DNA Repair Pathway Choices in CRISPR-Cas9-Mediated Genome Editing.

Many clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)-CRISPR-associated protein 9 (Cas9)-based genome editing technologies take advantage of Cas nucleases to induce DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) at desired locations within a genome. Further processing of the DSBs by the cellular DSB repair machinery is then necessary to introduce desired mutations, sequence insertions, or gene deletions. Thus, the accuracy and efficiency of genome editing are influenced by the cellular DSB repair pathways. DSBs are themselves highly genotoxic lesions and as such cells have evolved multiple mechanisms for their repair. These repair pathways include homologous recombination (HR), classical nonhomologous end joining (cNHEJ), microhomology-mediated end joining (MMEJ) and single-strand annealing (SSA). In this review, we briefly highlight CRISPR-Cas9 and then describe the mechanisms of DSB repair. Finally, we summarize recent findings of factors that can influence the choice of DNA repair pathway in response to Cas9-induced DSBs.

Xue C ，Greene EC 《TRENDS IN GENETICS》

Single-Strand Annealing Plays a Major Role in Double-Strand DNA Break Repair following CRISPR-Cas9 Cleavage in Leishmania.

CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing relies on an efficient double-strand DNA break (DSB) and repair. Contrary to mammalian cells, the protozoan parasite Leishmania lacks the most efficient nonhomologous end-joining pathway and uses microhomology-mediated end joining (MMEJ) and, occasionally, homology-directed repair to repair DSBs. Here, we reveal that Leishmania predominantly uses single-strand annealing (SSA) (>90%) instead of MMEJ (<10%) for DSB repair (DSBR) following CRISPR targeting of the miltefosine transporter gene, resulting in 9-, 18-, 20-, and 29-kb sequence deletions and multiple gene codeletions. Strikingly, when targeting the Leishmania donovani LdBPK_241510 gene, SSA even occurred by using direct repeats 77 kb apart, resulting in the codeletion of 15 Leishmania genes, though with a reduced frequency. These data strongly indicate that DSBR is not efficient in Leishmania, which explains why more than half of DSBs led to cell death and why the CRISPR gene-targeting efficiency is low compared with that in other organisms. Since direct repeat sequences are widely distributed in the Leishmania genome, we predict that many DSBs created by CRISPR are repaired by SSA. It is also revealed that DNA polymerase theta is involved in both MMEJ and SSA in Leishmania Collectively, this study establishes that DSBR mechanisms and their competence in an organism play an important role in determining the outcome and efficacy of CRISPR gene targeting. These observations emphasize the use of donor DNA templates to improve gene editing specificity and efficiency in Leishmania In addition, we developed a novel Staphylococcus aureus Cas9 constitutive expression vector (pLdSaCN) for gene targeting in LeishmaniaIMPORTANCE Due to differences in double-strand DNA break (DSB) repair mechanisms, CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing efficiency can vary greatly in different organisms. In contrast to mammalian cells, the protozoan parasite Leishmania uses microhomology-mediated end joining (MMEJ) and, occasionally, homology-directed repair (HDR) to repair DSBs but lacks the nonhomologous end-joining pathway. Here, we show that Leishmania predominantly uses single-strand annealing (SSA) instead of MMEJ for DSB repairs (DSBR), resulting in large deletions that can include multiple genes. This strongly indicates that the overall DSBR in Leishmania is inefficient and therefore can influence the outcome of CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing, highlighting the importance of using a donor DNA to improve gene editing fidelity and efficiency in Leishmania.

Zhang WW ，Matlashewski G 《mSphere》

Methods Favoring Homology-Directed Repair Choice in Response to CRISPR/Cas9 Induced-Double Strand Breaks.

Yang H ，Ren S ，Yu S ，Pan H ，Li T ，Ge S ，Zhang J ，Xia N ... -  《INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR SCIENCES》

CRISPR/Cas9-Induced Double-Strand Break Repair in Arabidopsis Nonhomologous End-Joining Mutants.

Double-strand breaks (DSBs) are one of the most harmful DNA lesions. Cells utilize two main pathways for DSB repair: homologous recombination (HR) and nonhomologous end-joining (NHEJ). NHEJ can be subdivided into the KU-dependent classical NHEJ (c-NHEJ) and the more error-prone KU-independent backup-NHEJ (b-NHEJ) pathways, involving the poly (ADP-ribose) polymerases (PARPs). However, in the absence of these factors, cells still seem able to adequately maintain genome integrity, suggesting the presence of other b-NHEJ repair factors or pathways independent from KU and PARPs. The outcome of DSB repair by NHEJ pathways can be investigated by using artificial sequence-specific nucleases such as CRISPR/Cas9 to induce DSBs at a target of interest. Here, we used CRISPR/Cas9 for DSB induction at the Arabidopsis cruciferin 3 (CRU3) and protoporphyrinogen oxidase (PPO) genes. DSB repair outcomes via NHEJ were analyzed using footprint analysis in wild-type plants and plants deficient in key factors of c-NHEJ (ku80), b-NHEJ (parp1 parp2), or both (ku80 parp1 parp2). We found that larger deletions of >20 bp predominated after DSB repair in ku80 and ku80 parp1 parp2 mutants, corroborating with a role of KU in preventing DSB end resection. Deletion lengths did not significantly differ between ku80 and ku80 parp1 parp2 mutants, suggesting that a KU- and PARP-independent b-NHEJ mechanism becomes active in these mutants. Furthermore, microhomologies and templated insertions were observed at the repair junctions in the wild type and all mutants. Since these characteristics are hallmarks of polymerase θ-mediated DSB repair, we suggest a possible role for this recently discovered polymerase in DSB repair in plants.

Shen H ，Strunks GD ，Klemann BJ ，Hooykaas PJ ，de Pater S ... -  《G3-Genes Genomes Genetics》

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 ... -  《-》