Rapid genome editing by CRISPR-Cas9-POLD3 fusion

  1. Ganna Reint
  2. Zhuokun Li
  3. Kornel Labun
  4. Salla Keskitalo
  5. Inkeri Soppa
  6. Katariina Mamia
  7. Eero Tolo
  8. Monika Szymanska
  9. Leonardo A Meza-Zepeda
  10. Susanne Lorenz
  11. Artur Cieslar-Pobuda
  12. Xian Hu
  13. Diana L Bordin
  14. Judith Staerk
  15. Eivind Valen
  16. Bernhard Schmierer
  17. Markku Varjosalo
  18. Jussi Taipale
  19. Emma Haapaniemi  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Oslo, Norway
  2. University of Bergen, Norway
  3. University of Helsinki, Finland
  4. University of Oslo, Finland
  5. Oslo University Hospital, Norway
  6. Akershus University Hospital, Norway
  7. Karolinska Institute, Sweden
  8. University of Cambridge, United Kingdom

Abstract

Precision CRISPR gene editing relies on the cellular homology-directed DNA repair (HDR) to introduce custom DNA sequences to target sites. The HDR editing efficiency varies between cell types and genomic sites, and the sources of this variation are incompletely understood. Here, we have studied the effect of 450 DNA repair protein - Cas9 fusions on CRISPR genome editing outcomes. We find the majority of fusions to improve precision genome editing only modestly in a locus- and cell-type specific manner. We identify Cas9-POLD3 fusion that enhances editing by speeding up the initiation of DNA repair. We conclude that while DNA repair protein fusions to Cas9 can improve HDR CRISPR editing, most need to be optimized to the cell type and genomic site, highlighting the diversity of factors contributing to locus-specific genome editing outcomes.

Data availability

The following data sets were generated Reint et. al., (2021), Sequence Read Archive (SRA), BioProject ID: PRJNA782085. The following previously published data sets were used: Tsai et al., (2015) Sequence Read Archive (SRA), SRP050338. Custom scripts used to extract UMI from the demultiplexed fastq reads for the GUIDE-Seq analysis is publicly available at: https://bitbucket.org/valenlab/guide-seq-pold3. Sequences of Cas9 nuclease and GFP-BFP reporter cassette used in this study are available in Supplementary file 8.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Ganna Reint

    Centre for Molecular Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4823-5485
  2. Zhuokun Li

    Centre for Molecular Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7297-6916
  3. Kornel Labun

    Department of Informatics, Computational Biology Unit, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Salla Keskitalo

    Centre for Biotechnology, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Inkeri Soppa

    Centre for Molecular Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Finland
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Katariina Mamia

    Centre for Molecular Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Eero Tolo

    Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Helsinki, Oslo, Finland
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Monika Szymanska

    Centre for Molecular Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0957-9568
  9. Leonardo A Meza-Zepeda

    Department of Core Facilities, Institute for Cancer Research, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Susanne Lorenz

    Department of Core Facilities, Institute for Cancer Research, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Artur Cieslar-Pobuda

    Centre for Molecular Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Xian Hu

    Centre for Molecular Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3381-7514
  13. Diana L Bordin

    Department of Clinical Molecular Biology, Akershus University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Judith Staerk

    Centre for Molecular Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8698-6998
  15. Eivind Valen

    Center for Biotechnology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Bernhard Schmierer

    Department of Medical Biochemistry and Biophysics, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9082-7022
  17. Markku Varjosalo

    Centre for Biotechnology, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1340-9732
  18. Jussi Taipale

    Department of Biochemistry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4204-0951
  19. Emma Haapaniemi

    Centre for Molecular Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
    For correspondence
    emma.haapaniemi@ncmm.uio.no
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6693-8208

Funding

Barncancerfonden

  • Kornel Labun

Norwegian Research Council

  • Emma Haapaniemi

South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority ((Grant no. 279922 to Hilde Nilsen))

  • Emma Haapaniemi

Knut och Alice Wallenbergs Stiftelse

  • Jussi Taipale

Cancerfonden

  • Emma Haapaniemi

Barncancerfonden

  • Emma Haapaniemi

Instrumentariumin Tiedesäätiö

  • Emma Haapaniemi

Science for Life Laboratory

  • Bernhard Schmierer

Academy of Finland

  • Markku Varjosalo
  • Jussi Taipale
  • Emma Haapaniemi

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

Copyright

© 2021, Reint 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

  • 6,419
    views
  • 775
    downloads
  • 12
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

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)

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

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

  1. Ganna Reint
  2. Zhuokun Li
  3. Kornel Labun
  4. Salla Keskitalo
  5. Inkeri Soppa
  6. Katariina Mamia
  7. Eero Tolo
  8. Monika Szymanska
  9. Leonardo A Meza-Zepeda
  10. Susanne Lorenz
  11. Artur Cieslar-Pobuda
  12. Xian Hu
  13. Diana L Bordin
  14. Judith Staerk
  15. Eivind Valen
  16. Bernhard Schmierer
  17. Markku Varjosalo
  18. Jussi Taipale
  19. Emma Haapaniemi
(2021)
Rapid genome editing by CRISPR-Cas9-POLD3 fusion
eLife 10:e75415.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.75415

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.75415

Further reading

    1. Cell Biology
    Joan Chang, Adam Pickard ... Karl E Kadler
    Research Article

    Collagen-I fibrillogenesis is crucial to health and development, where dysregulation is a hallmark of fibroproliferative diseases. Here, we show that collagen-I fibril assembly required a functional endocytic system that recycles collagen-I to assemble new fibrils. Endogenous collagen production was not required for fibrillogenesis if exogenous collagen was available, but the circadian-regulated vacuolar protein sorting (VPS) 33b and collagen-binding integrin α11 subunit were crucial to fibrillogenesis. Cells lacking VPS33B secrete soluble collagen-I protomers but were deficient in fibril formation, thus secretion and assembly are separately controlled. Overexpression of VPS33B led to loss of fibril rhythmicity and overabundance of fibrils, which was mediated through integrin α11β1. Endocytic recycling of collagen-I was enhanced in human fibroblasts isolated from idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, where VPS33B and integrin α11 subunit were overexpressed at the fibrogenic front; this correlation between VPS33B, integrin α11 subunit, and abnormal collagen deposition was also observed in samples from patients with chronic skin wounds. In conclusion, our study showed that circadian-regulated endocytic recycling is central to homeostatic assembly of collagen fibrils and is disrupted in diseases.

    1. Cell Biology
    Chun-Wei Chen, Jeffery B Chavez ... Bruce J Nicholson
    Research Article Updated

    Endometriosis is a debilitating disease affecting 190 million women worldwide and the greatest single contributor to infertility. The most broadly accepted etiology is that uterine endometrial cells retrogradely enter the peritoneum during menses, and implant and form invasive lesions in a process analogous to cancer metastasis. However, over 90% of women suffer retrograde menstruation, but only 10% develop endometriosis, and debate continues as to whether the underlying defect is endometrial or peritoneal. Processes implicated in invasion include: enhanced motility; adhesion to, and formation of gap junctions with, the target tissue. Endometrial stromal (ESCs) from 22 endometriosis patients at different disease stages show much greater invasiveness across mesothelial (or endothelial) monolayers than ESCs from 22 control subjects, which is further enhanced by the presence of EECs. This is due to the enhanced responsiveness of endometriosis ESCs to the mesothelium, which induces migration and gap junction coupling. ESC-PMC gap junction coupling is shown to be required for invasion, while coupling between PMCs enhances mesothelial barrier breakdown.