility in designing TALE arrays to genomic targets, the inherently repetitive nature of TALE repeats posed a technical challenge that required the development of new assembly methodologies. Even so, given the modular separation of DNA recognition activity from nuclease or other effector domains, TALE-derived proteins have been able to quickly co-opt existing technology generated by the studies involving ZF proteins to similarly demonstrate effective genome editing capabilities in a wide variety of model organisms and systems.

One of the major limitations of the aforementioned genome-engineering technologies is their intrinsic dependence on protein-DNA interactions to drive specificity. As such, even after following rational design or thorough in vitro selection processes, it is necessary to perform extensive in vitro validation as protein activity and affinity may vary depending on the specific context in unpredictable ways. Practically, these factors necessitate the construction of multiple sets of TALENs or ZFNs for each locus targeted and, as a consequence, make high-throughput screening applications less tractable.

Although not directly manipulating the genome, the use of small-interfering RNAs (siRNA) to modulate gene expression represents a powerful alternative technology that is not bound by many of the short-comings of these existing genome editing technologies and revolutionized our ability to functionally interrogate the genome. The foundational observation was first made in C. elegans, that the introduction of double-stranded RNA into a cell results in potent post- transcriptional silencing of gene or genes carrying sequences complementary to the exogenous sequence. There are a number of key features that made the RNAi approach particularly tractable and drove its widespread and rapid adoption in basic science research.

  1. RNAi is an extremely efficient method of gene silencing. It is not uncommon to achieve greater than 85% gene knockdown, which, while not complete, is often more than sufficient for inducing a phenotype by which to assess gene function.
  2. siRNA targeting is mediated by predictable Watson-Crick base-pairing. This has allowed the elucidation of design parameters to both maximize on-target silencing and minimize off-target effects. Additionally, the relative ease of designing and creating siRNA constructs allows for rapid prototyping and validation of new targets.
  3. the mechanism of siRNA action takes advantage of a highly-conserved endogenous pathway for processing small RNAs, which minimizes the amount of material that needs to be delivered for adequate effect.

This has had a number of key impacts including but not limited to the possibility of multiplexed delivery to silence more than a single gene at a time or to target a single gene with multiple siRNAs to maximize knock-down, as well as the generation of large siRNA libraries allowing the development of high-throughput screening methodologies for rapid phenotyping in different contexts. The efficacy, predictability, and generalizability of RNAi technologies provided it with enough compelling qualities to become a truly disruptive technology in the field of genome engineering.

Re-purposing the bacterial CRISPR/Cas system for genome editing

The RNA-guided CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats) endonuclease system was first observed in E. coli in 1987 by its striking eponymous genomic structure evolved as an adaptive immune system, bacteria and archaea use a set of CRISPR- associated (Cas) genes to incorporate exogenous material into the CRISPR locus, and subsequently transcribe them as RNA templates for targeted destruction of the mobile elements at either DNA or RNA level.

Three types of CRISPR systems have been identified to date, differing in their targets as well as mechanisms of action. Type I and III CRISPR systems employ an ensemble of Cas gene to carryout RNA processing, recognition of target, and cleavage33,34. By contrast, the type II CRISPRCas system makes use of a single endonuclease, Cas9, to locate and cleave target DNA. Cas9 is guided by a pair non-coding RNAs, a guide-bearing and variable crRNA and a required auxiliary transactivating crRNA (tracrRNA). The crRNA contains a 20-nt guide sequence, also known as a spacer, that determines target specificity by via Watson-Crick base-pairing with target DNA, followed by the invariant “direct repeat” portion that base-pairs with the “antirepeat” portion of the tracrRNA to form an RNA duplex. In the native bacterial system, multiple crRNAs are co-transcribed as a pre-crRNA array before being processed down to individual units for directing Cas9 against various targets. In the CRISPR-Cas system derived from Streptococcus pyogenes, the target DNA sequence always precedes a 5’-NGG protospacer adjacent motif (PAM), which can differ depending on the CRISPR system.

The S. pyogenes CRISPR-Cas system was the first to be reconstituted in mammalian cells through the heterologous expression of human codon-optimized Cas9 and the two RNA components. By altering the the 20-nt guide sequence within the sgRNA, Cas9 can be redirected toward any target bearing an appropriate PAM. Furthermore, elements from the crRNA and tracrRNA can be artificially linked to create a chimeric, single guide RNA (sgRNA), further simplifying the system for eukaryotic gene targeting.

At an overall structural level, Cas9 contains two nuclease domains, HNH and RuvC, each of which cleaves one strand of the target DNA. A mutation in either one of its catalytic domains converts Cas9 nuclease into a nickase, which has shown to induce single-stranded breaks for high-fidelity HDR applications, potentially ameliorating unwanted indel mutations from off target DSBs. Finally, a catalytically inactive or dead Cas9 (dCas9) with mutations in both DNA-cleaving catalytic residues can serve as an RNA-guided DNA-binding scaffold for localizing target effector domains that gene expression at the transcriptional level.

Engineering synthetic TALE and CRISPR-Cas9 transcription factors for regulating gene expression
Methods 2014; 69:188-197
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ymeth.2014.06.014

Fig.1. TheTAL effectorDNA-binding domain.(A) Through a DNA–protein interaction, each TALE repeatbinds one bp of DNA.TheTALE repeat is shown in blue, and the repeat variable di residue (RVD) at the 12th and 13th position are shown in green and red, respectively. (B) TALEs can be linked in tandem to recognize virtually any DNA sequence. The desired string of TALEs is then fused to an effector domain to induce a specific action at a predetermined DNA sequence. Crystal structure adapted from [60].

Fig. 2. The CRISPR/Cas9 DNA-binding domain. The Cas9 protein forms a complex with the gRNA, which recognizes a specific 20 bp DNA target sequence, known as the protospacer. A short sequence directly downstream from the protospacer, the protospacer adjacent motif (PAM),is requiredfor Cas9-mediated cleavage. ThePAM sequence is highly variable between different organisms (Table 2). With only two amino acid substitutions (D10A and H840A), Cas9 endonuclease activity can been eliminated while maintaining its RNA-guided DNA-binding activity. This deactivated Cas9 (dCas9) functions as a modular DNA-binding domain, similar to TALEs. RNA-guided transcriptional activators and repressors have been created by fusing dCas9 with different effector domains.

Fig.3. Golden gate assembly ofTALEs.Golden Gate assembly makesuse of type IIS restriction enzymes, including BsaI, BsmBI,and Esp3I, that cleave outside their recognition sequence to create unique overhangs. Therefore it is possible to digest and ligate multiple inserts into a destination plasmid with a single restriction enzyme in a single reaction. In step 1, single RVDs are excised from module plasmids and ligated into the desired array plasmid (sample overhangs are shown). This platform allows for construction ofup to 10RVDsinto each array plasmid. Importantly,the array plasmids confer spectinomycin resistance (SpecR) rather than tetracycline resistance (TetR). This ensures that only successfully assembled array plasmids are propagated. In step 2, the array plasmids and the last repeat (LR) plasmid are assembled in a second Golden Gate reaction to obtain the final desired TALE construct. Similar to step 1, in step 2 the final backbone vector confers ampicillin resistance (AmpR), rather than spectinomycin or tetracycline resistance, to ensure that only successfully assembled vectors are propagated. Replacement of the b-galactosidase expression cassette (LacZ) in the final step allows for blue-white screening of successful ligations. Figure adapted from [37].

Fig. 4. Custom gRNA cloning. The most common gRNA cloning methods make use of the BbsI type IIS restriction enzyme that cleaves outside its recognition sequence to create unique overhangs. Single stranded oligonucleotides containing each protospacer are annealed to create overhangs that are compatible with the BbsI sites in the destination vector. Upon ligation, the protospacer is inserted directly following the human U6 promoter and in front of the remainder of the chimeric gRNA sequence. The underlined G indicates the transcriptional start site.

The CRISPR/Cas9 gRNA Targeting System

The recent discovery of the CRISPR/Cas9 sysem has provided researchers an invaluable tool to target and modify any genomic sequence with high levels of efficacy and specificity. The system, consisting of a nuclease (Cas9) and a DNA-directed guide RNA (gRNA), allows for sequence-specific cleavage of target sequence containing a protospacer adaptor motif “NGG”. By changing the gRNA target sequence, virtually any gene sequence upstream of a PAM motif can be targeted by the CRISPR/Cas9 system, enabling the possibility of systematic targeting of sequences on a genomic scale. The most successful gene targeting using the CRISPR/Cas9 system is through expression of multiple gRNAs to guide the enzyme complex to several locations within the target gene to be cut or nicked.

The scalability of the Multiplex gRNA Cloning Kit allows for simultaneous cloning of two or more gRNAs at once into a single vector. This enables researchers to perform more advanced CRISPR/Cas9 techniques such as tandem double-nicking (4 gRNAs total) to remove defined genomic segments using Cas9 Nickase with significantly decreased chances for off-target effects.

The cloning of four gRNAs will require the researcher to perform three separate PCR reactions with separate primer pairs and blocks. Once the correct size amplicons are generated and gel-purified, they can be mixed at equimolar ratios (1:1:1) based on their concentrations and used as inserts in the subsequent fusion reaction with a suitable linearized destination vector.

https://www.systembio.com/downloads/Multiplex-gRNA-Cas9-system_ver5.pdf

https://www.systembio.com/images/How-quad-plex-cloning-works.jpg

https://www.addgene.org/static/data/easy-thumbnails/filer_public/cms/filer_public/7a/b2/7ab294b8-7f7a-4c30-8650-dbb520e2beb4/grna-and-cas9_1.jpg__600x277_q85_subsampling-2_upscale.png

Generation and utility of genetically humanized mouse models
Scheer N, Snaith M, Wolf CR, and Seibler J
Drug Discov Today 2013; 18(23/24):1200-1210
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.drudis.2013.07.007

Applications of genetically humanized mouse models
Type of humanized mouse model Applications
Proteins involved in drug metabolismand disposition Drug–drug interaction studies
Identification and safety assessmentof human metabolites

Assessment of drug bioavailability

and clearance
PKPD modelling

Proteins of the immune and hematopoietic system Studying infectious diseases
Vaccine development and testingStudying autoimmune disorders, ..

involving the immune system

Discovery and testing of antibodies

for therapeutic use

Supported engraftment of human

cells in mice

Proteins involved in pathogeninfection Studying human infectiousdiseases
Aneuploidies or chromosomalre-arrangements Studying human hereditarydiseases
Drug targets Efficacy testing
Human regulatory elements Studying human gene expressionand regulation
Human proto-oncogenes ortumor suppressor genes Cancerogenicity testing

Components of the major pathway for drug metabolism and disposition.

Ligand-dependent activation of the xenobiotic receptors PXR, CAR, PPARa and AHR leads to a translocation to the nucleus and, together with their respective heterodimerization partners retinoic X receptor (RXR) and aryl hydrocarbon receptor nuclear translocator (ARNT), to binding of corresponding response elements and an induction of target genes.

Identifying Drug-Target Selectivity of Small-Molecule CRM1/XPO1 Inhibitors by CRISPR-Cas9 Genome Editing
JE Neggers, et al.
Chemistry & Biology , Jan 22, 2015; 22:107–116
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chembiol.2014.11.015

Figure 1. Generation of a Mutant XPO1C528S Cell Line Using CRISPR/Cas9 Genome Editing and Homologous Recombination (A) A schematic presentation of the two SINE compounds KPT-185 and KPT-330. (B) Schematic overview of the CRISPR/Cas9induced homologous recombination of human XPO1. Exons are represented by open thick arrows. The blue arrow indicates the sgRNA target site, and small arrowheads beneath the exons indicate forward and reverse PCR A or sequencing primersB.Thesiteofrecombinationis enlarged, and the location of the double strand break (scissors and arrow) is shown. Both the WT XPO1 and donor mutant template sequences are shown at the bottom (magenta, PAM motif; bold, cysteine 528 codon; red, template mutations; underlined, sgRNA sequence). (C) Sequencing chromatogram of genomic DNA of the XPO1 region around the targeted cysteine codon (in bold) from XPO1C528S cells (clone 6).See also Figure S1 and Table S1. (D) Partial protein sequence of XPO1 in WT and mutant XPO1C528S cells (clone 6). Residue 528 of XPO1 is shown in bold. (E) Sequencing chromatogram of the mRNA from XPO1C528S cells (clone 6) in the XPO1 region around the targeted cysteine codon. (F) Visualization of XPO1 protein expression in WT and mutant XPO1C528S cells (clone 6) by immunoblot with b-tubulin as loading control. (G) Relative comparison of XPO1 mRNA expression levels quantified with a probe specific to exon 2 of XPO1 (unpaired student’s t test p value, <0.0001). GAPDH and b-actin were used as internal controls. (H) Relative comparison of mean XPO1 protein expression in WT and XPO1C528S cells (clone 6) as measured by immunofluorescence staining and quantified by confocal fluorescence microscopy (unpaired student’s t test p value, <0.0001). Error bars indicate the 95% confidence interval.

Repurposing CRISPR as an RNA-Guided platform for sequence-specific control of gene expression
LS Qi. MH Larson, LA Gilbert, JA Duoda, et al.
Cell Feb 28, 2013; 152:1173–1183
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2013.02.022

Figure 1. Design of the CRISPR Interference System (A)Theminimalinterferencesystemconsistsofasingleproteinandadesigned sgRNA chimera. The sgRNA chimera consists of three domains (boxed region): a 20 nt complementary region for specific DNA binding, a 42 nt hairpin for Cas9 binding (Cas9 handle), and a 40 nt transcription terminator derived from S. pyogenes. The wild-type Cas9 protein contains the nuclease activity. The dCas9 protein is defective in nuclease activity. (B) The wild-type Cas9 protein binds to the sgRNA and forms a protein-RNA complex. The complex binds to specific DNA targets by Watson-Crick base pairing between the sgRNA and the DNA target. In the case of wild-type Cas9, the DNA will be cleaved due to the nuclease activity of the Cas9 protein. We hypothesize that the dCas9 is still able to form a complex with the sgRNA and bind to specific DNA target. When the targeting occurs on the protein-coding region, it could block RNA polymerase and transcript elongation. See also Figure S1

Figure 2. CRISPRi Effectively Silences Transcription Elongation and Initiation (A) The CRISPRi system consists of an inducible Cas9 protein and a designed sgRNA chimera. The dCas9 contains mutations of the RuvC1 and HNH nuclease domains. The sgRNA chimera contains three functional domains, as described in Figure 1. (B) Sequence of designed sgRNA (NT1) and the DNA target. NT1 targets the nontemplate DNA strand of the mRFP-coding region. Only the region surrounding the base-pairing motif (20 nt) is shown. Base-pairing nucleotides are shown in orange, and the dCas9-binding hairpin is in blue. The PAM sequence is shown in red. (C) CRISPRi blocks transcription elongation in a strand-specific manner. A synthetic fluorescence-based reporter system containing an mRFP-coding gene is inserted into the E.coli MG1655 genome (then sfA locus). Six sgRNAs that bind to either the template DNA strand or the nontemplate DNA strand are coexpressed with the dCas9 protein, with their effects on the target mRFP measured by in vivo fluorescence assay. Only sgRNAs that bind to the nontemplate DNA strand showed silencing (10- to 300-fold). The control shows fluorescence of the cells with dCas9 protein but without the sgRNA. (D) CRISPRi blocks transcription initiation. Five sgRNAs are designed to bind to different regions around an E.coli promoter (J23119). The transcription start site is labeled as +1. The dotted oval shows the initial RNAP complex that covers a 75 bp region from 55 to +20. Only sgRNAs targeting regions inside of the initial RNAP complex show repression (P1–P4). Unlike transcription elongation block, silencing is independent of the targeted DNA strand. (E) CRISPRi regulation is reversible. Both dCas9 and sgRNA (NT1) are under the control of an aTc-inducible promoter. Cell culture was maintained during exponential phase. At timeT=0, 1mM of a Tc was supplemented to cells with OD=0.001. Repression of target mRFP starts within 10min.The fluorescence signal decays in a way that is consistent with cell growth, suggesting that the decay is due to cell division. In 240 min, the fluorescence reaches the fully repressed level. At T= 370 min, a T cis washed away from the growth media, and cells are diluted back to OD = 0.001. Fluorescence starts to increase after 50 min and takes about 300 min to rise to the same level as the positive control. Positive control: always without the inducer; negative control: always with 1 mM aTc inducer. Fluorescence results in (C)–(E) represent average and SEM of at least three biological replicates. See also Figures S2 and S3.

Figure 3. CRISPRi Functions by Blocking Transcription Elongation (A) FLAG-tagged RNAP molecules were immunoprecipitated, and the associated nascent mRNA transcripts were sequenced. (Top) Sequencing results of the nascent
mRFP transcript in cells without sgRNA. (Bottom) Results in cells with sgRNA. In the presence of sgRNA, a strong transcriptional pause is observed 19 bp upstream of the target site, after which the number of sequencing reads drops precipitously. (B) A proposed CRISPRi mechanism based on physical collision between RNAP and dCas9-sgRNA. The distance from the center of RNAP to its front edge is ~19 bp, which matches well with our measured distance between the transcription pause site and 30 of sgRNA base-pairing region. The paused RNAP aborts transcription elongation upon encountering the dCas9-sgRNA roadblock.

Figure 4. Targeting Specificity of the CRISPRi System (A) Genome-scale mRNA sequencing (RNA-seq) confirms that CRISPRi targeting has no off-target effects. The sgRNA NT1 that bindsto the mRFP coding region is used. The dCas9, mRFP, and sfGFP genes are highlighted. (B)Multiple sgRNAs can independently silence two fluorescent protein reporters in the same cell. Each sgRNA specifically represses its cognate gene,but not the other gene. When both sgRNAs are present, both genes are silenced. Error bars represent SEM from at least three biological replicates. (C) Microscopic images for using two sgRNAs to control two fluorescent proteins. (Top) Bright-field images of the E. coli cells; (middle) RFP channel; (bottom) GFP channel. Coexpression of one sgRNA and dCas9 only silences the cognate fluorescent protein, but not the other. The knockdown effect is strong, as almost no fluorescence is observed from cells with certain fluorescent protein silenced. Scale bar, 10 mm. Control shows cells without any fluorescent protein reporters.

In vitro and in vivo growth suppression of human papillomavirus 16-positive cervical cancer cells by CRISPR-Cas9
S Zhen, L Hua, et al.
BBRC 2014; 450:1422-1426
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bbrc.2014.07.014

Fig. 4. Suppression of in vivo growth of SiHa cells in BALB/c nude mice by CRISPR/ Cas9. (A) In vivo tumor growth curves of CRISPR/Cas9 systems-treated SiHa cells. The mean tumor volumes ± SD (bars) are shown at the times that tumor measurements were made (n = 6). (B) Tumor weight 10 weeks after inoculation. All tumors were excised and weighted.

One-Step Generation of Mice Carrying Mutations in Multiple Genes by CRISPR-Cas-mediated genome engineering
Wang H, Yang H, et al.
Cell  2013; 153:910-918
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2013.04.025

Figure 2. Single- and Double-Gene Targeting In Vivo by Injection into Fertilized Eggs (A) Genotyping of Tet1 single-targeted mice. (B) Upper: genotyping of Tet2 single-targeted mice. RFLP analysis; lower: Southern blot analysis. (C) The sequence of both alleles of targeted gene in Tet1 biallelic mutant mouse 2 and Tet2 biallelic mutant mouse 4. (D) Genotyping of Tet1/Tet2 double-mutant mice. Analysis of mice 1 to 12 is shown. Upper: RFLP analysis; lower: southern blot analysis. The Tet1 locus is displayed on the left and the Tet2 locus on the right. (E) The sequence of four mutant alleles from double-mutant mouse 9 and 10. PAM sequences are labeled in red. (F) Three-week-old double-mutant mice. All RFLP and Southern digestions and probes are the same as those used in Figure 1. See also Figures S2 and S3.

The impact of CRISPR–Cas9 on target identification and validation
JD Moore
Drug Discov Develop 2015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.drudis.2014.12.016

Gene editing with Cas9. (a) Knock-out generation via Cas9 and a single synthetic guide (sg)RNA. sgRNAs form Watson–Crick base pairs with target sequences recruiting the wild-type Cas9 nuclease. Cas9 generates double stranded breaks that are typically repaired by the imprecise NHEJ mechanism resulting in small insertions or deletions, most of which generate frameshift mutations. Transient expression of sgRNA plus Cas9 leads to editing of 2–25% of alleles. Derivative clones are analysed to find examples where Gene editing with Cas9. (a) Knock-out generation via Cas9 and a single synthetic guide (sg)RNA. sgRNAs form Watson–Crick base pairs with target sequences recruiting the wild-type Cas9 nuclease. Cas9 generates double stranded breaks that are typically repaired by the imprecise NHEJ mechanism resulting in small insertions or deletions, most of which generate frameshift mutations. Transient expression of sgRNA plus Cas9 leads to editing of 2–25% of alleles. Derivative clones are analysed to find examples where both alleles have been repaired with frame shift mutations. (b) Knock-out generation via Cas9 and a pair of sgRNAs. When wild-type Cas9 is expressed with a pair of sgRNAs targeting sites in the same region of a gene, simultaneous dual double-stranded breaks will be introduced in a fraction of cells. Repair via NHEJ will tend to delete the intervening sequence. (c) Knock-in generation using sgRNAs, donor DNA and either wild-type Cas9 or the Cas9-D10A nickase mutant. Wild-type Cas9 generates double stranded breaks that can be repaired by NHEJ generating indels or by homology-directed repair (HDR) leading to knock-in of mutations present on homology templates. The Cas9-D10A nickase mutant only generates single stranded breaks, which are not a substrate for the NHEJ pathway. However, these can be processed by HDR leading to the introduction of knock-in mutations. (d) Using the Cas9D10A nickase mutant to enhance the specificity of gene editing. The sgRNA shown in red also recruits Cas9 to partially mismatched off-target sites where wild-type Cas9 can efficiently introduce double stranded breaks leading to editing of an off-target exon.  More…

Repurposing CRISPR-Cas9 for in situ functional assays
Malina A, Mills JR, …, Pelletier J.
Genes & Development 2015; 27:2602–2614
http://www.genesdev.org/cgi/doi/10.1101/gad.227132.113

Figure 1. Genome editing of a TLR locus in 293Tcells using an engineered all-in-one type II CRISPR system. (A) Schematic diagram of LeGO-based lentivirus (pLC) constructs driving expression of Cas9 and sgRNAs. (B) Predicted secondary structure (http://rna.tbi. univie.ac.at/cgi-bin/RNAfold.cgi) of sgRNA showing alignment of trigger sequence with target and PAM. The first nucleotide of the trigger sequence is forcibly a G, since the sgRNA is expressed from the murine U6 promoter. (C) Schematic of TLR with the position and nucleotide sequence of the TLR trigger, PAM, and stop codon shown. (D) A genomically integrated TLR is efficiently targeted by pLC-TLR. Quantitation of 293T TLR cells transfected with the indicated Cas9/sgRNA expression constructs and, where indicated, in combination with D20 eGFP. (E) Immunoblot showing expression and subcellular localization of Cas9 from the experiment presented in D. (C) Cytoplasmic fraction; (M) membrane fraction; (N) nuclear fraction. Blots were probed with the antibodies indicated below each panel. (F) Lentiviral-mediated NHEJ and HDR in 293T TLR cells. Cells were infected with lentivirus expressing Cas9 and the corresponding sgRNA and analyzed by flow cytometry 6 d later. The D20 eGFP donor plasmid was introduced by transfection 1 d prior to transduction with the Cas9/sgRNA lentiviral construct.

Figure 2. Cas9-mediated editing of Trp53 in Arf[1]/[1] MEFs leads to Nutlin-3a resistance. (A) Schematic diagram of the pQ-based retroviral constructs driving expression of Cas9, GFP, and sgRNAs (pQCiG). (B) Flow cytometric analysis of Arf[1]/[1] and p53[1]/[1] MEFs transduced with QCiG-Rosa, QCiG-p53, or MLP-p53.1224 retroviruses, cultured 3 d later in the presence of vehicle or 10 mM Nutlin-3a for 24 h, and then allowed to recover for 4 d. (C) Colony formation assay of infected Arf[1]/[1] and p53[1]/[1] MEFs with QCiG-Rosa, QCiGp53, or MLP-p53.1224. Five-thousand cells were seeded, exposed to 10 mM Nutlin-3a for 24 h, and allowed to recover for 12 d in the absence of drug, at which point they were stained with crystal violet. (D) SURVEYOR assay of DNA isolated from QCiG-p53- and QCiG-Rosa-infected Arf[1]/[1] MEFs exposed to 10 mM Nutlin-3a for 24 h and allowed to recover for 4 d. The arrowhead denotes the expected SURVEYOR cleavage products. (E) Immunoblot documenting Cas9 and p53 expression in QCiG- and MLP-infected MEFs. The asterisk denotes the position of a prominent p53 truncated product

Figure 3. Cas9-mediated editing of Trp53 in Arf[1]/[1]Em-myc lymphomas is positively selected for following DXR treatment in vivo. (A) Schematic diagram of in vivo fitness assay. (B) Kaplan-Meier analysis of tumor-free survival of mice injected with Rosa26 or Trp53 Cas9 targeted Arf[1]/[1]Em-myc and p53[1]/[1]Em-myc lymphomas following treatment with DXR. (C) Detection of GFP in tumors arising from QCiG-p53-infected Arf[1]/[1]Em-myc lymphomas following exposure to DXR and analyzed 3 d later. White arrows denote GFP fluorescence in lymph nodes originating from the presence of QCiG-p53 in the resulting tumors. (D) FACS analysis of the indicated Cas9 targeted Em-myc lymphomas analyzed before injection into mice (input), from tumors arising in vivo (pre-DXR), and from tumors for which the host had received DXR treatment (post-DXR). (E) SURVEYOR assay of DNA from QCiG-p53- and QCiG-Rosa-infected Arf-/-Em-myc lymphomas isolated from mice prior to DXR treatment. (F) Immunoblot showing long-term Cas9, p53, and GFP expression in QCiG-Rosa and QCiG-p53 Arf-/-Em-Myc lymphomas in vivo. Samples are from three separate tumors isolated prior to (pre-DXR) or following (post-DXR) DXR treatment. In the case of post-DXR samples for QCiG-Rosa Arf-/-Em-myc lymphomas, tumors were harvested after relapse (~10 d after post-DXR treatment). The asterisk highlights a truncated p53 protein arising in the Cas9 edited samples.

Figure 4. Analysis of indels at the Trp53 locus and at predicted off-target sites in Arf-/-MEFs and Arf-/-Em-myc tumors edited with Rosa26 and Trp53 sgRNAs. (A) Total count and location of insertions and deletions in exon 7 of Trp53 in Arf-/-Em-myc cells prior to injection, post-implantation, and post-DXR treatment, respectively. The vertical dashed line represents the predicted Cas9 cleavage site. (B) Frequency of mutant reads obtained following sequencing of Trp53 exon 7 from the indicated cells and tumors. T-1, T-2, and T-3 represent three independent tumors. (C, top panel) Sequence alignment of the trigger site in the Trp53 and Trp53 pseudogene. Differences are highlighted in green. (Bottom panel) Pie charts illustrating the proportion of mutated sequence reads at Trp53 (left) and the Trp53 pseudogene (right) relative to wild-type sequences (wt; blue). DNA was isolated from samples of Arf-/-Em-myc lymphoma cells infected with QCiG-Rosa-infected (top), QCiG-p53-infected (middle), or QCiG-p53-infected cells that were exposed to 10 mM Nutlin-3a for 3 d followed by a 10-d recovery period (bottom). (D) Prediction of genomic sequences showing sequences complementary to the first 13 perfectly matched nucleotides 59 to the PAM of the Trp53 trigger sequence with all possible combinations of PAM. The trigger sequence is shown in blue, PAM is in red, and flanking nucleotides are in black. The genomic location is shown at the right. (E) Percent mutant reads at the indicated genomic locus in Rosa26- and Trp53-modified Arf-/- MEFs. The total read count for each amplified region ranged from ;11,000 to 15,000 (sample #8), ;18,000 to 23,000 (sample #7), and ;20,000 to 53,000 (all others). Read counts for locus #2 are absent, since the barcode that had been used in the preparation of that sample could not be deciphered from the output of reads.

TALE nucleases- tailored genome engineering made easy
Mussolino C, Cathomen T
Current Opinion in Biotechnology 2012; 23:644–650
http://dx.doi.10.1016/j.copbio.2012.01.013

Generation of customized TALENs by ‘Golden Gate’ cloning. Dependent on the user-defined target sequence, the respective repeat units with desired specificities can be assembled using a two-step ‘Golden Gate’ cloning protocol. A TALEN monomer is generated by incorporating the TALE designer array in a TALEN backbone, which contains an N-terminal NLS, the ‘0 repeat’ binding to the 50-T nucleotide, the 17.5 ‘half-repeat’, and the terminal FokI cleavage domain (N).

TALEN or Cas9 – Rapid, efficient and specific choices for genome modifications
Wei C, Liu J, et al.
J Genetics and Genomics 40 (2013) 281e289
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jgg.2013.03.013

Fig. 1. Schematic principles of TALEN- and CRISPR/Cas9-mediated genomic modifications. A: a single TALEN consists of an N-terminal domain including a nuclear localization signal (NLS, blue); a central domain typically composed of tandem TALE repeats (green) for the recognition of a specific DNA sequence; and a C-terminal domain of the functional endonuclease Fok I (black). Each TALE repeat comprises of a 34-amino-acid unit that differs at the position of 12th and 13th amino acids: NG (recognizing T), NI (recognizing A), HD (recognizing C), or NN (recognizing G) (color boxes). B: double-strand breaks (DSBs) that are resulted from the cut by dimeric Fok I can be repaired either by non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) to yield indels or by homologous recombination (HR) with available homologous donor templates. The red star indicates where indels occur. C: the CRISPR/Cas9 system consists of a group of CRISPR-associated (Cas) genes (arrows with the direction to the right) and a CRISPR locus that contains an array of repeats (dark diamonds) e spacer (color boxes) sequences. All repeats are the same in sequence and all spacers are different and complementary to their target DNA sequences. The tracrRNA (trans-activating crRNA, arrow on the most left) can help to produce the crRNA (CRISPR RNA). D: the Cas9 protein (blue) binds to crRNA (orange) and tracrRNA (purple) to form a ribonucleoprotein complex. The crRNA sequence guides this complex to a complementary sequence in the target DNA (black). Then the HNH and RuvC domains of Cas9 nick the complementary and non-complementary strands, respectively, making a DSB. PAM: protospacer adjacent motif NGG (yellow box). gRNA: guiding RNA. NCC is a complementary motif of the PAM motif (NGG).

Table 1 Comparison of TALEN- and CRISPR/Cas9-mediated genomic modifications e principles and applications

TALEN CRIPR/Cas9
Target-binding principle Protein-DNA specific recognition Watson Crick complementary rule
Working mode TALE specifically recognizes the target DNA and dimeric Fok I makes the DSB, which is repaired by NHEJ or HR Guide RNA specifically recognizes the target DNA and Cas9 makes the DSB, which is repaired by NHEJ or HR
Essential components TALE-Fok I fusion protein Guide RNA and Cas9
Off-target effects Minor effects Not determined
Efficiency High but variable High but variable
Target site availability No restriction PAM (NGG) motif restriction
Work in pair/dimmer Yes No
Inheritability in animals Yes Not determined
3D structure Yes Yes
Time to construct 5-7 d 1-3 d
Origin discovery Plant pathogen E. coli

Genome-Scale CRISPR-Mediated Control of Gene Repression and Activation
Gilbert LA, et al.
Cell, Oct 23, 2014; 159: 647–661
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2014.09.029

Figure 1. A Tiling sgRNA Screen Defines Rules for CRISPRi Activity at Endogenous Genes in Human Cells (A) Massively parallel determination of growth or toxin-resistance phenotypes caused by sgRNAs in mammalian cells expressing dCas9 or dCas9 fusion constructs. (B) UCSC genome browser tracks showing the genomic organization, GC content, and repetitive elements around the TSS of a representative gene, VPS54, across a 10 kb window targeted by the tiling sgRNA library. sgRNA ricin-resistance phenotypes (as Z scores, see Figure S1 and Experimental Procedures) in dCas9 and dCas9-KRAB expressing K562 cells are depicted in black on the top and bottom, respectively. See also Figure S2A for more examples. (C) Sliding-window analysis of all 49 genes targeted in a tiling sgRNA library. Green line: median sgRNA activity in a defined window for all genes. Orange region: observed average window of maximum CRISPRi activity. Data displayed as a phenotype signed Z score, excluding all guides longer than 22 bp. (D) CRISPRi activity for all 49 genes in defined windows relative to the TSS of each gene. (E) Ricin-resistance phenotypes, comparing CRISPRi sgRNAs selected by our rules to RNAi, for genes previously established to cause ricin-resistance phenotypes when knocked down by RNAi. Mean ± SD phenotype-signed Z score of 100 sets of 10 randomly subsampled sgRNAs or shRNAs. See also Figure S2F

Figure 2. CRISPRi Activity is Highly Sensitive to Mismatches Between the sgRNA and DNA sequence On- and off-target activity of dCas9, dCas9-KRAB and Cas9 for sgRNAs with a varying number and position of mismatches. Off-target activity of sgRNAs with mismatches is displayed as percent of the on-target activity for the corresponding sgRNA without mismatches. Asterisk indicates sgRNAs with three, four, or five mismatches randomly distributed across region 3 of the sgRNA sequence. Data are displayed for each mismatch position as the mean of all sgRNAs with that mismatch; see Figure S3 for individual sgRNA activities. sgRNAs were included in the analysis only if the fully matched guide was highly active (phenotype-signed Z score R 4); n = 5 for dCas9, n = 11 for dCas9-KRAB, and n = 10 for Cas9.

Figure 3. A Tiling sgRNA Screen Defines Rules for CRISPRa Activity at Endogenous Genes in Human Cells (A) A schematic of the dCas9-SunTag + scFV-VP64 + sgRNA system for CRISPRa. (B)ActivityofsgRNAsinK562cellsstablyexpressingeachcomponentofCRISPRa,asafunctionofthedistanceofthesgRNAsitetotheTSSofthetargetedgene (Phenotype-signed Z scores; therefore, negative values represent opposite results than from knockdown). Top, sgRNAs targeting VPS54; Bottom, slidingwindow analysis of all 49 genes targeted by our tiling library in green. Green line, median activity; orange, window of maximal activity. Guides longer than 22 bp were excluded. See also Figure S4. (C)CRISPRaphenotypesandCRISPRi(dCas9-KRAB)phenotypesareanticorrelated forselect genes.Foreachgene,aMann-Whitneypvalueiscalculatedusing CRISPRi/a sgRNA activity relative to a negative control distribution for 24 subsampled sgRNAs. Mean ± SD p value of 100 randomly subsampled sets is displayed. (D) CRISPRi knockdown and CRISPRa activation of the same gene can have opposing effects on ricin resistance in both primary screens and single sgRNA validation experiments (mean ± SD of 3 replicates). (E) Modulation of expression levels for 3 genes by CRISPRi and CRISPRa as quantified by qPCR plotted against the ricin-resistance phenotype (mean ± SD of 3 replicates) measured for each sgRNA.

Figure 4. Genome-Scale CRISPRi and CRISPRa Screens Reveal Genes Controlling Cell Growth (A) sgRNA phenotypes from a genome-scale CRISPRi screen for growth in human K562 cells (black). Three classes of negative control sgRNAs are color-coded: nontargeting sgRNAs (gray), sgRNAs targeting Y-chromosomal genes (green) and sgRNAs targeting olfactory genes (orange). (B) Coexpression of sgRNAs and dCas9-KRAB or dCas9-SunTag + scFV-VP64 is not toxic in K562 cell lines over 16 days. (C) Gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA) for hits from the CRISPRi screen. A histogram of gene distribution is shown under the GSEA curve. (D) CRISPRi versus CRISPRa gene phenotypes for genome-scale growth screens (black). For the 50 genes in the CRISPRa screen with the most negative growth phenotype, each gene was annotated and labeled based on evidence of activity as a tumor suppressor (orange), developmental transcription factor (green), or in regulation of the centrosome (purple). Two additional CRISPRi hit genes that are discussed in the text are labeled in red. See Table S4 for annotations and references. (E) GSEA for hits from the CRISPRa growth screen. A histogram of gene distribution is shown under the GSEA curve.

Figure 5. CRISPRi Gene Silencing Is Inducible, Reversible, and Nontoxic (A) Expression construct encoding an inducible KRAB-dCas9 fusion protein. (B) Western blot analysis of inducible KRAB-dCas9 in the absence, presence, and after washout of doxycycline. (C) Relative RAB1A expression levels (as quantified by qPCR) in inducible CRISPRi K562 cells transduced with RAB1A-targeting sgRNAs in the absence, presence, and after washout of doxycycline. Mean ± standard error of technical replicates (n = 2) normalized to control cells (assayed in the presence of doxycycline) from the day 2 time point. (D) Competitive growth assays performed with inducible CRISPRi K562 cells transduced with the indicated sgRNAs in the presence and absence of doxycycline. Data are represented as the mean ± SD of replicates (n = 3). See also Figure S5G. (E) A CRISPRi sublibrary screen for effects on cell growth was performed with inducible CRISPRi K562 cells in the presence and absence of doxycycline. (F) Cumulative growth curves from the sublibrary screen represented in (E) show no bulk changes to growth caused by induction of KRAB-dCas9. Mean ± SD of replicate infections each screened in duplicate.

Figure 6. Genome-Scale CRISPRi and CRISPRa Screens Reveal Known and New Pathways and Complexes Governing the Response to a Cholera-Diphtheria Fusion Toxin (A) Model for CTx-DTA binding, retrograde trafficking, retrotranslocation, and cellular toxicity. (B) Overview of top hit genes detected by the CTx-DTA screen. Dark red and blue circles: Top 50 sensitizing and protective hits, respectively. Light red and blue circles: further hits that fall into the same protein complexes or pathways as top 50 hits. Circle area is proportional to phenotype strength. White stars denote genes identified in a previous haploid mutagenesis screen (Guimaraes et al., 2011). See also Figure S6 for hit gene names. (C) CRISPRi and CRISPRa hits in sphingolipid metabolism. Display as in (B), except that the left and right sides of each circle represent the phenotypes in the CRISPRi and CRISPRa screens, respectively.

Figure 7. CRISPRi Strongly Represses Gene Expression of Both Protein-Coding and Noncoding Genes, Resulting in Reproducible Phenotypes (A–C) Cells expressing a negative control sgRNA or an sgRNA targeting SEL1L or B4GALNT1 were incubated with cholera toxin and fractionated to quantify cholera toxin present in the cytosolic and membrane fractions by western blot. B4GALNT1 repression blocks toxin uptake, whereas SEL1L repression prevents toxin retrotranslocation from the membrane fraction to the cytosol. (D) Validation of CTx-DTA screen phenotypes with single sgRNA retest experiments. Data are represented as the mean ± SD of replicates (n = 3). (E) CRISPRi knockdown of 13 hit genes (28 sgRNAs; sgRNAs correspond to 7D) identified in the CTx-DTA screen was quantified by qPCR. The gray shaded region denotes sgRNAs showing at least 90% knockdown for each gene. Data are normalized to a negative control sgRNA (NC). (F) CRISPRi knockdown of 6 lncRNA genes was quantified by qPCR. Two to three sgRNAs computationally predicted to target each gene were cloned and transduced into K562 cells expressing dCas9-KRAB. Data are normalized to a negative control sgRNA (NC). (G) K562 cells expressing dCas9-KRAB were transduced with either a nontargeting sgRNA or an sgRNA targeting the XIST locus (sgXIST-1). The cells were then stained with DAPI and an RNA FISH probe for the XIST transcript. Two hundred nonapoptotic interphase cells in each condition were scored for XIST RNA coating. XIST is undetectable in cells transduced with sgXIST-1. Scale bar, 5 mm

Other related articles published on this topic in this Open Access Online Scientific Journal include the following:

Advances in Gene Editing Technology: New Gene Therapy Options in Personalized Medicine

Curators: Stephen J Williams, PhD and Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2015/03/16/advances-in-gene-editing-technology-new-gene-therapy-options-in-personalized-medicine/

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts