1. Developmental Biology
  2. Genetics and Genomics
Download icon

A large-scale resource for tissue-specific CRISPR mutagenesis in Drosophila

Tools and Resources
  • Cited 36
  • Views 8,883
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2020;9:e53865 doi: 10.7554/eLife.53865

Abstract

Genetic screens are powerful tools for the functional annotation of genomes. In the context of multicellular organisms, interrogation of gene function is greatly facilitated by methods that allow spatial and temporal control of gene abrogation. Here, we describe a large-scale transgenic short guide (sg) RNA library for efficient CRISPR-based disruption of specific target genes in a constitutive or conditional manner. The library consists currently of more than 2600 plasmids and 1700 fly lines with a focus on targeting kinases, phosphatases and transcription factors, each expressing two sgRNAs under control of the Gal4/UAS system. We show that conditional CRISPR mutagenesis is robust across many target genes and can be efficiently employed in various somatic tissues, as well as the germline. In order to prevent artefacts commonly associated with excessive amounts of Cas9 protein, we have developed a series of novel UAS-Cas9 transgenes, which allow fine tuning of Cas9 expression to achieve high gene editing activity without detectable toxicity. Functional assays, as well as direct sequencing of genomic sgRNA target sites, indicates that the vast majority of transgenic sgRNA lines mediate efficient gene disruption. Furthermore, we conducted the so far largest fully transgenic CRISPR screen in any metazoan organism, which further supported the high efficiency and accuracy of our library and revealed many so far uncharacterized genes essential for development.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Fillip Port

    Division Signaling and Functional Genomics, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) and Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
    For correspondence
    f.port@dkfz.de
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5157-4835
  2. Claudia Strein

    Division Signaling and Functional Genomics, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) and Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Mona Stricker

    Division Signaling and Functional Genomics, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) and Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Benedikt Rauscher

    Division Signaling and Functional Genomics, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) and Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Florian Heigwer

    Division Signaling and Functional Genomics, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) and Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-8230-1485
  6. Jun Zhou

    Division Signaling and Functional Genomics, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) and Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2101-9304
  7. Celine Beyersdörffer

    Division Signaling and Functional Genomics, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) and Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Jana Frei

    Division Signaling and Functional Genomics, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) and Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Amy Hess

    Division Signaling and Functional Genomics, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) and Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Katharina Kern

    Division Signaling and Functional Genomics, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) and Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Laura Lange

    Division Signaling and Functional Genomics, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) and Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Nora Langner

    Division Signaling and Functional Genomics, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) and Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Roberta Malamud

    Division Signaling and Functional Genomics, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) and Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Bojana Pavlovic

    Division Signaling and Functional Genomics, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) and Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Kristin Rädecke

    Division Signaling and Functional Genomics, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) and Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Lukas Schmitt

    Division Signaling and Functional Genomics, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) and Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Lukas Voos

    Division Signaling and Functional Genomics, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) and Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. Erica Valentini

    Division Signaling and Functional Genomics, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) and Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  19. Michael Boutros

    Division Signaling and Functional Genomics, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) and Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
    For correspondence
    m.boutros@dkfz.de
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9458-817X

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (TRR186)

  • Fillip Port
  • Bojana Pavlovic
  • Michael Boutros

European Research Council (Decode)

  • Michael Boutros

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Michael B Eisen, HHMI, University of California, Berkeley, United States

Publication history

  1. Received: November 22, 2019
  2. Accepted: February 1, 2020
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: February 13, 2020 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: March 9, 2020 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2020, Port et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 8,883
    Page views
  • 1,224
    Downloads
  • 36
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, PubMed Central, Scopus.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Download citations (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Further reading

    1. Developmental Biology
    Soyeon Lim et al.
    Research Article

    Retinal progenitor cells (RPCs) divide in limited numbers to generate the cells comprising vertebrate retina. The molecular mechanism that leads RPC to the division limit, however, remains elusive. Here, we find that the hyperactivation of mechanistic target of rapamycin complex 1 (mTORC1) in an RPC subset by deletion of tuberous sclerosis complex 1 (Tsc1) makes the RPCs arrive at the division limit precociously and produce Müller glia (MG) that degenerate from senescence-associated cell death. We further show the hyperproliferation of Tsc1-deficient RPCs and the degeneration of MG in the mouse retina disappear by concomitant deletion of hypoxia-induced factor 1-a (Hif1a), which induces glycolytic gene expression to support mTORC1-induced RPC proliferation. Collectively, our results suggest that, by having mTORC1 constitutively active, an RPC divides and exhausts mitotic capacity faster than neighboring RPCs, and thus produces retinal cells that degenerate with aging-related changes.

    1. Developmental Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Tania Moreno-Mármol et al.
    Research Article Updated

    The vertebrate eye primordium consists of a pseudostratified neuroepithelium, the optic vesicle (OV), in which cells acquire neural retina or retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) fates. As these fates arise, the OV assumes a cup shape, influenced by mechanical forces generated within the neural retina. Whether the RPE passively adapts to retinal changes or actively contributes to OV morphogenesis remains unexplored. We generated a zebrafish Tg(E1-bhlhe40:GFP) line to track RPE morphogenesis and interrogate its participation in OV folding. We show that, in virtual absence of proliferation, RPE cells stretch and flatten, thereby matching the retinal curvature and promoting OV folding. Localized interference with the RPE cytoskeleton disrupts tissue stretching and OV folding. Thus, extreme RPE flattening and accelerated differentiation are efficient solutions adopted by fast-developing species to enable timely optic cup formation. This mechanism differs in amniotes, in which proliferation drives RPE expansion with a much-reduced need of cell flattening.