Precise in vivo genome editing via single homology arm donor mediated intron-targeting gene integration for genetic disease correction

Article metrics

Abstract

In vivo genome editing represents a powerful strategy for both understanding basic biology and treating inherited diseases. However, it remains a challenge to develop universal and efficient in vivo genome-editing tools for tissues that comprise diverse cell types in either a dividing or non-dividing state. Here, we describe a versatile in vivo gene knock-in methodology that enables the targeting of a broad range of mutations and cell types through the insertion of a minigene at an intron of the target gene locus using an intracellularly linearized single homology arm donor. As a proof-of-concept, we focused on a mouse model of premature-aging caused by a dominant point mutation, which is difficult to repair using existing in vivo genome-editing tools. Systemic treatment using our new method ameliorated aging-associated phenotypes and extended animal lifespan, thus highlighting the potential of this methodology for a broad range of in vivo genome-editing applications.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  1. 1.

    Cox, D. B. T., Platt, R. J. & Zhang, F. Therapeutic genome editing: prospects and challenges. Nat. Med. 21, 121–131 (2015).

  2. 2.

    Orthwein, A. et al. A mechanism for the suppression of homologous recombination in G1 cells. Nature 528, 422–426 (2015).

  3. 3.

    Genovese, P. et al. Targeted genome editing in human repopulating haematopoietic stem cells. Nature 510, 235–240 (2014).

  4. 4.

    Li, H. et al. In vivo genome editing restores haemostasis in a mouse model of haemophilia. Nature 475, 217–221 (2011).

  5. 5.

    Lombardo, A. et al. Site-specific integration and tailoring of cassette design for sustainable gene transfer. Nat. Methods 8, 861–869 (2011).

  6. 6.

    Suzuki, K. et al. In vivo genome editing via CRISPR/Cas9 mediated homology-independent targeted integration. Nature 540, 144–149 (2016).

  7. 7.

    Lieber, M. R. The mechanism of double-strand DNA break repair by the nonhomologous DNA end-joining pathway. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 79, 181–211 (2010).

  8. 8.

    Suzuki, K. & Izpisua Belmonte, J. C. In vivo genome editing via the HITI method as a tool for gene therapy. J. Hum. Genet. 63, 157–164 (2018).

  9. 9.

    Nishiyama, J., Mikuni, T. & Yasuda, R. Virus-mediated genome editing via homology-directed repair in mitotic and postmitotic cells in mammalian brain. Neuron 96, 755–768.e5 (2017).

  10. 10.

    Verma, P. & Greenberg, R. A. Noncanonical views of homology-directed DNA repair. Genes Dev. 30, 1138–1154 (2016).

  11. 11.

    Welty, S. et al. RAD52 is required for RNA-templated recombination repair in post-mitotic neurons. J. Biol. Chem. 293, 1353–1362 (2018).

  12. 12.

    Yasuhara, T. et al. Human Rad52 promotes XPG-mediated R-loop processing to initiate transcription-associated homologous recombination repair. Cell 175, 558–570.e11 (2018).

  13. 13.

    Yao, X. et al. Homology-mediated end joining-based targeted integration using CRISPR/Cas9. Cell Res. 27, 801–814 (2017).

  14. 14.

    Hu, J. H. et al. Evolved Cas9 variants with broad PAM compatibility and high DNA specificity. Nature 556, 57–63 (2018).

  15. 15.

    Nishimasu, H. et al. Engineered CRISPR-Cas9 nuclease with expanded targeting space. Science 361, 1259–1262 (2018).

  16. 16.

    Chen, Z.-Y., He, C.-Y., Ehrhardt, A. & Kay, M. A. Minicircle DNA vectors devoid of bacterial DNA result in persistent and high-level transgene expression in vivo. Mol. Ther. J. Am. Soc. Gene Ther. 8, 495–500 (2003).

  17. 17.

    Jinek, M. et al. A programmable dual-RNA-guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity. Science 337, 816–821 (2012).

  18. 18.

    Wu, J. et al. An alternative pluripotent state confers interspecies chimaeric competency. Nature 521, 316–321 (2015).

  19. 19.

    Osorio, F. G. et al. Splicing-directed therapy in a new mouse model of human accelerated aging. Sci. Transl. Med. 3, 106ra107 (2011).

  20. 20.

    Eriksson, M. et al. Recurrent de novo point mutations in lamin A cause Hutchinson–Gilford progeria syndrome. Nature 423, 293–298 (2003).

  21. 21.

    Lopez-Mejia, I. C. et al. Antagonistic functions of LMNA isoforms in energy expenditure and lifespan. EMBO Rep. 15, 529–539 (2014).

  22. 22.

    Tichy, E. D. et al. The abundance of Rad51 protein in mouse embryonic stem cells is regulated at multiple levels. Stem Cell Res. 9, 124–134 (2012).

  23. 23.

    Saraiva, J., Nobre, R. J. & Pereira de Almeida, L. Gene therapy for the CNS using AAVs: the impact of systemic delivery by AAV9. J. Control. Release Soc. 241, 94–109 (2016).

  24. 24.

    Coutinho, H. D. M., Falcão-Silva, V. S., Gonçalves, G. F. & da Nóbrega, R. B. Molecular ageing in progeroid syndromes: Hutchinson–Gilford progeria syndrome as a model. Immun. Ageing A 6, 4 (2009).

  25. 25.

    Cesta, M. F. Normal structure, function, and histology of the spleen. Toxicol. Pathol. 34, 455–465 (2006).

  26. 26.

    Khanna, P. B., Davies, I. & Faragher, E. B. Age-related changes in the stomach of the laboratory mouse: a quantitative morphological study. Age Ageing 17, 257–264 (1988).

  27. 27.

    Kurban, R. S. & Bhawan, J. Histologic changes in skin associated with aging. J. Dermatol. Surg. Oncol. 16, 908–914 (1990).

  28. 28.

    Zhou, Q., Brown, J., Kanarek, A., Rajagopal, J. & Melton, D. A. In vivo reprogramming of adult pancreatic exocrine cells to beta-cells. Nature 455, 627–632 (2008).

  29. 29.

    Gonzalez, J. M., Pla, D., Perez-Sala, D. & Andres, V. A-type lamins and Hutchinson–Gilford progeria syndrome: pathogenesis and therapy. Front. Biosci. Sch. Ed. 3, 1133–1146 (2011).

  30. 30.

    Merideth, M. A. et al. Phenotype and course of Hutchinson–Gilford progeria syndrome. N. Engl. J. Med. 358, 592–604 (2008).

  31. 31.

    Chu, V. T. et al. Increasing the efficiency of homology-directed repair for CRISPR-Cas9-induced precise gene editing in mammalian cells. Nat. Biotechnol. 33, 543–548 (2015).

  32. 32.

    Maruyama, T. et al. Increasing the efficiency of precise genome editing with CRISPR-Cas9 by inhibition of nonhomologous end joining. Nat. Biotechnol. 33, 538–542 (2015).

  33. 33.

    Boyden, E. S., Zhang, F., Bamberg, E., Nagel, G. & Deisseroth, K. Millisecond-timescale, genetically targeted optical control of neural activity. Nat. Neurosci. 8, 1263–1268 (2005).

  34. 34.

    Izpisua Belmonte, J. C. et al. Brains, genes, and primates. Neuron 86, 617–631 (2015).

  35. 35.

    Sasaki, E. et al. Generation of transgenic non-human primates with germline transmission. Nature 459, 523–527 (2009).

  36. 36.

    Naldini, L. Gene therapy returns to centre stage. Nature 526, 351–360 (2015).

  37. 37.

    Lewin, A. S., Glazer, P. M. & Milstone, L. M. Gene therapy for autosomal dominant disorders of keratin. J. Investig. Dermatol. Symp. Proc. 10, 47–61 (2005).

  38. 38.

    Horton, W. A., Hall, J. G. & Hecht, J. T. Achondroplasia. Lancet Lond. Engl. 370, 162–172 (2007).

  39. 39.

    Walker, F. O. Huntington’s disease. Lancet Lond. Engl. 369, 218–228 (2007).

  40. 40.

    Gao, X. et al. Treatment of autosomal dominant hearing loss by in vivo delivery of genome editing agents. Nature 553, 217–221 (2018).

  41. 41.

    Yin, H. et al. Genome editing with Cas9 in adult mice corrects a disease mutation and phenotype. Nat. Biotechnol. 32, 551–553 (2014).

  42. 42.

    Baker, D. J. et al. Clearance of p16Ink4a-positive senescent cells delays ageing-associated disorders. Nature 479, 232–236 (2011).

  43. 43.

    Beyret, E. et al. Single-dose CRISPR-Cas9 therapy extends lifespan of mice with Hutchinson–Gilford progeria syndrome. Nat. Med. 25, 419–422 (2019).

  44. 44.

    Bárcena, C. et al. Methionine restriction extends lifespan in progeroid mice and alters lipid and bile acid metabolism. Cell Rep. 24, 2392–2403 (2018).

  45. 45.

    Ishizu, T. et al. Targeted genome replacement via homology-directed repair in non-dividing cardiomyocytes. Sci. Rep. 7, 9363 (2017).

  46. 46.

    Richardson, C. & Jasin, M. Coupled homologous and nonhomologous repair of a double-strand break preserves genomic integrity in mammalian cells. Mol. Cell Biol. 20, 9068–9075 (2000).

  47. 47.

    Paix, A. et al. Precision genome editing using synthesis-dependent repair of Cas9-induced DNA breaks. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, E10745–E10754 (2017).

  48. 48.

    Kramara, J., Osia, B. & Malkova, A. Break-induced replication: the where, the why, and the how. Trends Genet. TIG 34, 518–531 (2018).

  49. 49.

    Strausberg, R. L. et al. Generation and initial analysis of more than 15,000 full-length human and mouse cDNA sequences. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 99, 16899–16903 (2002).

  50. 50.

    Gutschner, T., Haemmerle, M., Genovese, G., Draetta, G. F. & Chin, L. Post-translational regulation of Cas9 during G1 enhances homology-directed repair. Cell Rep. 14, 1555–1566 (2016).

  51. 51.

    Hishida, T. et al. Sirt1, p53, and p38(MAPK) are crucial regulators of detrimental phenotypes of embryonic stem cells with Max expression ablation. Stem Cells Dayt. Ohio 30, 1634–1644 (2012).

  52. 52.

    Ocampo, A. et al. In vivo amelioration of age-associated hallmarks by partial reprogramming. Cell 167, 1719–1733.e12 (2016).

  53. 53.

    Schindelin, J. et al. Fiji: an open-source platform for biological-image analysis. Nat. Methods 9, 676–682 (2012).

  54. 54.

    Liu, G.-H. et al. Recapitulation of premature ageing with iPSCs from Hutchinson–Gilford progeria syndrome. Nature 472, 221–225 (2011).

  55. 55.

    Ma, H. T. & Poon, R. Y. C. Synchronization of HeLa cells. Methods Mol. Biol. 1524, 189–201 (2017).

  56. 56.

    Sanjana, N. E. et al. A transcription activator-like effector toolbox for genome engineering. Nat. Protoc. 7, 171–192 (2012).

  57. 57.

    Gombash Lampe, S. E., Kaspar, B. K. & Foust, K. D. Intravenous injections in neonatal mice. J. Vis. Exp. e52037 (2014). https://doi.org/10.3791/52037.

  58. 58.

    Chen, Y. et al. SOAPnuke: a MapReduce acceleration-supported software for integrated quality control and preprocessing of high-throughput sequencing data. GigaScience 7, 1–6 (2018).

  59. 59.

    Li, H. & Durbin, R. Fast and accurate short read alignment with Burrows-Wheeler transform. Bioinformatics 25, 1754–1760 (2009).

  60. 60.

    Langmead, B., Trapnell, C., Pop, M. & Salzberg, S. L. Ultrafast and memory-efficient alignment of short DNA sequences to the human genome. Genome Biol. 10, R25 (2009).

  61. 61.

    Hsu, P. D. et al. DNA targeting specificity of RNA-guided Cas9 nucleases. Nat. Biotechnol. 31, 827–832 (2013).

  62. 62.

    Luo, Y.-B. et al. Investigation of splicing changes and post-translational processing of LMNA in sporadic inclusion body myositis. Int. J. Clin. Exp. Pathol. 6, 1723–1733 (2013).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to M. Schwarz and P. Schwarz for administrative help; D. O’Keefe and S. Tsuji for help with manuscript preparation; M. Kay and Z.Y. Chen for sharing experimental materials; J. Naughton and J. Marlett for AAV production; K. Peterson and Y. Gu for helping the measurement of heart rate; U. Manor and K. Diffenderfer for imaging; K. McIntyre for mouse histology processing and J. Li for helping the molecular work; K. Sumiyama for data analysis. M.Y. was partially supported by 2016 Salk Women & Science Special Award. K.S. was supported by JSPS KAKENHI (15K21762 and 18H04036), Takeda Science Foundation, The Uehara Memorial Foundation, National Institutes of Natural Sciences (BS291007), The Sumitomo Foundation (170220), The Naito Foundation, The Kurata Grants (1350), Mochida Memorial Foundation, and The Inamori Foundation. This research was supported by Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Genome Read and Write (No. 2017B030301011), Guangdong Provincial Academician Workstation of BGI Synthetic Genomics (No. 2017B090904014) and Shenzhen Peacock Plan (No. KQTD20150330171505310). J.C.I.B. was supported by The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust (2012-PG-MED002), the G. Harold and Leila Y. Mathers Charitable Foundation, NIH (R01HL123755 and 5 DP1 DK113616), The Progeria Research Foundation, The Glenn Foundation, KAUST, The Moxie Foundation, Fundación Dr. Pedro Guillen, AFE and Universidad Católica San Antonio de Murcia (UCAM).

Author information

K.S., M.Y., R.H.-B., and J.C.I.B. conceived the project and designed experiments. K.S., M.Y., R.H.-B. and E.A. constructed plasmids and minicircles. M.Y. and R.H.-B. performed work on primary neurons. K.S., M.Y., R.H.-B., R.D.S., E.A., M.S., and A.N.N. performed genomic DNA and RNA analyses. M.Y., F.H., M.K., T.H., and C.R.E. performed phenotypic analyses of progeria mice. M.Y. performed AAV IV injection in neonatal mice. Z.L., C.W., J.G., Y.Y., Y.G. and K.Z. performed deep sequencing and analyzed data. K.S., M.Y., P.R. and A.O. performed ECG recordings. K.S., E.N.D., J.M.C., P.M., P.G., C.L.-O., G.-H.L., and J.C.I.B. supervised and contributed to the direction of the project. K.S., M.Y., R.H.-B., P.R., J.W. and J.C.I.B. wrote the manuscript with input from all the authors.

Correspondence to Keiichiro Suzuki or Juan Carlos Izpisua Belmonte.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark