Genome Editing of Structural Variations: Modeling and Gene Correction

Trends in Biotechnology

Volumn 34, Issue 7, 2016, Pages 548-561

  Park, Chul Yong ^a   Sung, Jin Jea ^a   Kim, Dong Wook ^a  

^a Yonsei University College of Medicine   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Engineered nucleases; Gene correction; Genome editing; Inversion; Short nucleotide repeat; Translocation

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; NUCLEOTIDES;

ENGINEERED NUCLEASES; GENE CORRECTION; INVERSION; SHORT NUCLEOTIDE REPEAT; TRANSLOCATION;

GENES;

CRISPR ASSOCIATED PROTEIN; CRISPR ASSOCIATED PROTEIN 9; REPETITIVE DNA; TRANSCRIPTION ACTIVATOR LIKE EFFECTOR NUCLEASE; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG; ZINC FINGER NUCLEASE;

CHROMOSOME INVERSION; CHROMOSOME TRANSLOCATION; CRISPR CAS SYSTEM; GENETIC MODEL; GENETIC VARIABILITY; GENETIC VARIATION; GENOME; GENOME EDITING; HEMOPHILIA A; HUMAN; LUNG CANCER; NONHUMAN; NUCLEOTIDE REPEAT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; STRUCTURAL CHROMOSOME ABERRATION; TARGETED GENE REPAIR; TRINUCLEOTIDE REPEAT; CHROMOSOME ABERRATION; GENE EDITING; GENE THERAPY; HUMAN CHROMOSOME; HUMAN GENOME; PROCEDURES;

CHROMOSOME ABERRATIONS; CHROMOSOMES, HUMAN; GENE EDITING; GENETIC THERAPY; GENETIC VARIATION; GENOME, HUMAN; HUMANS;

EID: 84978319071     PISSN: 01677799     EISSN: 18793096     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2016.02.011     Document Type: Review

References (97)

1. Sauer B., Henderson N. Site-specific DNA recombination in mammalian cells by the Cre recombinase of bacteriophage P1. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 1988, 85:5166-5170.
2. Sadowski P.D. The Flp recombinase of the 2-microns plasmid of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Prog. Nucleic Acid Res. Mol. Bio. 1995, 51:53-91.
3. Branda C.S., Dymecki S.M. Talking about a revolution: the impact of site-specific recombinases on genetic analyses in mice. Dev. Cell 2004, 6:7-28.
4. Chevalier B.S., Stoddard B.L. Homing endonucleases: structural and functional insight into the catalysts of intron/intein mobility. Nucleic acids Res. 2001, 29:3757-3774.
5. Paques F., Duchateau P. Meganucleases and DNA double-strand break-induced recombination: perspectives for gene therapy. Curr. Gene Ther. 2007, 7:49-66.
6. Kim Y.G., et al. Hybrid restriction enzymes: zinc finger fusions to Fok I cleavage domain. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 1996, 93:1156-1160.
7. Kim H.J., et al. Targeted genome editing in human cells with zinc finger nucleases constructed via modular assembly. Genome Res. 2009, 19:1279-1288.
8. Urnov F.D., et al. Genome editing with engineered zinc finger nucleases. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2010, 11:636-646.
9. Christian M., et al. Targeting DNA double-strand breaks with TAL effector nucleases. Genetics 2010, 186:757-761.
10. Miller J.C., et al. A TALE nuclease architecture for efficient genome editing. Nat. Biotechnol. 2011, 29:143-148.
11. Gasiunas G., et al. Cas9-crRNA ribonucleoprotein complex mediates specific DNA cleavage for adaptive immunity in bacteria. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2012, 109:E2579-E2586.
12. Jinek M., et al. A programmable dual-RNA-guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity. Science 2012, 337:816-821.
13. Cong L., et al. Multiplex genome engineering using CRISPR/Cas systems. Science 2013, 339:819-823.
14. Mali P., et al. RNA-guided human genome engineering via Cas9. Science 2013, 339:823-826.
15. Cho S.W., et al. Targeted genome engineering in human cells with the Cas9 RNA-guided endonuclease. Nat. Biotechnol. 2013, 31:230-232.
16. Kim H., Kim J.S. A guide to genome engineering with programmable nucleases. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2014, 15:321-334.
17. Peng Y., et al. Making designer mutants in model organisms. Development 2014, 141:4042-4054.
18. Sander J.D., Joung J.K. CRISPR-Cas systems for editing, regulating and targeting genomes. Nat. Biotechnol. 2014, 32:347-355.
19. Cox D.B., et al. Therapeutic genome editing: prospects and challenges. Nat. Med. 2015, 21:121-131.
20. Tsai S.Q., et al. GUIDE-seq enables genome-wide profiling of off-target cleavage by CRISPR-Cas nucleases. Nat. Biotechnol. 2015, 33:187-197.
21. Kim D., et al. Digenome-seq: genome-wide profiling of CRISPR-Cas9 off-target effects in human cells. Nat. Methods 2015, 12:237-243.
22. Weischenfeldt J., et al. Phenotypic impact of genomic structural variation: insights from and for human disease. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2013, 14:125-138.
23. Zhang F., et al. Copy number variation in human health, disease, and evolution. Annu. Rev. Genomics Hum. Genet. 2009, 10:451-481.
24. Feuk L., et al. Structural variation in the human genome. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2006, 7:85-97.
25. Alkan C., et al. Genome structural variation discovery and genotyping. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2011, 12:363-376.
26. Feuk L. Inversion variants in the human genome: role in disease and genome architecture. Genome Med. 2010, 2:11.
27. Mills A.A., Bradley A. From mouse to man: generating megabase chromosome rearrangements. Trends Genet. 2001, 17:331-339.
28. Coquelle A., et al. Induction of multiple double-strand breaks within an hsr by meganucleaseI-SceI expression or fragile site activation leads to formation of double minutes and other chromosomal rearrangements. Oncogene 2002, 21:7671-7679.
29. Schweizer H.P. Applications of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae Flp-FRT system in bacterial genetics. J. Mol. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2003, 5:67-77.
30. Lee H.J., et al. Targeted chromosomal duplications and inversions in the human genome using zinc finger nucleases. Genome Res. 2012, 22:539-548.
31. Lee H.J., et al. Targeted chromosomal deletions in human cells using zinc finger nucleases. Genome Res. 2010, 20:81-89.
32. Carlson D.F., et al. Efficient TALEN-mediated gene knockout in livestock. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2012, 109:17382-17387.
33. Gupta A., et al. Targeted chromosomal deletions and inversions in zebrafish. Genome Res. 2013, 23:1008-1017.
34. Xiao A., et al. Chromosomal deletions and inversions mediated by TALENs and CRISPR/Cas in zebrafish. Nucleic acids Res. 2013, 41:e141.
35. Lim S., et al. A simple strategy for heritable chromosomal deletions in zebrafish via the combinatorial action of targeting nucleases. Genome Biol. 2013, 14:R69.
36. Ma S., et al. Multiplex genomic structure variation mediated by TALEN and ssODN. BMC genomics 2014, 15:41.
37. Bannister S., et al. TALENs mediate efficient and heritable mutation of endogenous genes in the marine annelid Platynereis dumerilii. Genetics 2014, 197:77-89.
38. Mussolino C., et al. TALENs facilitate targeted genome editing in human cells with high specificity and low cytotoxicity. Nucleic acids Res. 2014, 42:6762-6773.
39. Canver M.C., et al. Characterization of genomic deletion efficiency mediated by clustered regularly interspaced palindromic repeats (CRISPR)/Cas9 nuclease system in mammalian cells. J. Biol. Chem. 2014, 289:21312-21324.
40. Li J., et al. Efficient inversions and duplications of mammalian regulatory DNA elements and gene clusters by CRISPR/Cas9. J. Mol. Cell Biol. 2015, 7:284-298.
41. Kraft K., et al. Deletions, inversions, duplications: engineering of structural variants using CRISPR/Cas in mice. Cell Rep. 2015, 10:833-839.
42. Seruggia D., et al. Functional validation of mouse tyrosinase non-coding regulatory DNA elements by CRISPR-Cas9-mediated mutagenesis. Nucleic acids Res. 2015, 43:4855-4867.
43. Lupianez D.G., et al. Disruptions of topological chromatin domains cause pathogenic rewiring of gene-enhancer interactions. Cell 2015, 161:1012-1025.
44. Liu Y., et al. Highly efficient multiplex targeted mutagenesis and genomic structure variation in Bombyx mori cells using CRISPR/Cas9. Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. 2014, 49:35-42.
45. Ota S., et al. Multiple genome modifications by the CRISPR/Cas9 system in zebrafish. Genes Cells 2014, 19:555-564.
46. Horii T., et al. Genome engineering of mammalian haploid embryonic stem cells using the Cas9/RNA system. PeerJ 2013, 1:e230.
47. Qi Y., et al. Targeted deletion and inversion of tandemly arrayed genes in Arabidopsis thaliana using zinc finger nucleases. G3 2013, 3:1707-1715.
48. Shan Q., et al. Rapid and efficient gene modification in rice and Brachypodium using TALENs. Mol. Plant 2013, 6:1365-1368.
49. Gao J., et al. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated targeted mutagenesis in Nicotiana tabacum. Plant Mol. Biol. 2015, 87:99-110.
50. Fan D., et al. Efficient CRISPR/Cas9-mediated targeted mutagenesis in Populus in the first generation. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5:12217.
51. Zuris J.A., et al. Cationic lipid-mediated delivery of proteins enables efficient protein-based genome editing in vitro and in vivo. Nat. Biotechnol. 2015, 33:73-80.
52. 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.
53. Kanchiswamy C.N., et al. Non-GMO genetically edited crop plants. Trends Biotechnol. 2015, 33:489-491.
54. Lakich D., et al. Inversions disrupting the factor VIII gene are a common cause of severe haemophilia A. Nat. Genet. 1993, 5:236-241.
55. Bondeson M.L., et al. Inversion of the IDS gene resulting from recombination with IDS-related sequences is a common cause of the Hunter syndrome. Hum. Mol. Genet. 1995, 4:615-621.
56. Small K., et al. Emerin deletion reveals a common X-chromosome inversion mediated by inverted repeats. Nat. Genet. 1997, 16:96-99.
57. Inaki K., Liu E.T. Structural mutations in cancer: mechanistic and functional insights. Trends Genet. 2012, 28:550-559.
58. Park C.Y., et al. Targeted inversion and reversion of the blood coagulation factor 8 gene in human iPS cells using TALENs. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2014, 111:9253-9258.
59. Park C.Y., et al. Functional correction of large factor VIII gene chromosomal inversions in hemophilia A patient-derived iPSCs using CRISPR-Cas9. Cell Stem Cell 2015, 17:213-220.
60. Choi P.S., Meyerson M. Targeted genomic rearrangements using CRISPR/Cas technology. Nat. Commun. 2014, 5:3728.
61. Blasco R.B., et al. Simple and rapid in vivo generation of chromosomal rearrangements using CRISPR/Cas9 technology. Cell Rep. 2014, 9:1219-1227.
62. Maddalo D., et al. In vivo engineering of oncogenic chromosomal rearrangements with the CRISPR/Cas9 system. Nature 2014, 516:423-427.
63. Bunting S.F., Nussenzweig A. End-joining, translocations and cancer. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2013, 13:443-454.
64. Forster A., et al. Chromosomal translocation engineering to recapitulate primary events of human cancer. Cold Spring Harb. Symp. Quant. Biol. 2005, 70:275-282.
65. Qin M., et al. Cre recombinase-mediated site-specific recombination between plant chromosomes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 1994, 91:1706-1710.
66. Smith A.J., et al. A site-directed chromosomal translocation induced in embryonic stem cells by Cre-loxP recombination. Nat. Genet. 1995, 9:376-385.
67. Van Deursen J., et al. Cre-mediated site-specific translocation between nonhomologous mouse chromosomes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 1995, 92:7376-7380.
68. Buchholz F., et al. Inducible chromosomal translocation of AML1 and ETO genes through Cre/loxP-mediated recombination in the mouse. EMBO Rep. 2000, 1:133-139.
69. Collins E.C., et al. Inter-chromosomal recombination of Mll and Af9 genes mediated by cre-loxP in mouse development. EMBO Rep. 2000, 1:127-132.
70. Drynan L.F., et al. Mll fusions generated by Cre-loxP-mediated de novo translocations can induce lineage reassignment in tumorigenesis. EMBO J. 2005, 24:3136-3146.
71. Forster A., et al. Engineering de novo reciprocal chromosomal translocations associated with Mll to replicate primary events of human cancer. Cancer Cell 2003, 3:449-458.
72. Richardson C., Jasin M. Frequent chromosomal translocations induced by DNA double-strand breaks. Nature 2000, 405:697-700.
73. Weinstock D.M., et al. Induction of chromosomal translocations in mouse and human cells using site-specific endonucleases. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. Monogr. 2008, 20-24.
74. Brunet E., et al. Chromosomal translocations induced at specified loci in human stem cells. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2009, 106:10620-10625.
75. Piganeau M., et al. Cancer translocations in human cells induced by zinc finger and TALE nucleases. Genome Res. 2013, 23:1182-1193.
76. Renouf B., et al. Creating cancer translocations in human cells using Cas9 DSBs and nCas9 paired nicks. Methods Enzymol. 2014, 546:251-271.
77. Torres R., et al. Engineering human tumour-associated chromosomal translocations with the RNA-guided CRISPR-Cas9 system. Nat. Commun. 2014, 5:3964.
78. Lagutina I.V., et al. Modeling of the human alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma Pax3-Foxo1 chromosome translocation in mouse myoblasts using CRISPR-Cas9 nuclease. PLoS Genet. 2015, 11:e1004951.
79. Cho S.W., et al. Analysis of off-target effects of CRISPR/Cas-derived RNA-guided endonucleases and nickases. Genome Res. 2014, 24:132-141.
80. Do T.U., et al. Zinc finger nuclease induced DNA double stranded breaks and rearrangements in MLL. Mutat. Res. 2012, 740:34-42.
81. Simsek D., et al. DNA ligase III promotes alternative nonhomologous end-joining during chromosomal translocation formation. PLoS Genet. 2011, 7:e1002080.
82. Ghezraoui H., et al. Chromosomal translocations in human cells are generated by canonical nonhomologous end-joining. Mol. Cell 2014, 55:829-842.
83. Frock R.L., et al. Genome-wide detection of DNA double-stranded breaks induced by engineered nucleases. Nat. Biotechnol. 2015, 33:179-186.
84. McMurray C.T. Mechanisms of trinucleotide repeat instability during human development. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2010, 11:786-799.
85. Paques F., et al. Expansions and contractions in a tandem repeat induced by double-strand break repair. Mol. Cell. Biol. 1998, 18:2045-2054.
86. Richard G.F., et al. Double-strand break repair can lead to high frequencies of deletions within short CAG/CTG trinucleotide repeats. Mol. Gen. Genet. 1999, 261:871-882.
87. Richard G.F., et al. Recombination-induced CAG trinucleotide repeat expansions in yeast involve the MRE11-RAD50-XRS2 complex. EMBO J. 2000, 19:2381-2390.
88. Mittelman D., et al. Zinc-finger directed double-strand breaks within CAG repeat tracts promote repeat instability in human cells. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2009, 106:9607-9612.
89. Liu G., et al. Replication-dependent instability at (CTG) × (CAG) repeat hairpins in human cells. Nat. Chem. Biol. 2010, 6:652-659.
90. Richard G.F., et al. Highly specific contractions of a single CAG/CTG trinucleotide repeat by TALEN in yeast. PLoS ONE 2014, 9:e95611.
91. Huang W., et al. Tandem repeat modification during double-strand break repair induced by an engineered TAL effector nuclease in zebrafish genome. PLoS ONE 2013, 8:e84176.
92. An M.C., et al. Polyglutamine disease modeling: epitope based screen for homologous recombination using CRISPR/Cas9 system. PLoS Curr. 2014, Published online April 15, 2014. 10.1371/currents.hd.0242d2e7ad72225efa72f6964589369a.
93. Li Y., et al. Excision of expanded GAA repeats alleviates the molecular phenotype of Friedreich's ataxia. Mol. Ther. 2015, 23:1055-1065.
94. Park C.Y., et al. Reversion of FMR1 methylation and silencing by editing the triplet repeats in fragile X iPSC-derived neurons. Cell Rep. 2015, 13:234-241.
95. Xia G., et al. Genome modification leads to phenotype reversal in human myotonic dystrophy type 1 induced pluripotent stem cell-derived neural stem cells. Stem Cells 2015, 33:1829-1838.
96. An M.C., et al. Genetic correction of Huntington's disease phenotypes in induced pluripotent stem cells. Cell stem cell 2012, 11:253-263.
97. Ran F.A., et al. In vivo genome editing using Staphylococcus aureus Cas9. Nature 2015, 520:186-191.