INDEL detection, the 'Achilles heel' of precise genome editing: a survey of methods for accurate profiling of gene editing induced indels.

Advances in genome editing technologies have enabled manipulation of genomes at the single base level. These technologies are based on programmable nucleases (PNs) that include meganucleases, zinc-finger nucleases (ZFNs), transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALENs) and Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR)/CRISPR-associated 9 (Cas9) nucleases and have given researchers the ability to delete, insert or replace genomic DNA in cells, tissues and whole organisms. The great flexibility in re-designing the genomic target specificity of PNs has vastly expanded the scope of gene editing applications in life science, and shows great promise for development of the next generation gene therapies. PN technologies share the principle of inducing a DNA double-strand break (DSB) at a user-specified site in the genome, followed by cellular repair of the induced DSB. PN-elicited DSBs are mainly repaired by the non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) and the microhomology-mediated end joining (MMEJ) pathways, which can elicit a variety of small insertion or deletion (indel) mutations. If indels are elicited in a protein coding sequence and shift the reading frame, targeted gene knock out (KO) can readily be achieved using either of the available PNs. Despite the ease by which gene inactivation in principle can be achieved, in practice, successful KO is not only determined by the efficiency of NHEJ and MMEJ repair; it also depends on the design and properties of the PN utilized, delivery format chosen, the preferred indel repair outcomes at the targeted site, the chromatin state of the target site and the relative activities of the repair pathways in the edited cells. These variables preclude accurate prediction of the nature and frequency of PN induced indels. A key step of any gene KO experiment therefore becomes the detection, characterization and quantification of the indel(s) induced at the targeted genomic site in cells, tissues or whole organisms. In this survey, we briefly review naturally occurring indels and their detection. Next, we review the methods that have been developed for detection of PN-induced indels. We briefly outline the experimental steps and describe the pros and cons of the various methods to help users decide a suitable method for their editing application. We highlight recent advances that enable accurate and sensitive quantification of indel events in cells regardless of their genome complexity, turning a complex pool of different indel events into informative indel profiles. Finally, we review what has been learned about PN-elicited indel formation through the use of the new methods and how this insight is helping to further advance the genome editing field.

Bennett EP ，Petersen BL ，Johansen IE ，Niu Y ，Yang Z ，Chamberlain CA ，Met Ö ，Wandall HH ，Frödin M ... -  《-》

Can Designer Indels Be Tailored by Gene Editing?: Can Indels Be Customized?

Genome editing with engineered nucleases (GEENs) introduce site-specific DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) and repairs DSBs via nonhomologous end-joining (NHEJ) pathways that eventually create indels (insertions/deletions) in a genome. Whether the features of indels resulting from gene editing could be customized is asked. A review of the literature reveals how gene editing technologies via NHEJ pathways impact gene editing. The survey consolidates a body of literature that suggests that the type (insertion, deletion, and complex) and the approximate length of indel edits can be somewhat customized with different GEENs and by manipulating the expression of key NHEJ genes. Structural data suggest that binding of GEENs to DNA may interfere with binding of key components of DNA repair complexes, favoring either classical- or alternative-NHEJ. The hypotheses have some limitations, but if validated, will enable scientists to better control indel makeup, holding promise for basic science and clinical applications of gene editing. Also see the video abstract here https://youtu.be/vTkJtUsLi3w.

Trimidal SG ，Benjamin R ，Bae JE ，Han MV ，Kong E ，Singer A ，Williams TS ，Yang B ，Schiller MR ... -  《-》

A history of genome editing in mammals.

Fernández A ，Josa S ，Montoliu L 《-》

Versatile and precise gene-targeting strategies for functional studies in mammalian cell lines.

The advent of programmable nucleases such as ZFNs, TALENs and CRISPR/Cas9 has brought the power of genetic manipulation to widely used model systems. In mammalian cells, nuclease-mediated DNA double strand break is mainly repaired through the error-prone non-homologous end-joining (NHEJ) repair pathway, eventually leading to accumulation of small deletions or insertions (indels) that can inactivate gene function. However, due to the variable size of the indels and the polyploid status of many cell lines (e.g., cancer-derived cells), obtaining a knockout usually requires lengthy screening and characterization procedures. Given the more precise type of modifications that can be introduced upon homology-directed repair (HDR), we have developed HDR-based gene-targeting strategies that greatly facilitate the process of knockout generation in cell lines. To generate reversible knockouts (R-KO), a selectable promoter-less STOP cassette is inserted in an intron, interrupting transcription. Loss-of-function can be validated by RT-qPCR and is removable, enabling subsequent restoration of gene function. A variant of the R-KO procedure can be used to introduce point mutations. To generate constitutive knockouts (C-KO), an exon is targeted, which makes use of HDR-based gene disruption together with NHEJ-induced indels on non-HDR targeted allele(s). Hence the C-KO procedure greatly facilitates simultaneous inactivation of multiple alleles. Overall these genome-editing tools offer superior precision and efficiency for functional genetic approaches. We provide detailed protocols guiding in the design of targeting vectors and in the analysis and validation of gene targeting experiments.

Wassef M ，Luscan A ，Battistella A ，Le Corre S ，Li H ，Wallace MR ，Vidaud M ，Margueron R ... -  《-》

Making ends meet: targeted integration of DNA fragments by genome editing.

Yamamoto Y ，Gerbi SA 《-》