Biasing genome-editing events toward precise length deletions with an RNA-guided TevCas9 dual nuclease

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

Volumn 113, Issue 52, 2016, Pages 14988-14993

  Wolfs, Jason M ^a   Hamilton, Thomas A ^a   Lant, Jeremy T ^a   Laforet, Marcon ^a   Zhang, Jenny ^a   Salemi, Louisa M ^a,b   Gloor, Gregory B ^a   Schild Poulter, Caroline ^a,b   Edgell, David R ^a  

^a WESTERN UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b ROBARTS RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

Author keywords

CRISPR Cas9; Genome editing; I TevI homing endonuclease; NHEJ

Indexed keywords

CASPASE 9; NUCLEASE; RNA; DEOXYRIBONUCLEASE; GUIDE RNA; I-TEVI ENDONUCLEASE; PROTEINASE K;

ARTICLE; CLUSTERED REGULARLY INTERSPACED SHORT PALINDROMIC REPEAT; CONTROLLED STUDY; DNA BINDING; DNA END JOINING REPAIR; DNA STRAND BREAKAGE; ENZYME PURIFICATION; GENE DELETION; GENE INSERTION; HEK293 CELL LINE; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; INDEL MUTATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROMOTER REGION; PROTEIN DOMAIN; PROTEIN PURIFICATION; SITE DIRECTED MUTAGENESIS; STREPTOCOCCUS PYOGENES; CHEMISTRY; CRISPR CAS SYSTEM; DNA SEQUENCE; DOUBLE STRANDED DNA BREAK; ESCHERICHIA COLI; GENE EDITING; GENETICS; GENOME; MISMATCH REPAIR;

CRISPR-CAS SYSTEMS; DNA BREAKS, DOUBLE-STRANDED; DNA MISMATCH REPAIR; ENDODEOXYRIBONUCLEASES; ENDOPEPTIDASE K; ESCHERICHIA COLI; GENE DELETION; GENE EDITING; GENOME; HEK293 CELLS; HUMANS; RNA, GUIDE; SEQUENCE ANALYSIS, DNA; SEQUENCE DELETION;

EID: 85007448319     PISSN: 00278424     EISSN: 10916490     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1616343114     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Doudna JA, Charpentier E (2014) Genome editing. The new frontier of genome engineering with CRISPR-Cas9. Science 346(6213):1258096.
2. Urnov FD, Rebar EJ, Holmes MC, Zhang HS, Gregory PD (2010) Genome editing with engineered zinc finger nucleases. Nat Rev Genet 11(9):636-646.
3. Bogdanove AJ, Voytas DF (2011) TAL effectors: Customizable proteins for DNA targeting. Science 333(6051):1843-1846.
4. Boissel S, et al. (2014) megaTALs: A rare-cleaving nuclease architecture for therapeutic genome engineering. Nucleic Acids Res 42(4):2591-2601.
5. Sather BD, et al. (2015) Efficient modification of CCR5 in primary human hematopoietic cells using a megaTAL nuclease and AAV donor template. Sci Transl Med 7(307):307ra156.
6. Stoddard BL (2014) Homing endonucleases from mobile group I introns: Discovery to genome engineering. Mob DNA 5(1):7.
7. Sternberg SH, Doudna JA (2015) Expanding the biologist's toolkit with CRISPR-Cas9. Mol Cell 58(4):568-574.
8. Carroll D (2014) Genome engineering with targetable nucleases. Annu Rev Biochem 83:409-439.
9. Guilinger JP, Thompson DB, Liu DR (2014) Fusion of catalytically inactive Cas9 to FokI nuclease improves the specificity of genome modification. Nat Biotechnol 32(6):577-582.
10. Aouida M, et al. (2015) Efficient fdCas9 synthetic endonuclease with improved specificity for precise genome engineering. PLoS One 10(7):e0133373.
11. Tsai SQ, et al. (2014) Dimeric CRISPR RNA-guided FokI nucleases for highly specific genome editing. Nat Biotechnol 32(6):569-576.
12. Bibikova M, Golic M, Golic KG, Carroll D (2002) Targeted chromosomal cleavage and mutagenesis in Drosophila using zinc-finger nucleases. Genetics 161(3):1169-1175.
13. Mladenov E, Iliakis G (2011) Induction and repair of DNA double strand breaks: The increasing spectrum of non-homologous end joining pathways. Mutat Res 711(1-2):61-72.
14. Lieber MR (2010) The mechanism of double-strand DNA break repair by the nonhomologous DNA end-joining pathway. Annu Rev Biochem 79:181-211.
15. McVey M, Lee SE (2008) MMEJ repair of double-strand breaks (director's cut): Deleted sequences and alternative endings. Trends Genet 24(11):529-538.
16. Shrivastav M, De Haro LP, Nickoloff JA (2008) Regulation of DNA double-strand break repair pathway choice. Cell Res 18(1):134-147.
17. Deriano L, Roth DB (2013) Modernizing the nonhomologous end-joining repertoire: Alternative and classical NHEJ share the stage. Annu Rev Genet 47:433-455.
18. Richardson CD, Ray GJ, Bray NL, Corn JE (2016) Non-homologous DNA increases gene disruption efficiency by altering DNA repair outcomes. Nat Commun 7:12463.
19. Beumer KJ, et al. (2013) Comparing zinc finger nucleases and transcription activator-like effector nucleases for gene targeting in Drosophila. G3 (Bethesda) 3(10):1717-1725.
20. Chen S, et al. (2013) A large-scale in vivo analysis reveals that TALENs are significantly more mutagenic than ZFNs generated using context-dependent assembly. Nucleic Acids Res 41(4):2769-2778.
21. Chen X, et al. (2016) Probing the impact of chromatin conformation on genome editing tools. Nucleic Acids Res 44(13):6482-6492.
22. Daboussi F, et al. (2012) Chromosomal context and epigenetic mechanisms control the efficacy of genome editing by rare-cutting designer endonucleases. Nucleic Acids Res 40(13):6367-6379.
23. Lin S, Staahl BT, Alla RK, Doudna JA (2014) Enhanced homology-directed human genome engineering by controlled timing of CRISPR/Cas9 delivery. eLife 3:e04766.
24. Certo MT, et al. (2012) Coupling endonucleases with DNA end-processing enzymes to drive gene disruption. Nat Methods 9(10):973-975.
25. Delacôte F, et al. (2013) High frequency targeted mutagenesis using engineered endonucleases and DNA-end processing enzymes. PLoS One 8(1):e53217.
26. Ran FA, et al. (2013) Double nicking by RNA-guided CRISPR Cas9 for enhanced genome editing specificity. Cell 154(6):1380-1389.
27. Kleinstiver BP, et al. (2012) Monomeric site-specific nucleases for genome editing. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109(21):8061-8066.
28. Jinek M, et al. (2012) A programmable dual-RNA-guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity. Science 337(6096):816-821.
29. Kleinstiver BP, et al. (2014) The I-TevI nuclease and linker domains contribute to the specificity of monomeric TALENs. G3 (Bethesda) 4(6):1155-1165.
30. Wolfs JM, et al. (2014) MegaTevs: Single-chain dual nucleases for efficient gene disruption. Nucleic Acids Res 42(13):8816-8829.
31. Qiu P, et al. (2004) Mutation detection using Surveyor nuclease. Biotechniques 36(4): 702-707.
32. Guschin DY, et al. (2010) A rapid and general assay for monitoring endogenous gene modification. Methods Mol Biol 649:247-256.
33. Ran FA, et al. (2013) Genome engineering using the CRISPR-Cas9 system. Nat Protoc 8(11):2281-2308.
34. Sethuraman J, Majer A, Friedrich NC, Edgell DR, Hausner G (2009) Genes within genes: Multiple LAGLIDADG homing endonucleases target the ribosomal protein S3 gene encoded within an rnl group I intron of Ophiostoma and related taxa. Mol Biol Evol 26(10):2299-2315.
35. Takeuchi R, et al. (2011) Tapping natural reservoirs of homing endonucleases for targeted gene modification. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108(32):13077-13082.
36. Dean AB, et al. (2002) Zinc finger as distance determinant in the flexible linker of intron endonuclease I-TevI. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99(13):8554-8561.
37. Liu Q, et al. (2008) Role of the interdomain linker in distance determination for remote cleavage by homing endonuclease I-TevI. J Mol Biol 379(5):1094-1106.
38. Kim S, Kim D, Cho SW, Kim J, Kim JS (2014) Highly efficient RNA-guided genome editing in human cells via delivery of purified Cas9 ribonucleoproteins. Genome Res 24(6):1012-1019.
39. Roy AC, Wilson GG, Edgell DR (2016) Perpetuating the homing endonuclease life cycle: Identification of mutations that modulate and change I-TevI cleavage preference. Nucleic Acids Res 44(15):7350-7359.
40. Kleinstiver BP, et al. (2015) Broadening the targeting range of Staphylococcus aureus CRISPR-Cas9 by modifying PAM recognition. Nat Biotechnol 33(12):1293-1298.
41. Kleinstiver BP, et al. (2015) Engineered CRISPR-Cas9 nucleases with altered PAM specificities. Nature 523(7561):481-485.
42. Esvelt KM, et al. (2013) Orthogonal Cas9 proteins for RNA-guided gene regulation and editing. Nat Methods 10(11):1116-1121.
43. Bolukbasi MF, et al. (2015) DNA-binding-domain fusions enhance the targeting range and precision of Cas9. Nat Methods 12(12):1150-1156.
44. Mueller JE, Smith D, Belfort M (1996) Exon coconversion biases accompanying intron homing: Battle of the nucleases. Genes Dev 10(17):2158-2166.
45. Richardson CD, Ray GJ, DeWitt MA, Curie GL, Corn JE (2016) Enhancing homologydirected genome editing by catalytically active and inactive CRISPR-Cas9 using asymmetric donor DNA. Nat Biotechnol 34(3):339-344.
46. Lackner DH, et al. (2015) A generic strategy for CRISPR-Cas9-mediated gene tagging. Nat Commun 6:10237.
47. Sanjana NE, et al. (2016) High-resolution interrogation of functional elements in the noncoding genome. Science 353(6307):1545-1549.
48. Edgar RC (2010) Search and clustering orders of magnitude faster than BLAST. Bioinformatics 26(19):2460-2461.