BMB Reports

Korean Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (생화학분자생물학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The road less traveled: strategies to enhance the frequency of homology-directed repair (HDR) for increased efficiency of CRISPR/Cas-mediated transgenesis

  • Devkota, Sushil (Section of Cell and Developmental Biology, University of California San Diego)
  • Received : 2018.07.08
  • Published : 2018.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Non-homologous end joining (NHEJ), and to a lesser extent, the error-free pathway known as homology-directed repair (HDR) are cellular mechanisms for recovery from double-strand DNA breaks (DSB) induced by RNA-guided programmable nuclease CRISPR/Cas. Since NHEJ is equivalent to using a duck tape to stick two pieces of metals together, the outcome of this repair mechanism is prone to error. Any out-of-frame mutations or premature stop codons resulting from NHEJ repair mechanism are extremely handy for loss-of-function studies. Substitution of a mutation on the genome with the correct exogenous repair DNA requires coordination via an error-free HDR, for targeted transgenesis. However, several practical limitations exist in harnessing the potential of HDR to replace a faulty mutation for therapeutic purposes in all cell types and more so in somatic cells. In germ cells after the DSB, copying occurs from the homologous chromosome, which increases the chances of incorporation of exogenous DNA with some degree of homology into the genome compared with somatic cells where copying from the identical sister chromatid is always preferred. This review summarizes several strategies that have been implemented to increase the frequency of HDR with a focus on somatic cells. It also highlights the limitations of this technology in gene therapy and suggests specific solutions to circumvent those barriers.

Keywords

References

  1. Smith HO and Wilcox KW (1992) A restriction enzyme from Hemophilus influenzae. I. Purification and general properties. 1970. Biotechnology 24, 38-50
  2. Capecchi MR (1989) Altering the genome by homologous recombination. Science 244, 1288-1292 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.2660260
  3. Smithies O, Gregg RG, Boggs SS, Koralewski MA and Kucherlapati RS (1985) Insertion of DNA sequences into the human chromosomal beta-globin locus by homologous recombination. Nature 317, 230-234 https://doi.org/10.1038/317230a0
  4. Thomas KR, Folger KR and Capecchi MR (1986) High frequency targeting of genes to specific sites in the mammalian genome. Cell 44, 419-428 https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-8674(86)90463-0
  5. Watts G (2007) Nobel prize is awarded for work leading to "knockout mouse". BMJ 335, 740
  6. Lin FL, Sperle K and Sternberg N (1985) Recombination in mouse L cells between DNA introduced into cells and homologous chromosomal sequences. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 82, 1391-1395 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.82.5.1391
  7. Rouet P, Smih F and Jasin M (1994) Introduction of double-strand breaks into the genome of mouse cells by expression of a rare-cutting endonuclease. Mol Cell Biol 14, 8096-8106 https://doi.org/10.1128/MCB.14.12.8096
  8. Kim YG, Cha J and Chandrasegaran S (1996) Hybrid restriction enzymes: zinc finger fusions to Fok I cleavage domain. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 93, 1156-1160 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.93.3.1156
  9. Boch J, Scholze H, Schornack S et al (2009) Breaking the code of DNA binding specificity of TAL-type III effectors. Science 326, 1509-1512 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1178811
  10. Zhang F, Cong L, Lodato S, Kosuri S, Church GM and Arlotta P (2011) Efficient construction of sequence-specific TAL effectors for modulating mammalian transcription. Nat Biotechnol 29, 149-153 https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.1775
  11. Gupta RM and Musunuru K (2014) Expanding the genetic editing tool kit: ZFNs, TALENs, and CRISPR-Cas9. J Clin Invest 124, 4154-4161 https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI72992
  12. Jinek M, Chylinski K, Fonfara I, Hauer M, Doudna JA and Charpentier E (2012) A programmable dual-RNA-guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity. Science 337, 816-821 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1225829
  13. Mali P, Yang L, Esvelt KM et al (2013) RNA-guided human genome engineering via Cas 9. Science 339, 823-826 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1232033
  14. Adli M (2018) The CRISPR tool kit for genome editing and beyond. Nat Commun 9, 1911 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-04252-2
  15. Rothkamm K, Kruger I, Thompson LH and Lobrich M (2003) Pathways of DNA double-strand break repair during the mammalian cell cycle. Mol Cell Biol 23, 5706-5715 https://doi.org/10.1128/MCB.23.16.5706-5715.2003
  16. Mao Z, Bozzella M, Seluanov A and Gorbunova V (2008) DNA repair by nonhomologous end joining and homologous recombination during cell cycle in human cells. Cell Cycle 7, 2902-2906 https://doi.org/10.4161/cc.7.18.6679
  17. Davis AJ and Chen DJ (2013) DNA double strand break repair via non-homologous end-joining. Transl Cancer Res 2, 130-143
  18. Chang HH and Lieber MR (2016) Structure-Specific nuclease activities of Artemis and the Artemis: DNA-PKcs complex. Nucleic Acids Res 44, 4991-4997 https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkw456
  19. Her J and Bunting SF (2018) How cells ensure correct repair of DNA double-strand breaks. J Biol Chem 293, 10502-10511 https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.TM118.000371
  20. Bennardo N, Cheng A, Huang N and Stark JM (2008) Alternative-NHEJ is a mechanistically distinct pathway of mammalian chromosome break repair. PLoS Genet 4, e1000110 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1000110
  21. Chiruvella KK, Liang Z and Wilson TE (2013) Repair of double-strand breaks by end joining. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol 5, a012757
  22. Salsman J and Dellaire G (2017) Precision genome editing in the CRISPR era. Biochem Cell Biol 95, 187-201 https://doi.org/10.1139/bcb-2016-0137
  23. Branzei D and Foiani M (2008) Regulation of DNA repair throughout the cell cycle. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 9, 297-308 https://doi.org/10.1038/nrm2351
  24. Marechal A and Zou L (2013) DNA damage sensing by the ATM and ATR kinases. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol 5, 1-17
  25. Symington LS (2014) End resection at double-strand breaks: mechanism and regulation. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol 6, 1-18
  26. Buisson R, Niraj J, Pauty J et al (2014) Breast cancer proteins PALB2 and BRCA2 stimulate polymerase eta in recombination-associated DNA synthesis at blocked replication forks. Cell Rep 6, 553-564 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2014.01.009
  27. Jasin M and Rothstein R (2013) Repair of strand breaks by homologous recombination. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol 5, a012740 https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a012740
  28. Hug N, Longman D and Caceres JF (2016) Mechanism and regulation of the nonsense-mediated decay pathway. Nucleic Acids Res 44, 1483-1495 https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkw010
  29. Carroll D (2016) Genome editing: progress and challenges for medical applications. Genome Med 8, 120 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13073-016-0378-9
  30. Port F, Chen HM, Lee T and Bullock SL (2014) Optimized CRISPR/Cas tools for efficient germline and somatic genome engineering in Drosophila. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 111, E2967-2976 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1405500111
  31. Sybenga J (1999) What makes homologous chromosomes find each other in meiosis? A review and an hypothesis. Chromosoma 108, 209-219 https://doi.org/10.1007/s004120050371
  32. Ma CJ, Gibb B, Kwon Y, Sung P and Greene EC (2017) Protein dynamics of human RPA and RAD51 on ssDNA during assembly and disassembly of the RAD51 filament. Nucleic Acids Res 45, 749-761 https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkw1125
  33. Ruan J, Xu J, Chen-Tsai RY and Li K (2017) Genome editing in livestock: Are we ready for a revolution in animal breeding industry? Transgenic Res 26, 715-726 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11248-017-0049-7
  34. Taleei R and Nikjoo H (2013) Biochemical DSB-repair model for mammalian cells in G1 and early S phases of the cell cycle. Mutat Res 756, 206-212 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mrgentox.2013.06.004
  35. Nami F, Basiri M, Satarian L, Curtiss C, Baharvand H and Verfaillie C (2018) Strategies for In Vivo Genome Editing in Nondividing Cells. Trends Biotechnol 36, 770-786 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2018.03.004
  36. Maruyama T, Dougan SK, Truttmann MC, Bilate AM, Ingram JR and Ploegh HL (2015) Increasing the efficiency of precise genome editing with CRISPR-Cas9 by inhibition of nonhomologous end joining. Nat Biotechnol 33, 538-542 https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3190
  37. Chu VT, Weber T, Wefers B et al (2015) Increasing the efficiency of homology-directed repair for CRISPR -Cas9-induced precise gene editing in mammalian cells. Nat Biotechnol 33, 543-548 https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3198
  38. Pinder J, Salsman J and Dellaire G (2015) Nuclear domain 'knock-in' screen for the evaluation and identification of small molecule enhancers of CRISPR-based genome editing. Nucleic Acids Res 43, 9379-9392 https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkv993
  39. Greco GE, Matsumoto Y, Brooks RC, Lu Z, Lieber MR and Tomkinson AE (2016) SCR7 is neither a selective nor a potent inhibitor of human DNA ligase IV. DNA Repair (Amst) 43, 18-23 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dnarep.2016.04.004
  40. Leahy JJ, Golding BT, Griffin RJ et al (2004) Identification of a highly potent and selective DNA-dependent protein kinase (DNA-PK) inhibitor (NU7441) by screening of chromenone libraries. Bioorg Med Chem Lett 14, 6083-6087 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bmcl.2004.09.060
  41. Munck JM, Batey MA, Zhao Y et al (2012) Chemosensitization of cancer cells by KU-0060648, a dual inhibitor of DNA-PK and PI-3K. Mol Cancer Ther 11, 1789-1798 https://doi.org/10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-11-0535
  42. Song J, Yang D, Xu J, Zhu T, Chen YE and Zhang J (2016) RS-1 enhances CRISPR/Cas9- and TALEN-mediated knock-in efficiency. Nat Commun 7, 10548 https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms10548
  43. Yu S, Song Z, Luo J, Dai Y nd Li N (2011) Over-expression of RAD51 or RAD54 but not RAD51/4 enhances extrachromosomal homologous recombination in the human sarcoma (HT-1080) cell line. J Biotechnol 154, 21-24 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiotec.2011.03.023
  44. Charpentier M, Khedher AHY, Menoret S et al (2018) CtIP fusion to Cas9 enhances transgene integration by homology-dependent repair. Nat Commun 9, 1133 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-03475-7
  45. Robert F, Barbeau M, Ethier S, Dostie J and Pelletier J (2015) Pharmacological inhibition of DNA-PK stimulates Cas9-mediated genome editing. Genome Med 7, 93 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13073-015-0215-6
  46. Haapaniemi E, Botla S, Persson J, Schmierer B and Taipale J (2018) CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing induces a p53-mediated DNA damage response. Nat Med 24, 927-930 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-018-0049-z
  47. Lin S, Staahl BT, Alla RK and Doudna JA (2014) Enhanced homology-directed human genome engineering by controlled timing of CRISPR/Cas9 delivery. Elife 3, e04766 https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.04766
  48. Yang D, Scavuzzo MA, Chmielowiec J, Sharp R, Bajic A and Borowiak M (2016) Enrichment of G2/M cell cycle phase in human pluripotent stem cells enhances HDR-mediated gene repair with customizable endonucleases. Sci Rep 6, 21264 https://doi.org/10.1038/srep21264
  49. Song F and Stieger K (2017) Optimizing the DNA Donor Template for Homology-Directed Repair of Double-Strand Breaks. Mol Ther Nucleic Acids 7, 53-60 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omtn.2017.02.006
  50. Richardson CD, Kazane KR, Feng SJ et al (2018) CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing in human cells works via the Fanconi Anemia pathway. Nat Genetics 50, 1132-1139 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-018-0174-0
  51. Gutschner T, Haemmerle M, Genovese G, Draetta GF and Chin L (2016) Post-translational Regulation of Cas9 during G1 Enhances Homology-Directed Repair. Cell Rep 14, 1555-1566 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2016.01.019
  52. Orthwein A, Noordermeer SM, Wilson MD et al (2015) A mechanism for the suppression of homologous recombination in G1 cells. Nature 528, 422-426 https://doi.org/10.1038/nature16142
  53. Zaboikin M, Zaboikina T, Freter C and Srinivasakumar N (2017) Non-Homologous end joining and homology directed DNA repair frequency of double-stranded breaks introduced by genome editing reagents. PLoS One 12, e0169931 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169931
  54. Suzuki K, Tsunekawa Y, Hernandez-Benitez R et al (2016) In vivo genome editing via CRISPR/Cas9 mediated homology-independent targeted integration. Nature 540, 144-149 https://doi.org/10.1038/nature20565
  55. Maresca M, Lin VG, Guo N and Yang Y (2013) Obligate ligation-gated recombination (ObLiGaRe): custom-designed nuclease-mediated targeted integration through nonhomologous end joining. Genome Res 23, 539-546 https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.145441.112
  56. Savic N, Ringnalda FC, Lindsay H et al (2018) Covalent linkage of the DNA repair template to the CRISPR-Cas9 nuclease enhances homology- directed repair. Elife 7, 1-18
  57. Ma M, Zhuang F, Hu X et al (2017) Efficient generation of mice carrying homozygous double-floxp alleles using the Cas9-Avidin/Biotin-donor DNA system. Cell Res 27, 578-581 https://doi.org/10.1038/cr.2017.29
  58. Gu B, Posfai E and Rossant J (2018) Efficient generation of targeted large insertions by microinjection into two-cellstage mouse embryos. Nat Biotechnol 36, 632-637 https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.4166
  59. Oceguera-Yanez F, Kim SI, Matsumoto T et al (2016) Engineering the AAVS1 locus for consistent and scalable transgene expression in human iPSCs and their differentiated derivatives. Methods 101, 43-55 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymeth.2015.12.012
  60. Charlesworth CT, Deshpande PS, Dever DP et al (2018) Identification of Pre-Existing Adaptive Immunity to Cas9 Proteins in Humans. bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/243345
  61. Biehs R, Steinlage M, Barton O et al (2017) DNA Doublestrand break resection occurs during non-homologous end joining in G1 but Is distinct from resection during homologous recombination. Mol Cell 65, 671-684 e675 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2016.12.016
  62. Kosicki M, Tomberg K and Bradley A (2018) Repair of double-strand breaks induced by CRISPR-Cas9 leads to large deletions and complex rearrangements. Nat Biotechnol 36, 765-771