Germline genome-editing research and its socioethical implications

Trends in Molecular Medicine

Volumn 21, Issue 8, 2015, Pages 473-481

  Ishii, Tetsuya ^a  

^a HOKKAIDO UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

Author keywords

CRISPR Cas9; Embryonic stem cells; Ethics; Genome engineering; Germline genome editing

Indexed keywords

MITOCHONDRIAL DNA;

CELL NUCLEUS TRANSPLANTATION; DNA END JOINING REPAIR; DNA SEQUENCE; EMBRYO DEVELOPMENT; EMBRYO RESEARCH; GENETIC DISORDER; GENETIC ENGINEERING; GENETIC PROCEDURES; GENETIC REGULATION; GENOME; GERMLINE GENOME EDITING; HUMAN; NONHUMAN; PARTHENOGENESIS; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; REVIEW; ANIMAL; ETHICS; GENOMICS; GERM CELL; HUMAN GENOME; LEGISLATION AND JURISPRUDENCE; PROCEDURES; RESEARCH; RESEARCH ETHICS;

MAMMALIA;

ANIMALS; ETHICS, RESEARCH; GENETIC ENGINEERING; GENOME; GENOME, HUMAN; GENOMICS; GERM CELLS; HUMANS; RESEARCH;

EID: 84938548186     PISSN: 14714914     EISSN: 1471499X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.molmed.2015.05.006     Document Type: Review

References (64)

1. Sasaki E., et al. Generation of transgenic non-human primates with germline transmission. Nature 2009, 459:523-527.
2. Niu Y., et al. Generation of gene-modified cynomolgus monkey via Cas9/RNA-mediated gene targeting in one-cell embryos. Cell 2014, 156:836-843.
3. Liu H., et al. TALEN-mediated gene mutagenesis in rhesus and cynomolgus monkeys. Cell Stem Cell 2014, 14:323-328.
4. Araki M., Ishii T. International regulatory landscape and integration of corrective genome editing into in vitro fertilization. Reprod. Biol. Endocrinol. 2014, 12:108.
5. Frankel M., Chapman A. Human Inheritable Genetic Modifications. Assessing Scientific, Ethical, Religious and Policy Issues 2000, American Association for the Advancement of Sciences.
6. Ishii T. Potential impact of human mitochondrial replacement on global policy regarding germline gene modification. Reprod. Biomed. Online 2014, 29:150-155.
7. Lanphier E., et al. Don't edit the human germ line. Nature 2015, 519:410-411.
8. Baltimore D., et al. A prudent path forward for genomic engineering and germline gene modification. Science 2015, 348:36-38.
9. ISSCR The ISSCR Statement on Human Germline Genome Modification 2015, International Society for Stem Cell Research.
10. Johnson M.H., et al. Why the Medical Research Council refused Robert Edwards and Patrick Steptoe support for research on human conception in 1971. Hum. Reprod. 2010, 25:2157-2174.
11. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Mitochondrial Donation) Regulations 2015 (coming into force on October 29, 2015) 2015, UK Government, The National Archives.
12. Kim H., Kim J.S. A guide to genome engineering with programmable nucleases. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2014, 15:321-334.
13. Palermo G.D., et al. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a novel treatment for all forms of male factor infertility. Fertil. Steril. 1995, 63:1231-1240.
14. Sung Y.H., et al. Knockout mice created by TALEN-mediated gene targeting. Nat. Biotechnol. 2013, 31:23-24.
15. Wang H., et al. One-step generation of mice carrying mutations in multiple genes by CRISPR/Cas-mediated genome engineering. Cell 2013, 153:910-918.
16. Ran F.A., et al. Double nicking by RNA-guided CRISPR Cas9 for enhanced genome editing specificity. Cell 2013, 154:1380-1389.
17. Mashimo T., et al. Efficient gene targeting by TAL effector nucleases coinjected with exonucleases in zygotes. Sci. Rep. 2013, 3:1253.
18. Yasue A., et al. Highly efficient targeted mutagenesis in one-cell mouse embryos mediated by the TALEN and CRISPR/Cas systems. Sci. Rep. 2014, 4:5705.
19. Yen S.T., et al. Somatic mosaicism and allele complexity induced by CRISPR/Cas9 RNA injections in mouse zygotes. Dev. Biol. 2014, 393:3-9.
20. Li C., et al. Simultaneous gene editing by injection of mRNAs encoding transcription activator-like effector nucleases into mouse zygotes. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2014, 34:1649-1658.
21. Yang H., et al. One-step generation of mice carrying reporter and conditional alleles by CRISPR/Cas-mediated genome engineering. Cell 2013, 154:1370-1379.
22. Wu Y., et al. Correction of a genetic disease in mouse via use of CRISPR-Cas9. Cell Stem Cell 2013, 13:659-662.
23. -/-IL2RgammaC-null mouse by combining in vitro fertilization and CRISPR/Cas9 technology. Sci. Rep. 2014, 4:5290.
24. Low B.E., et al. Correction of the Crb1rd8 allele and retinal phenotype in C57BL/6N mice via TALEN-mediated homology-directed repair. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2014, 55:387-395.
25. Long C., et al. Prevention of muscular dystrophy in mice by CRISPR/Cas9-mediated editing of germline DNA. Science 2014, 345:1184-1188.
26. Mizuno S., et al. Simple generation of albino C57BL/6J mice with G291T mutation in the tyrosinase gene by the CRISPR/Cas9 system. Mamm. Genome 2014, 25:327-334.
27. Mashiko D., et al. Feasibility for a large scale mouse mutagenesis by injecting CRISPR/Cas plasmid into zygotes. Dev. Growth Differ. 2014, 56:122-129.
28. Kasparek P., et al. Efficient gene targeting of the Rosa26 locus in mouse zygotes using TALE nucleases. FEBS Lett. 2014, 588:3982-3988.
29. Fujii W., et al. Efficient generation of genome-modified mice via offset-nicking by CRISPR/Cas system. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2014, 445:791-794.
30. Tesson L., et al. Knockout rats generated by embryo microinjection of TALENs. Nat. Biotechnol. 2011, 29:695-696.
31. Li W., et al. Simultaneous generation and germline transmission of multiple gene mutations in rat using CRISPR-Cas systems. Nat. Biotechnol. 2013, 31:684-686.
32. Yoshimi K., et al. Allele-specific genome editing and correction of disease-associated phenotypes in rats using the CRISPR-Cas platform. Nat. Commun. 2014, 5:4240.
33. Carlson D.F., et al. Efficient TALEN-mediated gene knockout in livestock. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2012, 109:17382-17387.
34. Wang Y., et al. Efficient generation of gene-modified pigs via injection of zygote with Cas9/sgRNA. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5:8256.
35. Hai T., et al. One-step generation of knockout pigs by zygote injection of CRISPR/Cas system. Cell Res. 2014, 24:372-375.
36. Proudfoot C., et al. Genome edited sheep and cattle. Transgenic Res. 2015, 24:147-153.
37. Liu Z., et al. Generation of a monkey with MECP2 mutations by TALEN-based gene targeting. Neurosci. Bull. 2014, 30:381-386.
38. Wu Y., et al. Correction of a genetic disease by CRISPR-Cas9-mediated gene editing in mouse spermatogonial stem cells. Cell Res. 2015, 25:67-79.
39. Chapman K.M., et al. Targeted germline modifications in rats ising CRISPR/Cas9 and spermatogonial stem cells. Cell Rep. 2015, 10:1828-1835.
40. Reddy P., et al. Selective elimination of mitochondrial mutations in the germline by genome editing. Cell 2015, 161:459-469.
41. Liang P., et al. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing in human tripronuclear zygotes. Protein Cell 2015, 6:363-372.
42. Gaj T., et al. Targeted gene knockout by direct delivery of zinc-finger nuclease proteins. Nat. Methods 2012, 9:805-807.
43. Kim S., et al. Highly efficient RNA-guided genome editing in human cells via delivery of purified Cas9 ribonucleoproteins. Genome Res. 2014, 24:1012-1019.
44. Tsai S.Q., et al. Dimeric CRISPR RNA-guided FokI nucleases for highly specific genome editing. Nat. Biotechnol. 2014, 32:569-576.
45. Fu Y., et al. Improving CRISPR-Cas nuclease specificity using truncated guide RNAs. Nat. Biotechnol. 2014, 32:279-284.
46. Kim D., et al. Digenome-seq: genome-wide profiling of CRISPR-Cas9 off-target effects in human cells. Nat. Methods 2015, 12:237-243.
47. Tsai S.Q., Zheng Z. GUIDE-seq enables genome-wide profiling of off-target cleavage by CRISPR-Cas nucleases. Nat. Biotechnol. 2015, 33:187-197.
48. Tachibana M., et al. Towards germline gene therapy of inherited mitochondrial diseases. Nature 2013, 493:627-631.
49. Paull D., et al. Nuclear genome transfer in human oocytes eliminates mitochondrial DNA variants. Nature 2013, 493:632-637.
50. Craven L., et al. Pronuclear transfer in human embryos to prevent transmission of mitochondrial DNA disease. Nature 2010, 465:82-85.
51. Ishii T., et al. Ethical and legal issues arising in research on inducing human germ cells from pluripotent stem cells. Cell Stem Cell 2013, 13:145-148.
52. Stern H.J. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis: prenatal testing for embryos finally achieving its potential. J. Clin. Med. 2014, 3:280-309.
53. Hou Y., et al. Genome analyses of single human oocytes. Cell 2013, 155:1492-1506.
54. Neocleous V., et al. Apparent homozygosity of p.Phe508del in CFTR due to a large gene deletion of exons 4-11. Case Rep. Genet. 2014, 2014:613863.
55. Squitieri F., et al. Homozygosity for CAG mutation in Huntington disease is associated with a more severe clinical course. Brain 2003, 126:946-955.
56. Chen H., et al. Regulation of male fertility by CFTR and implications in male infertility. Hum. Reprod. Update 2012, 18:703-713.
57. Edwards R.G., et al. Early stages of fertilization in vitro of human oocytes matured in vitro. Nature 1969, 221:632-635.
58. Edwards R.G., Sharpe D.J. Social values and research in human embryology. Nature 1971, 231:87-91.
59. Flood J.T., et al. Ooplasmic transfusion: prophase germinal vesicle oocytes made developmentally competent by microinjection of metaphase II egg cytoplasm. Fertil. Steril. 1990, 53:1049-1054.
60. Levron J., et al. The development of mouse zygotes after fusion with synchronous and asynchronous cytoplasm. Hum. Reprod. 1996, 11:1287-1292.
61. Cohen J., et al. Birth of infant after transfer of anucleate donor oocyte cytoplasm into recipient eggs. Lancet 1997, 350:186-187.
62. Barritt J.A., et al. Mitochondria in human offspring derived from ooplasmic transplantation. Hum. Reprod. 2001, 16:513-516.
63. Barritt J.A., et al. Rebuttal: interooplasmic transfers in humans. Reprod. Biomed. Online 2001, 3:47-48.
64. Zhang J., et al. Pregnancy derived from human nuclear transfer. Fertil. Steril. 2003, 80:56.