Abstract
Background: CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing technology has facilitated the generation of knockout mice, providing an alternative to cumbersome and time-consuming traditional embryonic stem cell-based methods. An earlier study reported up to 16% efficiency in generating conditional knockout (cKO or floxed) alleles by microinjection of 2 single guide RNAs (sgRNA) and 2 single-stranded oligonucleotides as donors (referred herein as "two-donor floxing" method). Results: We re-evaluate the two-donor method from a consortium of 20 laboratories across the world. The dataset constitutes 56 genetic loci, 17,887 zygotes, and 1718 live-born mice, of which only 15 (0.87%) mice contain cKO alleles. We subject the dataset to statistical analyses and a machine learning algorithm, which reveals that none of the factors analyzed was predictive for the success of this method. We test some of the newer methods that use one-donor DNA on 18 loci for which the two-donor approach failed to produce cKO alleles. We find that the one-donor methods are 10- to 20-fold more efficient than the two-donor approach. Conclusion: We propose that the two-donor method lacks efficiency because it relies on two simultaneous recombination events in cis, an outcome that is dwarfed by pervasive accompanying undesired editing events. The methods that use one-donor DNA are fairly efficient as they rely on only one recombination event, and the probability of correct insertion of the donor cassette without unanticipated mutational events is much higher. Therefore, one-donor methods offer higher efficiencies for the routine generation of cKO animal models.
Original language | English (US) |
---|---|
Article number | 171 |
Journal | Genome biology |
Volume | 20 |
Issue number | 1 |
DOIs | |
State | Published - Aug 26 2019 |
Keywords
- CRISPR-Cas9
- Conditional knockout mouse
- Floxed allele
- Homology-directed repair
- Long single-stranded DNA
- Machine learning
- Mouse
- Oligonucleotide
- Reproducibility
- Transgenesis
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
- Genetics
- Cell Biology
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Reproducibility of CRISPR-Cas9 methods for generation of conditional mouse alleles: A multi-center evaluation'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Standard
- Harvard
- Vancouver
- Author
- BIBTEX
- RIS
In: Genome biology, Vol. 20, No. 1, 171, 26.08.2019.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Reproducibility of CRISPR-Cas9 methods for generation of conditional mouse alleles
T2 - A multi-center evaluation
AU - Gurumurthy, Channabasavaiah B.
AU - O'Brien, Aidan R.
AU - Quadros, Rolen M.
AU - Adams, John
AU - Alcaide, Pilar
AU - Ayabe, Shinya
AU - Ballard, Johnathan
AU - Batra, Surinder K.
AU - Beauchamp, Marie Claude
AU - Becker, Kathleen A.
AU - Bernas, Guillaume
AU - Brough, David
AU - Carrillo-Salinas, Francisco
AU - Chan, Wesley
AU - Chen, Hanying
AU - Dawson, Ruby
AU - Demambro, Victoria
AU - D'Hont, Jinke
AU - Dibb, Katharine M.
AU - Eudy, James D.
AU - Gan, Lin
AU - Gao, Jing
AU - Gonzales, Amy
AU - Guntur, Anyonya R.
AU - Guo, Huiping
AU - Harms, Donald W.
AU - Harrington, Anne
AU - Hentges, Kathryn E.
AU - Humphreys, Neil
AU - Imai, Shiho
AU - Ishii, Hideshi
AU - Iwama, Mizuho
AU - Jonasch, Eric
AU - Karolak, Michelle
AU - Keavney, Bernard
AU - Khin, Nay Chi
AU - Konno, Masamitsu
AU - Kotani, Yuko
AU - Kunihiro, Yayoi
AU - Lakshmanan, Imayavaramban
AU - Larochelle, Catherine
AU - Lawrence, Catherine B.
AU - Li, Lin
AU - Lindner, Volkhard
AU - Liu, Xian De
AU - Lopez-Castejon, Gloria
AU - Loudon, Andrew
AU - Lowe, Jenna
AU - Jerome-Majewska, Loydie A.
AU - Matsusaka, Taiji
AU - Miura, Hiromi
AU - Miyasaka, Yoshiki
AU - Morpurgo, Benjamin
AU - Motyl, Katherine
AU - Nabeshima, Yo Ichi
AU - Nakade, Koji
AU - Nakashiba, Toshiaki
AU - Nakashima, Kenichi
AU - Obata, Yuichi
AU - Ogiwara, Sanae
AU - Ouellet, Mariette
AU - Oxburgh, Leif
AU - Piltz, Sandra
AU - Pinz, Ilka
AU - Ponnusamy, Moorthy P.
AU - Ray, David
AU - Redder, Ronald J.
AU - Rosen, Clifford J.
AU - Ross, Nikki
AU - Ruhe, Mark T.
AU - Ryzhova, Larisa
AU - Salvador, Ane M.
AU - Alam, Sabrina Shameen
AU - Sedlacek, Radislav
AU - Sharma, Karan
AU - Smith, Chad
AU - Staes, Katrien
AU - Starrs, Lora
AU - Sugiyama, Fumihiro
AU - Takahashi, Satoru
AU - Tanaka, Tomohiro
AU - Trafford, Andrew W.
AU - Uno, Yoshihiro
AU - Vanhoutte, Leen
AU - Vanrockeghem, Frederique
AU - Willis, Brandon J.
AU - Wright, Christian S.
AU - Yamauchi, Yuko
AU - Yi, Xin
AU - Yoshimi, Kazuto
AU - Zhang, Xuesong
AU - Zhang, Yu
AU - Ohtsuka, Masato
AU - Das, Satyabrata
AU - Garry, Daniel J.
AU - Hochepied, Tino
AU - Thomas, Paul
AU - Parker-Thornburg, Jan
AU - Adamson, Antony D.
AU - Yoshiki, Atsushi
AU - Schmouth, Jean Francois
AU - Golovko, Andrei
AU - Thompson, William R.
AU - Lloyd, K. C.Kent
AU - Wood, Joshua A.
AU - Cowan, Mitra
AU - Mashimo, Tomoji
AU - Mizuno, Seiya
AU - Zhu, Hao
AU - Kasparek, Petr
AU - Liaw, Lucy
AU - Miano, Joseph M.
AU - Burgio, Gaetan
N1 - Funding Information: All experiments were approved from the respective Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees in the USA and Ethics Committees in Australia, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Japan, Spain, and the UK according to the guidelines or code of practice from the National Institute of Health in the USA, the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) in Australia, Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 in the UK or Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), The Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare (MHLW) in Japan, the Central Commission for Animal Welfare (CCAW) in the Czech Republic, the Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) in Canada, the National Ethics Code from the Royal Belgian (Flemish) Academy of Medicine in Belgium, and the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity from All European Academies. Funding Information: All experiments were approved by the respective Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees in the USA and Ethics Committees in Australia, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Japan, Spain, and the UK according to the guidelines or code of practice from the National Institute of Health in the USA, the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) in Australia, Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 in the UK, or Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), The Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare (MHLW) in Japan, the Central Commission for Animal Welfare (CCAW) in the Czech Republic, the Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) in Canada, the National Ethics Code from the Royal Belgian (Flemish) Academy of Medicine in Belgium, and the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity from All European Academies. Funding Information: This work was supported by the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure (NCRIS) via the Australian Phenomics Network (APN) (to Gaetan Burgio and Paul Thomas), by an Institutional Development Award (PI: Shelley Smith) P20GM103471 (to CBG, RMQ, DWH, JDE, and RR), by NIGMS 1P30GM110768-01 and P30CA036727 (as part of support to University of Nebraska Mouse Genome Engineering and DNA Sequencing Cores), the British Heart Foundation FS12-57, FS12/57/29717, and CH/13/2/30154 and the program grant RG/15/12/31616 (to Kathryn Hentges and Bernard Keavney), the Wellcome Trust grants 107849/Z/ 15/Z, 097820/Z11/B, and 105610/Z/14/Z, the Medical Research Council MR/ N029992/1 (to DB and CBL), the National BioResource Project of Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology/Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (MEXT/AMED), Japan, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research MOP#142452 (MCB and LJM). LJM is a member of the Research Centre of the McGill University Health Centre which is supported in part by FQRS. Dr. William Thompson was supported by the Indiana Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute, funded in part by grant #UL1 TR001108 from the National Institute of Health (NIH), National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, Clinical and Translational Sciences Award. KC Kent Lloyd is supported by the NIH (UM1OD023221), and work contributed by staff from the UC Davis Mouse Biology Program (MBP) is supported by a grant from the American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine. The work contributed from Xiande Liu, Chad Smith, Eric Jonasch, Xuesong Zhang, and Jan Parker-Thornburg is supported by the NIH under the award number P30CA16672 (XL, CS, EJ, XZ, JPT) and R50CA211121 (JPT). Joseph Miano is supported by the NIH under the award number HL138987. R Sedlacek was supported by LM2015040 (Czech Centre for Phenogenomics), CZ.1.05/1.1.00/02.0109 (BIOCEV), and CZ.1.05/2.1.00/19.0395 by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (MEYS) and by Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic (RVO 68378050). David Ray was supported by a Wellcome Trust Investigator (107849/Z/15/Z) and the Medical Research Council (MR/P011853/1 and MR/P023576/) grants. Andrew Loudon was supported by a Wellcome Trust Investigator (107849/Z/15/Z), Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/N015584/1), Medical Research Council (MR/P023576/1). The work contributed from Gloria Lopez-Castejon is supported by the Wellcome Trust (104192/Z/14/Z) and the Royal Society. Pilar Alcaide was supported by the NIH (HL 123658). The work contributed from Surinder K. Batra is supported by the NIH under the award number P01 CA217798. Publisher Copyright: © 2019 The Author(s).
PY - 2019/8/26
Y1 - 2019/8/26
N2 - Background: CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing technology has facilitated the generation of knockout mice, providing an alternative to cumbersome and time-consuming traditional embryonic stem cell-based methods. An earlier study reported up to 16% efficiency in generating conditional knockout (cKO or floxed) alleles by microinjection of 2 single guide RNAs (sgRNA) and 2 single-stranded oligonucleotides as donors (referred herein as "two-donor floxing" method). Results: We re-evaluate the two-donor method from a consortium of 20 laboratories across the world. The dataset constitutes 56 genetic loci, 17,887 zygotes, and 1718 live-born mice, of which only 15 (0.87%) mice contain cKO alleles. We subject the dataset to statistical analyses and a machine learning algorithm, which reveals that none of the factors analyzed was predictive for the success of this method. We test some of the newer methods that use one-donor DNA on 18 loci for which the two-donor approach failed to produce cKO alleles. We find that the one-donor methods are 10- to 20-fold more efficient than the two-donor approach. Conclusion: We propose that the two-donor method lacks efficiency because it relies on two simultaneous recombination events in cis, an outcome that is dwarfed by pervasive accompanying undesired editing events. The methods that use one-donor DNA are fairly efficient as they rely on only one recombination event, and the probability of correct insertion of the donor cassette without unanticipated mutational events is much higher. Therefore, one-donor methods offer higher efficiencies for the routine generation of cKO animal models.
AB - Background: CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing technology has facilitated the generation of knockout mice, providing an alternative to cumbersome and time-consuming traditional embryonic stem cell-based methods. An earlier study reported up to 16% efficiency in generating conditional knockout (cKO or floxed) alleles by microinjection of 2 single guide RNAs (sgRNA) and 2 single-stranded oligonucleotides as donors (referred herein as "two-donor floxing" method). Results: We re-evaluate the two-donor method from a consortium of 20 laboratories across the world. The dataset constitutes 56 genetic loci, 17,887 zygotes, and 1718 live-born mice, of which only 15 (0.87%) mice contain cKO alleles. We subject the dataset to statistical analyses and a machine learning algorithm, which reveals that none of the factors analyzed was predictive for the success of this method. We test some of the newer methods that use one-donor DNA on 18 loci for which the two-donor approach failed to produce cKO alleles. We find that the one-donor methods are 10- to 20-fold more efficient than the two-donor approach. Conclusion: We propose that the two-donor method lacks efficiency because it relies on two simultaneous recombination events in cis, an outcome that is dwarfed by pervasive accompanying undesired editing events. The methods that use one-donor DNA are fairly efficient as they rely on only one recombination event, and the probability of correct insertion of the donor cassette without unanticipated mutational events is much higher. Therefore, one-donor methods offer higher efficiencies for the routine generation of cKO animal models.
KW - CRISPR-Cas9
KW - Conditional knockout mouse
KW - Floxed allele
KW - Homology-directed repair
KW - Long single-stranded DNA
KW - Machine learning
KW - Mouse
KW - Oligonucleotide
KW - Reproducibility
KW - Transgenesis
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85071526533&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85071526533&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1186/s13059-019-1776-2
DO - 10.1186/s13059-019-1776-2
M3 - Article
C2 - 31446895
AN - SCOPUS:85071526533
SN - 1474-7596
VL - 20
JO - Genome biology
JF - Genome biology
IS - 1
M1 - 171
ER -