In the past decade, the development of a genome-editing technology mediated by CRISPR has made genetic engineering easier than ever, both in vitro and in vivo. CRISPR systems have enabled important advances in cancer research by accelerating the development of study models or as a tool in genetic screening studies, including those aiming to discover and validate therapeutic targets. In this Review, we discuss these applications as well as new potential uses of CRISPR to assist in cancer detection or the development of anticancer therapies.
CRISPR systems have been extensively applied to edit genes and genomic sequences in order to develop cancer models, providing a rapid, simple and low-cost system with which to identify and study genetic determinants of cancer and therapeutic targets.
CRISPR systems have been widely adapted in cancer research to facilitate the discovery of new targets; many high-throughput in vitro and in vivo genetic screening studies have been performed with CRISPR.
CRISPR systems are being robustly adapted to improve the efficacy of immunotherapies by enhancing their potency, mitigating toxicity, reducing manufacturing cost and facilitating the discovery and development of new immunotherapeutic strategies.
The delivery of CRISPR to tumours might inhibit tumour growth directly and indirectly. As a diagnosis platform, CRISPR could be used to detect low numbers of cancer cells or rare mutations in clinical samples.
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $17.42 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Rent or Buy article
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
Jinek, M. et al. A programmable dual-RNA-guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity. Science 337, 816–821 (2012).
Jinek, M. et al. RNA-programmed genome editing in human cells. eLife 2, e00471 (2013).
Mali, P. et al. RNA-guided human genome engineering via Cas9. Science 339, 823–826 (2013).
Cong, L. et al. Multiplex genome engineering using CRISPR/Cas systems. Science 339, 819–823 (2013).
Cox, D. B., Platt, R. J. & Zhang, F. Therapeutic genome editing: prospects and challenges. Nat. Med. 21, 121–131 (2015).
Xue, W. et al. CRISPR-mediated direct mutation of cancer genes in the mouse liver. Nature 514, 380–385 (2014).
Chen, S. et al. Genome-wide CRISPR screen in a mouse model of tumor growth and metastasis. Cell 160, 1246–1260 (2014).
Manguso, R. T. et al. In vivo CRISPR screening identifies Ptpn2 as a cancer immunotherapy target. Nature 547, 413–418 (2017).
Drost, J. et al. Use of CRISPR-modified human stem cell organoids to study the origin of mutational signatures in cancer. Science 358, 234–238 (2017).
Platt, R. J. et al. CRISPR-Cas9 knockin mice for genome editing and cancer modeling. Cell 159, 440–455 (2014).
Matano, M. et al. Modeling colorectal cancer using CRISPR-Cas9-mediated engineering of human intestinal organoids. Nat. Med. 21, 256–262 (2015).
Sanchez-Rivera, F. J. & Jacks, T. Applications of the CRISPR-Cas9 system in cancer biology. Nat. Rev. Cancer 15, 387–395 (2015).
Lin, A., Giuliano, C. J., Sayles, N. M. & Sheltzer, J. M. CRISPR/Cas9 mutagenesis invalidates a putative cancer dependency targeted in on-going clinical trials. eLife 6, e24179 (2017).
Chow, R. D. et al. AAV-mediated direct in vivo CRISPR screen identifies functional suppressors in glioblastoma. Nat. Neurosci. 20, 1329–1341 (2017).
Shi, J. et al. Discovery of cancer drug targets by CRISPR-Cas9 screening of protein domains. Nat. Biotechnol. 33, 661–667 (2015).
Wang, T., Wei, J. J., Sabatini, D. M. & Lander, E. S. Genetic screens in human cells using the CRISPR-Cas9 system. Science 343, 80–84 (2014).
Shalem, O. et al. Genome-scale CRISPR-Cas9 knockout screening in human cells. Science 343, 84–87 (2014).
Eyquem, J. et al. Targeting a CAR to the TRAC locus with CRISPR/Cas9 enhances tumour rejection. Nature 543, 113–117 (2017).
Ren, J. et al. Multiplex genome editing to generate universal CAR T cells resistant to PD1 inhibition. Clin. Cancer Res. 23, 2255–2266 (2017).
Legut, M., Dolton, G., Mian, A. A., Ottmann, O. & Sewell, A. CRISPR-mediated TCR replacement generates superior anticancer transgenic T cells. Blood 131, 311–322 (2017).
Rouet, P., Smih, F. & Jasin, M. Introduction of double-strand breaks into the genome of mouse cells by expression of a rare-cutting endonuclease. Mol. Cell. Biol. 14, 8096–8106 (1994).
Lieber, M. R., Ma, Y., Pannicke, U. & Schwarz, K. Mechanism and regulation of human non-homologous DNA end-joining. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 4, 712–720 (2003).
Urnov, F. D., Rebar, E. J., Holmes, M. C., Zhang, H. S. & Gregory, P. D. Genome editing with engineered zinc finger nucleases. Nat. Rev. Genetics 11, 636–646 (2010).
Joung, J. K. & Sander, J. D. TALENs: a widely applicable technology for targeted genome editing. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 14, 49–55 (2013).
Kleinstiver, B. P. et al. Engineered CRISPR-Cas9 nucleases with altered PAM specificities. Nature 523, 481–485 (2015).
Hu, J. H. et al. Evolved Cas9 variants with broad PAM compatibility and high DNA specificity. Nature 556, 57–63 (2018).
Nishimasu, H. et al. Engineered CRISPR-Cas9 nuclease with expanded targeting space. Science 361, 1259–1262 (2018).
Ran, F. A. et al. In vivo genome editing using Staphylococcus aureus Cas9. Nature 520, 186–191 (2015).
Hou, Z. et al. Efficient genome engineering in human pluripotent stem cells using Cas9 from Neisseria meningitidis. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 15644–15649 (2013).
Zetsche, B. et al. Cpf1 is a single RNA-guided endonuclease of a class 2 CRISPR-Cas system. Cell 163, 759–771 (2015).
Fu, Y. et al. High-frequency off-target mutagenesis induced by CRISPR-Cas nucleases in human cells. Nat. Biotechnol. 31, 822–826 (2013).
Fu, Y., Sander, J. D., Reyon, D., Cascio, V. M. & Joung, J. K. Improving CRISPR-Cas nuclease specificity using truncated guide RNAs. Nat. Biotechnol. 32, 279–284 (2013).
Chen, J. S. et al. Enhanced proofreading governs CRISPR–Cas9 targeting accuracy. Nature 550, 407 (2017).
Kleinstiver, B. P. et al. High-fidelity CRISPR-Cas9 nucleases with no detectable genome-wide off-target effects. Nature 529, 490–495 (2016).
Slaymaker, I. M. et al. Rationally engineered Cas9 nucleases with improved specificity. Science 351, 84–88 (2016).
Guilinger, J. P., Thompson, D. B. & Liu, D. R. Fusion of catalytically inactive Cas9 to FokI nuclease improves the specificity of genome modification. Nat. Biotechnol. 32, 577–582 (2014).
Tsai, S. Q. et al. Dimeric CRISPR RNA-guided FokI nucleases for highly specific genome editing. Nat. Biotechnol. 32, 569–576 (2014).
Bolukbasi, M. F. et al. DNA-binding domain fusions enhance the targeting range and precision of Cas9. Nat. Methods 12, 1150–1156 (2015).
Ran, F. A. et al. Double nicking by RNA-guided CRISPR Cas9 for enhanced genome editing specificity. Cell 154, 1380–1389 (2013).
Yin, H. et al. Partial DNA-guided Cas9 enables genome editing with reduced off-target activity. Nat. Chem. Biol. 14, 311–316 (2018).
Vanoli, F. et al. CRISPR-Cas9-guided oncogenic chromosomal translocations with conditional fusion protein expression in human mesenchymal cells. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 3696–3701 (2017).
Ghezraoui, H. et al. Chromosomal translocations in human cells are generated by canonical nonhomologous end-joining. Mol. Cell 55, 829–842 (2014).
Li, Y. et al. A versatile reporter system for CRISPR-mediated chromosomal rearrangements. |Genome Biol. 16, 111 (2015).
Blasco, R. B. et al. Simple and rapid in vivo generation of chromosomal rearrangements using CRISPR/Cas9 technology. Cell Rep. 9, 1219–1227 (2014).
Maddalo, D. et al. In vivo engineering of oncogenic chromosomal rearrangements with the CRISPR/Cas9 system. Nature 516, 423–427 (2014).
Lin, S., Staahl, B. T., Alla, R. K. & Doudna, J. A. Enhanced homology-directed human genome engineering by controlled timing of CRISPR / Cas9 delivery. eLife 3, e04766 (2015).
Suzuki, K. et al. In vivo genome editing via CRISPR/Cas9 mediated homology-independent targeted integration. Nature 540, 144–149 (2016).
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).
Deng, C. & Capecchi, M. R. Reexamination of gene targeting frequency as a function of the extent of homology between the targeting vector and the target locus. Mol. Cell. Biol. 12, 3365–3371 (1992).
Gilbert, L. A. et al. Genome-scale CRISPR-mediated control of gene repression and activation. Cell 159, 647–661 (2014).
Gilbert, L. A. et al. CRISPR-mediated modular RNA-guided regulation of transcription in eukaryotes. Cell 154, 442–451 (2013).
Qi, L. S. et al. Repurposing CRISPR as an RNA-guided platform for sequence-specific control of gene expression. Cell 152, 1173–1183 (2013).
Larson, M. H. et al. CRISPR interference (CRISPRi) for sequence-specific control of gene expression. Nat. Protoc. 8, 2180–2196 (2013).
Cheng, A. W. et al. Multiplexed activation of endogenous genes by CRISPR-on, an RNA-guided transcriptional activator system. Cell Res. 23, 1163–1171 (2013).
Zalatan, J. G. et al. Engineering complex synthetic transcriptional programs with CRISPR RNA scaffolds. Cell 160, 339–350 (2015).
Konermann, S. et al. Genome-scale transcriptional activation by an engineered CRISPR-Cas9 complex. Nature 517, 583–588 (2015).
Chavez, A. et al. Highly efficient Cas9-mediated transcriptional programming. Nat. Methods 12, 326–328 (2015).
Tanenbaum, M. E., Gilbert, L. A., Qi, L. S., Weissman, J. S. & Vale, R. D. A protein tagging system for signal amplification in gene expression and fluorescence imaging. Cell 159, 635–646 (2014).
Zafra, M. P. et al. Optimized base editors enable efficient editing in cells, organoids and mice. Nat. Biotechnol. 36, 888–893 (2018).
Komor, A. C., Kim, Y. B., Packer, M. S., Zuris, J. A. & Liu, D. R. Programmable editing of a target base in genomic DNA without double-stranded DNA cleavage. Nature 533, 420 (2016).
Li, X. et al. Base editing with a Cpf1-cytidine deaminase fusion. Nat. Biotechnol. 36, 324–327 (2018).
Nishida, K. et al. Targeted nucleotide editing using hybrid prokaryotic and vertebrate adaptive immune systems. Science 353, aaf8729 (2016).
Gaudelli, N. M. et al. Programmable base editing of A·T to G·C in genomic DNA without DNA cleavage. Nature 551, 464 (2017).
Walrath, J. C., Hawes, J. J., Van Dyke, T. & Reilly, K. M. Genetically engineered mouse models in cancer research. Adv. Cancer Res. 106, 113–164 (2010).
Fellmann, C., Gowen, B. G., Lin, P. C., Doudna, J. A. & Corn, J. E. Cornerstones of CRISPR-Cas in drug discovery and therapy. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 16, 89–100 (2017).
Papagiannakopoulos, T. et al. Circadian rhythm disruption promotes lung tumorigenesis. Cell Metab. 24, 324–331 (2016).
Wanzel, M. et al. CRISPR-Cas9–based target validation for p53-reactivating model compounds. Nat. Chem. Biol. 12, 22 (2015).
Smurnyy, Y. et al. DNA sequencing and CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing for target validation in mammalian cells. Nat. Chem. Biol. 10, 623 (2014).
Neggers, J. E. et al. Target identification of small molecules using large-scale CRISPR-Cas mutagenesis scanning of essential genes. Nat. Commun. 9, 502 (2018).
Donovan, K. F. et al. Creation of novel protein variants with CRISPR/Cas9-mediated mutagenesis: turning a screening by-product into a discovery tool. PLOS ONE 12, e0170445 (2017).
Ipsaro, J. J. et al. Rapid generation of drug-resistance alleles at endogenous loci using CRISPR-Cas9 indel mutagenesis. PLOS ONE 12, e0172177 (2017).
Torres, R. et al. Engineering human tumour-associated chromosomal translocations with the RNA-guided CRISPR-Cas9 system. Nat. Commun. 5, 3964 (2014).
Heckl, D. et al. Generation of mouse models of myeloid malignancy with combinatorial genetic lesions using CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing. Nat. Biotechnol. 32, 941–946 (2014).
Plouffe, S. W. et al. Characterization of Hippo pathway components by gene inactivation. Mol. Cell 64, 993–1008 (2016).
Katainen, R. et al. CTCF/cohesin-binding sites are frequently mutated in cancer. Nat. Genet. 47, 818–821 (2015).
Guo, Y. et al. CRISPR inversion of CTCF sites alters genome topology and enhancer/promoter function. Cell 162, 900–910 (2015).
Seino, T. et al. Human pancreatic tumor organoids reveal loss of stem cell niche factor dependence during disease progression. Cell Stem Cell 22, 454–467 (2018).
Lee, J. et al. Reconstituting development of pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia from primary human pancreas duct cells. Nat. Commun. 8, 14686 (2017).
Verissimo, C. S. et al. Targeting mutant RAS in patient-derived colorectal cancer organoids by combinatorial drug screening. eLife 5, e18489 (2016).
Drost, J. et al. Sequential cancer mutations in cultured human intestinal stem cells. Nature 521, 43–47 (2015).
Mou, H., Kennedy, Z., Anderson, D. G., Yin, H. & Xue, W. Precision cancer mouse models through genome editing with CRISPR-Cas9. Genome Med. 7, 53 (2015).
Winters, I. P., Murray, C. W. & Winslow, M. M. Towards quantitative and multiplexed in vivo functional cancer genomics. Nat. Rev. Genet. 19, 741–755 (2018).
Roper, J. et al. In vivo genome editing and organoid transplantation models of colorectal cancer and metastasis. Nat. Biotechnol. 35, 569–576 (2017).
Sanchez-Rivera, F. J. et al. Rapid modelling of cooperating genetic events in cancer through somatic genome editing. Nature 516, 428–431 (2014).
Rogers, Z. N. et al. A quantitative and multiplexed approach to uncover the fitness landscape of tumor suppression in vivo. Nat. Methods 14, 737–742 (2017).
Chiou, S. H. et al. Pancreatic cancer modeling using retrograde viral vector delivery and in vivo CRISPR/Cas9-mediated somatic genome editing. Genes Dev. 29, 1576–1585 (2015).
Yin, H., Kauffman, K. J. & Anderson, D. G. Delivery technologies for genome editing. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 16, 387–399 (2017).
Zuckermann, M. et al. Somatic CRISPR/Cas9-mediated tumour suppressor disruption enables versatile brain tumour modelling. Nat. Commun. 6, 7391 (2015).
Annunziato, S. et al. Modeling invasive lobular breast carcinoma by CRISPR/Cas9-mediated somatic genome editing of the mammary gland. Genes Dev. 30, 1470–1480 (2016).
O’Rourke, K. P. et al. Transplantation of engineered organoids enables rapid generation of metastatic mouse models of colorectal cancer. Nat. Biotechnol. 35, 577–582 (2017).
Rogers, Z. N. et al. Mapping the in vivo fitness landscape of lung adenocarcinoma tumor suppression in mice. Nat. Genet. 50, 483–486 (2018).
Walter, D. M. et al. Systematic in vivo inactivation of chromatin-regulating enzymes identifies Setd2 as a potent tumor suppressor in lung adenocarcinoma. Cancer Res. 77, 1719–1729 (2017).
Chu, V. T. et al. Efficient CRISPR-mediated mutagenesis in primary immune cells using CrispRGold and a C57BL/6 Cas9 transgenic mouse line. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 12514–12519 (2016).
Malina, A. et al. Repurposing CRISPR/Cas9 for in situ functional assays. Genes Dev. 27, 2602–2614 (2013).
Winters, I. P. et al. Multiplexed in vivo homology-directed repair and tumor barcoding enables parallel quantification of Kras variant oncogenicity. Nat. Commun. 8, 2053 (2017).
Yin, H. et al. Therapeutic genome editing by combined viral and non-viral delivery of CRISPR system components in vivo. Nat. Biotechnol. 34, 328–333 (2016).
Wang, D. et al. Adenovirus-mediated somatic genome editing of Pten by CRISPR/Cas9 in mouse liver in spite of Cas9-specific immune responses. Hum. Gene Ther. 26, 432–442 (2015).
Huang, J. et al. Generation and comparison of CRISPR-Cas9 and Cre-mediated genetically engineered mouse models of sarcoma. Nat. Commun. 8, 15999 (2017).
Carroll, K. J. et al. A mouse model for adult cardiac-specific gene deletion with CRISPR/Cas9. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 338–343 (2016).
Dow, L. E. et al. Inducible in vivo genome editing with CRISPR-Cas9. Nat. Biotechnol. 33, 390–394 (2015).
Weber, J. et al. CRISPR/Cas9 somatic multiplex-mutagenesis for high-throughput functional cancer genomics in mice. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 13982–13987 (2015).
Xu, C. et al. piggyBac mediates efficient in vivo CRISPR library screening for tumorigenesis in mice. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 722–727 (2017).
Maresch, R. et al. Multiplexed pancreatic genome engineering and cancer induction by transfection-based CRISPR/Cas9 delivery in mice. Nat. Commun. 7, 10770 (2016).
Billon, P. et al. CRISPR-mediated base editing enables efficient disruption of eukaryotic genes through induction of STOP codons. Mol. Cell 67, 1068–1079 (2017).
Liu, Z. et al. Efficient generation of mouse models of human diseases via ABE- and BE-mediated base editing. Nat. Commun. 9, 2338 (2018).
Hart, T. et al. High-resolution CRISPR screens reveal fitness genes and genotype-specific cancer liabilities. Cell 163, 1515–1526 (2015).
Wang, T. et al. Identification and characterization of essential genes in the human genome. Science 350, 1096–1101 (2015).
Steinhart, Z. et al. Genome-wide CRISPR screens reveal a Wnt-FZD5 signaling circuit as a druggable vulnerability of RNF43-mutant pancreatic tumors. Nat. Med. 23, 60–68 (2017).
Fei, T. et al. Genome-wide CRISPR screen identifies HNRNPL as a prostate cancer dependency regulating RNA splicing. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, E5207–E5215 (2017).
Parnas, O. et al. A genome-wide CRISPR screen in primary immune cells to dissect regulatory networks. Cell 162, 675–686 (2015).
Patel, S. J. et al. Identification of essential genes for cancer immunotherapy. Nature 548, 537–542 (2017).
Klann, T. S. et al. CRISPR–Cas9 epigenome editing enables high-throughput screening for functional regulatory elements in the human genome. Nat. Biotechnol. 35, 561 (2017).
Krall, E. B. et al. KEAP1 loss modulates sensitivity to kinase targeted therapy in lung cancer. eLife 6, e18970 (2017).
Ruiz, S. et al. A genome-wide CRISPR screen identifies CDC25A as a determinant of sensitivity to ATR inhibitors. Mol. Cell 62, 307–313 (2016).
Katigbak, A. et al. A CRISPR/Cas9 functional screen identifies rare tumor suppressors. Sci. Rep. 6, 38968 (2016).
Braun, C. J. et al. Versatile in vivo regulation of tumor phenotypes by dCas9-mediated transcriptional perturbation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, E3892–E3900 (2016).
Kodama, M. et al. In vivo loss-of-function screens identify KPNB1 as a new druggable oncogene in epithelial ovarian cancer. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, E7301–E7310 (2017).
Song, C. Q. et al. Genome-wide CRISPR screen identifies regulators of mitogen-activated protein kinase as suppressors of liver tumors in mice. Gastroenterology 152, 1161–1173 (2017).
Anderson, G. R. et al. A landscape of therapeutic cooperativity in KRAS mutant cancers reveals principles for controlling tumor evolution. Cell Rep. 20, 999–1015 (2017).
Wang, T. et al. Gene essentiality profiling reveals gene networks and synthetic lethal interactions with oncogenic Ras. Cell 168, 890–903 (2017).
Shen, J. P. et al. Combinatorial CRISPR-Cas9 screens for de novo mapping of genetic interactions. Nat. Methods 14, 573–576 (2017).
Han, K. et al. Synergistic drug combinations for cancer identified in a CRISPR screen for pairwise genetic interactions. Nat. Biotechnol. 35, 463–474 (2017).
Wong, A. S. et al. Multiplexed barcoded CRISPR-Cas9 screening enabled by CombiGEM. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 2544–2549 (2016).
Datlinger, P. et al. Pooled CRISPR screening with single-cell transcriptome readout. Nat. Methods 14, 297 (2017).
Sanjana, N. E. et al. High-resolution interrogation of functional elements in the noncoding genome. Science 353, 1545–1549 (2016).
Cheng, J. et al. A Molecular Chipper technology for CRISPR sgRNA library generation and functional mapping of noncoding regions. Nat. Commun. 7, 11178 (2016).
Zhu, S. et al. Genome-scale deletion screening of human long non-coding RNAs using a paired-guide RNA CRISPR-Cas9 library. Nat. Biotechnol. 34, 1279–1286 (2016).
Korkmaz, G. et al. Functional genetic screens for enhancer elements in the human genome using CRISPR-Cas9. Nat. Biotechnol. 34, 192–198 (2016).
Diao, Y. et al. A new class of temporarily phenotypic enhancers identified by CRISPR/Cas9-mediated genetic screening. Genome Res. 26, 397–405 (2016).
Perez, A. R. et al. GuideScan software for improved single and paired CRISPR guide RNA design. Nat. Biotechnol. 35, 347–349 (2017).
Doench, J. G. et al. Optimized sgRNA design to maximize activity and minimize off-target effects of CRISPR-Cas9. Nat. Biotechnol. 34, 184–191 (2016).
Sheel, A. & Xue, W. Genomic amplifications cause false positives in CRISPR screens. Cancer Discov. 6, 824–826 (2016).
Aguirre, A. J. et al. Genomic copy number dictates a gene-independent cell response to CRISPR-Cas9 targeting. Cancer Discov. 6, 914–929 (2016).
Munoz, D. M. et al. CRISPR screens provide a comprehensive assessment of cancer vulnerabilities but generate false-positive hits for highly amplified genomic regions. Cancer Discov. 6, 900–913 (2016).
Meyers, R. M. et al. Computational correction of copy number effect improves specificity of CRISPR-Cas9 essentiality screens in cancer cells. Nat. Genet. 49, 1779–1784 (2017).
Khalil, D. N., Smith, E. L., Brentjens, R. J. & Wolchok, J. D. The future of cancer treatment: immunomodulation, CARs and combination immunotherapy. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 13, 273–290 (2016).
Morris, E. C. & Stauss, H. J. Optimizing T cell receptor gene therapy for hematologic malignancies. Blood 127, 3305–3311 (2016).
Lim, W. A. & June, C. H. The principles of engineering immune cells to treat cancer. Cell 168, 724–740 (2017).
Schachter, J. et al. Pembrolizumab versus ipilimumab for advanced melanoma: final overall survival results of a multicentre, randomised, open-label phase 3 study (KEYNOTE-006). Lancet 390, 1853–1862 (2017).
Rizvi, N. A. et al. Activity and safety of nivolumab, an anti-PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitor, for patients with advanced, refractory squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (CheckMate 063): a phase 2, single-arm trial. Lancet. Oncol. 16, 257–265 (2015).
Maus, M. V. et al. Adoptive immunotherapy for cancer or viruses. Annu. Rev. Immunol. 32, 189–225 (2014).
Brudno, J. N. & Kochenderfer, J. N. Chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapies for lymphoma. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 15, 31–46 (2018).
D’Aloia, M. M., Zizzari, I. G., Sacchetti, B., Pierelli, L. & Alimandi, M. CAR-T cells: the long and winding road to solid tumors. Cell Death Dis. 9, 282 (2018).
Davila, M. L. & Brentjens, R. J. CD19-targeted CAR T cells as novel cancer immunotherapy for relapsed or refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Clin. Adv. Hematol. Oncol. 14, 802–808 (2016).
Zheng, P. P., Kros, J. M. & Li, J. Approved CAR T cell therapies: ice bucket challenges on glaring safety risks and long-term impacts. Drug Discov. Today 23, 1175–1182 (2018).
Wang, X. & Rivière, I. Clinical manufacturing of CAR T cells: foundation of a promising therapy. Mol. Ther. Oncolytics 3, 16015 (2016).
Prasad, V. Immunotherapy: tisagenlecleucel — the first approved CAR-T cell therapy: implications for payers and policy makers. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 15, 11–12 (2018).
Qasim, W. et al. Molecular remission of infant B-ALL after infusion of universal TALEN gene-edited CAR T cells. Sci. Transl Med. 9, eaaj2013 (2017).
Ghosh, A. et al. Donor CD19 CAR T cells exert potent graft-versus-lymphoma activity with diminished graft-versus-host activity. Nat. Med. 23, 242–249 (2017).
Yang, Y., Jacoby, E. & Fry, T. J. Challenges and opportunities of allogeneic donor-derived CAR T cells. Curr. Opin. Hematol. 22, 509–515 (2015).
Rupp, L. J. et al. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated PD-1 disruption enhances anti-tumor efficacy of human chimeric antigen receptor T cells. Sci. Rep. 7, 737 (2017).
Weber, J. S., Kahler, K. C. & Hauschild, A. Management of immune-related adverse events and kinetics of response with ipilimumab. J. Clin. Oncol. 30, 2691–2697 (2012).
Bonifant, C. L., Jackson, H. J., Brentjens, R. J. & Curran, K. J. Toxicity and management in CAR T cell therapy. Mol. Ther. Oncolytics 3, 16011 (2016).
Dudley, M. E. et al. Adoptive cell therapy for patients with metastatic melanoma: evaluation of intensive myeloablative chemoradiation preparative regimens. J. Clin. Oncol. 26, 5233–5239 (2008).
Wherry, E. J. & Kurachi, M. Molecular and cellular insights into T cell exhaustion. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 15, 486–499 (2015).
Singer, M. et al. A distinct gene module for dysfunction uncoupled from activation in tumor-infiltrating T cells. Cell 166, 1500–1511 (2016).
Cyranoski, D. Chinese scientists to pioneer first human CRISPR trial. Nature 535, 476–477 (2016).
Lu, Y. et al. A phase I trial of PD-1 deficient engineered T cells with CRISPR/Cas9 in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 36, 3050–3050 (2018).
June, C. H., Riddell, S. R. & Schumacher, T. N. Adoptive cellular therapy: a race to the finish line. Sci. Transl Med. 7, 280ps7 (2015).
Rapoport, A. P. et al. NY-ESO-1-specific TCR-engineered T cells mediate sustained antigen-specific antitumor effects in myeloma. Nat. Med. 21, 914–921 (2015).
Yin, H. et al. Structure-guided chemical modification of guide RNA enables potent non-viral in vivo genome editing. Nat. Biotechnol. 35, 1179–1187 (2017).
Chew, W. L. et al. A multifunctional AAV-CRISPR-Cas9 and its host response. Nat. Methods 13, 868–874 (2016).
Charlesworth, C. T. et al. Identification of pre-existing adaptive immunity to Cas9 proteins in humans. Preprint at BioRxiv https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/01/05/243345 (2018).
Kay, M. A. State-of-the-art gene-based therapies: the road ahead. Nat. Rev. Genetics 12, 316–328 (2011).
Ihry, R. J. et al. p53 inhibits CRISPR-Cas9 engineering in human pluripotent stem cells. Nat. Med. 24, 939–946 (2018).
Haapaniemi, E., Botla, S., Persson, J., Schmierer, B. & Taipale, J. CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing induces a p53-mediated DNA damage response. Nat. Med. 24, 927–930 (2018).
Kosicki, M., Tomberg, K. & Bradley, A. Repair of double-strand breaks induced by CRISPR–Cas9 leads to large deletions and complex rearrangements. Nat. Biotechnol. 36, 765–771 (2018).
Straathof, K. C. et al. An inducible caspase 9 safety switch for T cell therapy. Blood 105, 4247–4254 (2005).
Roth, T. L. et al. Reprogramming human T cell function and specificity with non-viral genome targeting. Nature 559, 405–409 (2018).
Chen, Z. H. et al. Targeting genomic rearrangements in tumor cells through Cas9-mediated insertion of a suicide gene. Nat. Biotechnol. 35, 543–550 (2017).
Kim, H. H. et al. Targeting mutant KRAS with CRISPR-Cas9 controls tumor growth. Genome Res. 28, 374–382 (2018).
Jubair, L. & McMillan, N. A. J. The therapeutic potential of CRISPR/Cas9 systems in oncogene-addicted cancer types: virally driven cancers as a model system. Mol. Ther. Nucleic Acids 8, 56–63 (2017).
Abudayyeh, O. O. et al. C2c2 is a single-component programmable RNA-guided RNA-targeting CRISPR effector. Science 353, aaf5573 (2016).
East-Seletsky, A. et al. Two distinct RNase activities of CRISPR-C2c2 enable guide-RNA processing and RNA detection. Nature 538, 270–273 (2016).
Gootenberg, J. S. et al. Nucleic acid detection with CRISPR-Cas13a/C2c2. Science 356, 438–442 (2017).
Gootenberg, J. S. et al. Multiplexed and portable nucleic acid detection platform with Cas13, Cas12a, and Csm6. Science 360, 439–444 (2018).
Myhrvold, C. et al. Field-deployable viral diagnostics using CRISPR-Cas13. Science 360, 444–448 (2018).
Chen, J. S. et al. CRISPR-Cas12a target binding unleashes indiscriminate single-stranded DNase activity. Science 360, 436–439 (2018).
Lee, S. H. et al. CUT-PCR: CRISPR-mediated, ultrasensitive detection of target DNA using PCR. Oncogene 36, 6823 (2017).
Lareau, C. et al. Response to “Unexpected mutations after CRISPR–Cas9 editing in vivo”. Nat. Methods 15, 238–239 (2017).
Wilson, C. J. et al. The experimental design and data interpretation in ‘Unexpected mutations after CRISPR Cas9 editing in vivo’ by Schaefer et al. are insufficient to support the conclusions drawn by the authors. Preprint at BioRxiv https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/07/10/153338 (2017).
Schumann, K. et al. Generation of knock-in primary human T cells using Cas9 ribonucleoproteins. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 10437–10442 (2015).
Hendel, A. et al. Chemically modified guide RNAs enhance CRISPR-Cas genome editing in human primary cells. Nat. Biotechnol. 33, 985–989 (2015).
Dever, D. P. et al. CRISPR/Cas9 beta-globin gene targeting in human haematopoietic stem cells. Nature 539, 384–389 (2016).
Housden, B. E. et al. Loss-of-function genetic tools for animal models: cross-species and cross-platform differences. Nat. Rev. Genetics 18, 24–40 (2017).
Rossi, A. et al. Genetic compensation induced by deleterious mutations but not gene knockdowns. Nature 524, 230–233 (2015).
Daude, N. et al. Knockout of the prion protein (PrP)-like Sprn gene does not produce embryonic lethality in combination with PrP(C)-deficiency. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 9035–9040 (2012).
Lu, H. et al. Compensatory induction of MYC expression by sustained CDK9 inhibition via a BRD4-dependent mechanism. eLife 4, e06535 (2015).
Marx, V. Choosing CRISPR-based screens in cancer. Nat. Methods 14, 343 (2017).
Normile, D. China sprints ahead in CRISPR therapy race. Science 358, 20–21 (2017).
H.Y. acknowledges funding from the National Natural Science Foundation of China 31871345 and a startup package from Wuhan University.
H.Y. and W.X. researched different sections of the manuscript, and D.G.A. provided key opinions and oversaw data research. All authors discussed content and reviewed and edited the manuscript before submission.
H.Y., W.X. and D.G.A. have applied for CRISPR-related patents, one of which has been issued. D.G.A. is a scientific co-founder of CRISPR Therapeutics.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
ClinicalTrials.gov Database: https://clinicaltrials.gov/
About this article
Cite this article
Yin, H., Xue, W. & Anderson, D.G. CRISPR–Cas: a tool for cancer research and therapeutics. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 16, 281–295 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41571-019-0166-8
Prevention of Avian Retrovirus Infection in Chickens Using CRISPR-Cas9 Delivered by Marek’s Disease Virus
Molecular Therapy - Nucleic Acids (2020)
Critical Reviews in Biotechnology (2020)
Genome Biology (2020)