Modeling and correction of structural variations in patient-derived iPSCs using CRISPR/Cas9

Nature Protocols

Volumn 11, Issue 11, 2016, Pages 2154-2169

  Park, Chul Yong ^a   Sung, Jin Jea ^a   Choi, Sang Hwi ^a   Lee, Dongjin R ^a   Park, In Hyun ^b   Kim, Dong Wook ^a  

^a Yonsei University College of Medicine   (South Korea)

^b YALE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

NUCLEASE;

ARTICLE; CHROMOSOME INVERSION; CHROMOSOME REARRANGEMENT; CLONE; CLUSTERED REGULARLY INTERSPACED SHORT PALINDROMIC REPEAT CAS 9; CONTROLLED STUDY; GENE DELETION; GENE ISOLATION; GENETIC ENGINEERING; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; INDUCED PLURIPOTENT STEM CELL; NUCLEOTIDE REPEAT; POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVERSE TRANSCRIPTION POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION; REVERTANT; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; CRISPR CAS SYSTEM; DNA END JOINING REPAIR; GENE REARRANGEMENT; GENETIC VARIATION; GENETICS; HUMAN GENOME; METABOLISM; NUCLEOTIDE SEQUENCE; PROCEDURES;

BASE SEQUENCE; CRISPR-CAS SYSTEMS; DNA END-JOINING REPAIR; GENE REARRANGEMENT; GENETIC ENGINEERING; GENETIC VARIATION; GENOME, HUMAN; HUMANS; INDUCED PLURIPOTENT STEM CELLS; MODELS, GENETIC; REPETITIVE SEQUENCES, NUCLEIC ACID;

EID: 84992608962     PISSN: 17542189     EISSN: 17502799     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nprot.2016.129     Document Type: Article

References (83)

1. Takahashi, K. & Yamanaka, S. Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors. Cell 126, 663-676 (2006).
2. Robinton, D.A. & Daley, G.Q. The promise of induced pluripotent stem cells in research and therapy. Nature 481, 295-305 (2012).
3. Watanabe, K. et al. A ROCK inhibitor permits survival of dissociated human embryonic stem cells. Nat. Biotechnol. 25, 681-686 (2007).
4. Ludwig, T.E. et al. Feeder-independent culture of human embryonic stem cells. Nat. Methods 3, 637-646 (2006).
5. Kim, Y.G., Cha, J. & Chandrasegaran, S. Hybrid restriction enzymes: zinc finger fusions to Fok I cleavage domain. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 93, 1156-1160 (1996).
6. Miller, J.C. et al. A TALE nuclease architecture for efficient genome editing. Nat. Biotechnol. 29, 143-148 (2011).
7. Jinek, M. et al. A programmable dual-RNA-guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity. Science 337, 816-821 (2012).
8. Cong, L. et al. Multiplex genome engineering using CRISPR/Cas systems. Science 339, 819-823 (2013).
9. Mali, P. et al. RNA-guided human genome engineering via Cas9. Science 339, 823-826 (2013).
10. Hendriks, W.T., Warren, C.R. & Cowan, C.A. Genome editing in human pluripotent stem cells: Approaches, pitfalls, and solutions. Cell Stem Cell 18, 53-65 (2016).
11. Symington, L.S. & Gautier, J. Double-strand break end resection and repair pathway choice. Annu. Rev. Genet. 45, 247-271 (2011).
12. Alkan, C., Coe, B.P. & Eichler, E.E. Genome structural variation discovery and genotyping. Nat. Rev. Genet. 12, 363-376 (2011).
13. Stankiewicz, P. & Lupski, J.R. Structural variation in the human genome and its role in disease. Annu. Rev. Med. 61, 437-455 (2010).
14. Weischenfeldt, J., Symmons, O., Spitz, F. & Korbel, J.O. Phenotypic impact of genomic structural variation: insights from and for human disease. Nat. Rev. Genet. 14, 125-138 (2013).
15. Forster, A. et al. Chromosomal translocation engineering to recapitulate primary events of human cancer. Cold Spring Harb. Symp. Quant. Biol. 70, 275-282 (2005).
16. Park, C.Y., Sung, J.J. & Kim, D.W. Genome editing of structural variations: modeling and gene correction. Trends Biotechnol. 34, 548-561 (2016).
17. Kim, H. & Kim, J.S. A guide to genome engineering with programmable nucleases. Nat. Rev. Genet. 15, 321-334 (2014).
18. Mojica, F.J., Diez-Villasenor, C., Garcia-Martinez, J. & Almendros, C. Short motif sequences determine the targets of the prokaryotic CRISPR defence system. Microbiology 155, 733-740 (2009).
19. Hou, Z. et al. Efficient genome engineering in human pluripotent stem cells using Cas9 from Neisseria meningitidis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110, 15644-15649 (2013).
20. Fonfara, I. et al. Phylogeny of Cas9 determines functional exchangeability of dual-RNA and Cas9 among orthologous type II CRISPR-Cas systems. Nucleic Acids Res. 42, 2577-2590 (2014).
21. Kleinstiver, B.P. et al. Engineered CRISPR-Cas9 nucleases with altered PAM specificities. Nature 523, 481-485 (2015).
22. Slaymaker, I.M. et al. Rationally engineered Cas9 nucleases with improved specificity. Science 351, 84-88 (2016).
23. Kleinstiver, B.P. et al. High-fidelity CRISPR-Cas9 nucleases with no detectable genome-wide off-Target effects. Nature 529, 490-495 (2016).
24. Ran, F.A. et al. In vivo genome editing using Staphylococcus aureus Cas9. Nature 520, 186-191 (2015).
25. Cox, D.B., Platt, R.J. & Zhang, F. Therapeutic genome editing: prospects and challenges. Nat. Med. 21, 121-131 (2015).
26. Hockemeyer, D. & Jaenisch, R. Induced pluripotent stem cells meet genome editing. Cell Stem Cell 18, 573-586 (2016).
27. Xue, W. et al. CRISPR-mediated direct mutation of cancer genes in the mouse liver. Nature 514, 380-384 (2014).
28. Sanchez-Rivera, F.J. et al. Rapid modelling of cooperating genetic events in cancer through somatic genome editing. Nature 516, 428-431 (2014).
29. 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 17, 213-220 (2015).
30. Park, C.Y. et al. Reversion of FMR1 methylation and silencing by editing the triplet repeats in fragile X iPSC-derived neurons. Cell Rep. 13, 234-241 (2015).
31. Mills, A.A. & Bradley, A. From mouse to man: generating megabase chromosome rearrangements. Trends Genet. 17, 331-339 (2001).
32. Brunet, E. et al. Chromosomal translocations induced at specified loci in human stem cells. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106, 10620-10625 (2009).
33. Lee, H.J., Kim, E. & Kim, J.S. Targeted chromosomal deletions in human cells using zinc finger nucleases. Genome Res. 20, 81-89 (2010).
34. Lee, H.J., Kweon, J., Kim, E., Kim, S. & Kim, J.S. Targeted chromosomal duplications and inversions in the human genome using zinc finger nucleases. Genome Res. 22, 539-548 (2012).
35. Carlson, D.F. et al. Efficient TALEN-mediated gene knockout in livestock. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 109, 17382-17387 (2012).
36. Li, J. et al. Efficient inversions and duplications of mammalian regulatory DNA elements and gene clusters by CRISPR/Cas9. J. Mol. Cell Biol. 7, 284-298 (2015).
37. Kraft, K. et al. Deletions, inversions, duplications: engineering of structural variants using CRISPR/Cas in mice. Cell Rep. 10, 833-839 (2015).
38. Ota, S., Hisano, Y., Ikawa, Y. & Kawahara, A. Multiple genome modifications by the CRISPR/Cas9 system in zebrafish. Genes Cells 19, 555-564 (2014).
39. Liu, Y. et al. Highly efficient multiplex targeted mutagenesis and genomic structure variation in Bombyx mori cells using CRISPR/Cas9. Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. 49, 35-42 (2014).
40. Richard, G.F. Shortening trinucleotide repeats using highly specific endonucleases: A possible approach to gene therapy? Trends Genet. 31, 177-186 (2015).
41. Gatchel, J.R. & Zoghbi, H.Y. Diseases of unstable repeat expansion: mechanisms and common principles. Nat. Rev. Genet. 6, 743-755 (2005).
42. Mittelman, D. et al. Zinc-finger directed double-strand breaks within CAG repeat tracts promote repeat instability in human cells. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106, 9607-9612 (2009).
43. Liu, G., Chen, X., Bissler, J.J., Sinden, R.R. & Leffak, M. Replication-dependent instability at (CTG) x (CAG) repeat hairpins in human cells. Nat. Chem. Biol. 6, 652-659 (2010).
44. Huang, W., Zheng, J., He, Y. & Luo, C. Tandem repeat modification during double-strand break repair induced by an engineered TAL effector nuclease in zebrafish genome. PLoS One 8, e84176 (2013).
45. Richard, G.F. et al. Highly specific contractions of a single CAG/CTG trinucleotide repeat by TALEN in yeast. PLoS One 9, e95611 (2014).
46. Piganeau, M. et al. Cancer translocations in human cells induced by zinc finger and TALE nucleases. Genome Res. 23, 1182-1193 (2013).
47. Blasco, R.B. et al. Simple and rapid in vivo generation of chromosomal rearrangements using CRISPR/Cas9 technology. Cell Rep. 9, 1219-1227 (2014).
48. Choi, P.S. & Meyerson, M. Targeted genomic rearrangements using CRISPR/Cas technology. Nat. Commun. 5, 3728 (2014).
49. Maddalo, D. et al. In vivo engineering of oncogenic chromosomal rearrangements with the CRISPR/Cas9 system. Nature 516, 423-427 (2014).
50. Torres, R. et al. Engineering human tumour-Associated chromosomal translocations with the RNA-guided CRISPR-Cas9 system. Nat. Commun. 5, 3964 (2014).
51. 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. USA 111, 9253-9258 (2014).
52. Urnov, F.D. et al. Highly efficient endogenous human gene correction using designed zinc-finger nucleases. Nature 435, 646-651 (2005).
53. Porteus, M.H. & Baltimore, D. Chimeric nucleases stimulate gene targeting in human cells. Science 300, 763 (2003).
54. Rouet, P., Smih, F. & Jasin, M. Introduction of double-strand breaks into the genome of mouse cells by expression of a rare-cutting endonuclease. Mol. Cell. Biol. 14, 8096-8106 (1994).
55. Byrne, S.M., Ortiz, L., Mali, P., Aach, J. & Church, G.M. Multi-kilobase homozygous targeted gene replacement in human induced pluripotent stem cells. Nucleic Acids Res. 43, e21 (2015).
56. Hockemeyer, D. et al. Efficient targeting of expressed and silent genes in human ESCs and iPSCs using zinc-finger nucleases. Nat. Biotechnol. 27, 851-857 (2009).
57. Platt, R.J. et al. CRISPR-Cas9 knockin mice for genome editing and cancer modeling. Cell 159, 440-455 (2014).
58. Wu, Y. et al. In situ genetic correction of F8 intron 22 inversion in hemophilia A patient-specific iPSCs. Sci. Rep. 6, 18865 (2016).
59. 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 33, 1829-1838 (2015).
60. Meier, I.D. et al. Short DNA sequences inserted for gene targeting can accidentally interfere with off-Target gene expression. FASEB J. 24, 1714-1724 (2010).
61. Vasquez, K.M., Marburger, K., Intody, Z. & Wilson, J.H. Manipulating the mammalian genome by homologous recombination. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98, 8403-8410 (2001).
62. Yoshimi, K. et al. ssODN-mediated knock-in with CRISPR-Cas for large genomic regions in zygotes. Nat. Commun. 7, 10431 (2016).
63. Ran, F.A. et al. Genome engineering using the CRISPR-Cas9 system. Nat. Protoc. 8, 2281-2308 (2013).
64. Zhou, T. et al. Generation of human induced pluripotent stem cells from urine samples. Nat. Protoc. 7, 2080-2089 (2012).
65. Muchkaeva, I.A. et al. Generation of iPS cells from human hair follice dermal papilla cells. Acta Naturae 6, 45-53 (2014).
66. Kim, H. et al. Surrogate reporters for enrichment of cells with nuclease-induced mutations. Nat. Methods 8, 941-943 (2011).
67. Ramakrishna, S. et al. Surrogate reporter-based enrichment of cells containing RNA-guided Cas9 nuclease-induced mutations. Nat. Commun. 5, 3378 (2014).
68. Urbach, A., Bar-Nur, O., Daley, G.Q. & Benvenisty, N. Differential modeling of fragile X syndrome by human embryonic stem cells and induced pluripotent stem cells. Cell Stem Cell 6, 407-411 (2010).
69. Okita, K. et al. A more efficient method to generate integration-free human iPS cells. Nat. Methods 8, 409-412 (2011).
70. Guschin, D.Y. et al. A rapid and general assay for monitoring endogenous gene modification. Methods Mol. Biol. 649, 247-256 (2010).
71. Wyvekens, N., Tsai, S.Q. & Joung, J.K. Genome editing in human cells using CRISPR/Cas nucleases. Curr. Protoc. Mol. Biol. 112, 31.3.1-31.3.18 (2015).
72. Hendriks, W.T., Jiang, X., Daheron, L. & Cowan, C.A. TALEN-And CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing in human pluripotent stem cells using lipid-based transfection. Curr. Protoc. Stem Cell Biol. 34, 5B.3.1-5B.3.25 (2015).
73. Cho, S.W. et al. Analysis of off-Target effects of CRISPR/Cas-derived RNA-guided endonucleases and nickases. Genome Res. 24, 132-141 (2014).
74. Koo, T., Lee, J. & Kim, J.S. Measuring and reducing off-Target activities of programmable nucleases including CRISPR-Cas9. Mol. Cells 38, 475-481 (2015).
75. Yang, L., Yang, J.L., Byrne, S., Pan, J. & Church, G.M. CRISPR/Cas9-directed genome editing of cultured cells. Curr. Protoc. Mol. Biol. 107, 31.1.1-17 (2014).
76. Tsai, S.Q. et al. GUIDE-seq enables genome-wide profiling of off-Target cleavage by CRISPR-Cas nucleases. Nat. Biotechnol. 33, 187-197 (2015).
77. Kim, D. et al. Digenome-seq: genome-wide profiling of CRISPR-Cas9 off-Target effects in human cells. Nat. Methods 12, 237-243 (2015).
78. Fu, Y., Sander, J.D., Reyon, D., Cascio, V.M. & Joung, J.K. Improving CRISPR-Cas nuclease specificity using truncated guide RNAs. Nat. Biotechnol. 32, 279-284 (2014).
79. Liu, J. et al. Efficient delivery of nuclease proteins for genome editing in human stem cells and primary cells. Nat. Protoc. 10, 1842-1859 (2015).
80. Fusaki, N., Ban, H., Nishiyama, A., Saeki, K. & Hasegawa, M. Efficient induction of transgene-free human pluripotent stem cells using a vector based on Sendai virus, an RNA virus that does not integrate into the host genome. Proc. Jpn Acad. Ser B Phys. Biol. Sci. 85, 348-362 (2009).
81. Marti, M. et al. Characterization of pluripotent stem cells. Nat. Protoc. 8, 223-253 (2013).
82. Ohnuki, M., Takahashi, K. & Yamanaka, S. Generation and characterization of human induced pluripotent stem cells. Curr. Protoc. Stem Cell Biol. Chapter 4 Unit 4A 2 (2009).
83. Beers, J. et al. Passaging and colony expansion of human pluripotent stem cells by enzyme-free dissociation in chemically defined culture conditions. Nat. Protoc. 7, 2029-2040 (2012).