搜档网
当前位置:搜档网 › Regenerative medicine, targeted genome editing in vivo

Regenerative medicine, targeted genome editing in vivo

Regenerative medicine: targeted genome editing

in vivo

Cell Research (2015) 25:271-272. doi:10.1038/cr.2015.11; published online 30 January 2015

The CRISPR/Cas system has proven to be a powerful gene editing tool both in vitro and in vivo . A recent flurry of studies of in vivo gene editing using the CRISPR/Cas system bring bright prospects in creating animal models and targeted gene therapy of human genetic diseases.

Animal models are invaluable in studying the mechanisms underlying human genetic disorders. However, our current knowledge of genetic dis-eases is limited by the time-consuming procedure of creating animal models via conventional transgenesis or gene targeting in embryonic stem cells. Thanks to the facile nature of guide RNA (gRNA) design and ease of their delivery to one-cell embryos, the clus-tered regularly interspaced short palin-dromic repeat (CRISPR)/Cas system has revolutionized the way that gene-targeted knockout and knockin animal models are created. In the absence of a donor template such as single-stranded oligodeoxynucleotides (ssODNs), co-introduction of Cas9 mRNA and gRNAs can introduce mutations via an error-prone non-homologous end-joining (NHEJ) pathway at the targeted gene locus; while in the presence of a donor template, homology directed repair (HDR) via homologous recombina-tion (HR) becomes predominant and error-free DNA repair can be obtained [1]. Another notable advantage of the CRISPR/Cas system is multiplex gene editing. This feature is particularly useful in dissecting disease phenotypes contributed by multiple genetic altera-tions, such as cancers. Indeed, multi-plexibility of the CRISPR/Cas system has been successfully harnessed to generate isogenic cancer models. For instance, a recent study reported that simultaneous targeted mutagenesis of tumor suppressor genes Pten and p53 mediated by the CRISPR/Cas system successfully mimicked the phenotypes of deleting Pten and p53 via the conven-tional Cre-loxP method [2]. Despite the potential, however, owing to the rela-tively large transgene size of Cas9, in vivo multiplex gene editing still remains challenging due to the limited cargo ca-pacity of commonly used lentiviral and adeno-associated viral (AA V) vectors. One way to get around this is to generate Cas9-knockin animals that obviate the need to deliver Cas9 itself, thus freeing up additional space for delivering other DNA sequences of interest. Using this strategy, Platt et al . [3] simultaneously introduced loss-of-function mutations at p53 and Lkb1 loci and a point mu-tation at Kras locus (Kras G12D ) in an elegant model for lung adenocarcinoma. Although improvements in delivery efficiency and packaging capacity are warranted to broaden CRISPR/Cas’s in vivo application, the generation of Cas9 animals certainly alleviates the problem. In addition to disease model-ing, CRISPR/Cas’s multiplexibility also allows for reverse genetic studies to dissect compensatory roles of multiple genes in vivo . As an example, Swiech et al . [4] simultaneously disrupted three DNA methyltransferase (DNMT ) genes in adult mouse brains to study their functions in memory formation.

Despite the popularity of nuclease-based genome editing technologies, there still remain certain concerns, including off-target mutations and on-cogene activation, that are undesirable in gene therapies. A recent study raised an intriguing possibility of in vivo pro-moterless gene targeting without the use of nucleases, thus greatly diminishing the risk of adverse off-target effects [5]. Comparably, however, the promoterless nuclease-independent site-specific gene targeting strategy illustrated by Barzel et al . [5] is effective in only certain therapeutic effects conferred by gene targeting.

Good news for research groups ad-vocating nuclease-based gene therapy came in the form of recent publications that appeared in the July 2014 issue of Cell Stem Cell by three independent labs, which conclude that targeted gene editing technologies such as the CRISPR/Cas system, helper-dependent adenoviral vectors (HDAdVs) and transcription activator-like effector nuclease (TALEN) produce low levels of unwanted off-target mutagenesis [6-8]. The comprehensive evaluation of nuclease-based targeted genome editing in the whole genome mutational load indicates that unwanted mutations are very rare, if there are any at all, and certainly helps ease concerns for their application in clinical settings. From a therapeutic standpoint, the CRISPR/Cas system has been successfully used to correct disease-relevant mutations, thereby enabling functional rescues using adult stem cells. Wu et al . [9] demonstrated successful CRISPR/Cas9-mediated correction of a disease-caus-ing mutation in Crygc gene that existed in mouse spermatogonial stem cells (SSCs). Importantly, fertilization with round spermatids derived from these corrected SSCs gave rise to disease-free offspring at a very high efficiency. In

addition to in vitro cultured adult stem cells, CRISPR/Cas was also shown to be effective for correcting gene muta-tions in adult tissues in vivo. In one study by Yin et al. [10], the CRISPR/ Cas9 system was used to restore the Fah deficiency-induced hereditary ty-rosinemia via correcting Fah mutation in hepatocytes and functionally cor-rected the body weight loss phenotype. In another study, Ding and colleagues disrupted the expression of the Pcsk9 gene through in vivo gene targeting in hepatocytes. Loss-of-function mutation in Pcsk9 has been linked to lower blood concentration of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Disruption of Pcsk9 expression in hepatocytes reduced blood LDL-C level as well as the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) [11]. Impressively, Yoshimi et al. [1] described a strategy targeting three dif-ferent recessive mutations and reversed disease-associated phenotypes in rats. Although these promising develop-ments of in vivo targeting in animals bring great promise for the study and treatment of human genetic diseases, a number of roadblocks remain. First, delivery of components of the CRISPR/ Cas9 system needs to be improved. Plasmids and short ssODN could be efficiently delivered into cells by elec-troporation in vitro. While in vivo, one of the factors affecting the efficiency of gene targeting is the delivery system. To accommodate the large transgene size of Cas9, integration-free vectors such as HDAdVs need to be further im-proved with larger packaging capacity and lower immunogenicity. The current packaging capacity for AA V is still not sufficient for versatile applications that the CRISPR/Cas9 system can offer. Alternatively, shorter Cas9 orthologs or engineered Cas9 surrogate(s) can be

considered. Second, cell type specific-

ity is another area that can benefit from

further optimization. This is particularly

relevant for in vivo applications as there

exist a multitude of different cell types

and thus effective site-specific gene

editing and prevalence of side effects

are in part dependent on the efficiency of

delivery of CRISPR/Cas9 components

to the cell type of interest. Although

off-target effects have been systemati-

cally assessed in vitro using various cell

lines, physiological and pathological

conditions including aging and disease

niches are among the many factors that

can potentially affect off-target effects

in vivo. It is therefore imperative to

extend these safety precautions and

identify and quantify frequencies of

off-target mutations in vivo. Third, most

studies so far were carried out in mouse

and species differences between mouse

and human may preclude the successful

application of knowledge gained from

mouse studies to human therapy. For

example, in comparison with mouse,

human has a bigger genome size and

perhaps a more complicated nuclear

genomic organization and regulation,

which may constitute a barrier for HR-

based gene editing with the same length

of HR arm as used in mouse study. To

effectively achieve HR in the human

genome, extended homology arms and

integration-free vectors with larger ca-

pacity are needed. In this case, HDAdV

vectors are attractive due to their ability

to deliver long homology arms together

with other CRISPR/Cas9 components

into human cells [12]. Indeed, a recent

report demonstrated the efficacy of a

novel and efficient hybrid vector com-

bining the advantages of both HDAdVs

and TALENs in editing human cells in

vitro [6], which paves the way to devel-

op more powerful, efficient and versatile

human-specific in vivo genome editing

tools based on HDAdVs and Cas9 in

the near future. Achieving this goal will

greatly facilitate the progress of human

disease study and gene therapies.

Lixia Wang1, Jun Wu2,

Weiwei Fang3, Guang-Hui Liu1, 4, 5,

Juan Carlos Izpisua Belmonte2

1National Laboratory of Biomacromolecules,

Institute of Biophysics, Chinese Academy of Sci-

ences, Beijing 100101, China; 2Gene Expression

Laboratory, Salk Institute for Biological Studies,

10010 North Torrey Pines Road, La Jolla, CA

92037, USA; 3Beijing Hospital of the Ministry

of Health, Beijing 100730, China; 4Beijing Insti-

tute for Brain Disorders, Beijing 100069, China;

5Center for Molecular and Translational Medi-

cine, Beijing 100101, China

Correspondence: Guang-Hui Liu a,

Juan Carlos Izpisua Belmonte b

a E-mail: ghliu@https://www.sodocs.net/doc/da4127670.html,

b E-mail: belmonte@https://www.sodocs.net/doc/da4127670.html,

References

1 Yoshimi K, Kaneko T, V oigt B, et al. Nat

Commun 2014; 5:4240.

2 Xue W, Chen S, Yin H, et al. Nature 2014;

514:380-384.

3 Platt RJ, Chen S, Zhou Y, et al. Cell 2014;

159:440-455.

4 Swiech L, Heidenreich M, Banerjee A, et al.

Nat Biotechnol 2015; 33:102-106.

5 Barzel A, Paulk NK, Shi Y, et al. Nature

2015; 517:360-364.

6 Suzuki K, Yu C, Qu J, et al. Cell Stem Cell

2014; 15:31-36.

7 Veres A, Gosis BS, Ding Q, et al. Cell Stem

Cell 2014; 15:27-30.

8 Smith C, Gore A, Yan W, et al. Cell Stem

Cell 2014; 15:12-13.

9 Wu Y, Zhou H, Fan X, et al. Cell Res 2015;

25:67-79.

10 Yin H, Xue W, Chen S, et al. Nat Biotechnol

2014; 32:551-553.

11 Ding Q, Strong A, Patel KM, et al. Circ Res

2014; 115:488-492.

12 Li M, Suzuki K, Kim NY, et al. J Biol Chem

2014; 289:4594-4599.

Cell Research | Vol 25 No 3 | March 2015

相关主题