Cargando…

A comparison of three different delivery methods for achieving CRISPR/Cas9 mediated genome editing in Cichorium intybus L.

Root chicory (Cichorium intybus L. var. sativum) is used to extract inulin, a fructose polymer used as a natural sweetener and prebiotic. However, bitter tasting sesquiterpene lactones, giving chicory its known flavour, need to be removed during inulin extraction. To avoid this extraction and associ...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Salvagnin, Umberto, Unkel, Katharina, Sprink, Thorben, Bundock, Paul, Sevenier, Robert, Bogdanović, Milica, Todorović, Slađana, Cankar, Katarina, Hakkert, Johanna Christina, Schijlen, Elio, Nieuwenhuis, Ronald, Hingsamer, Maria, Kulmer, Veronika, Kernitzkyi, Michael, Bosch, Dirk, Martens, Stefan, Malnoy, Mickael
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10131283/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37123849
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2023.1111110
_version_ 1785031144628027392
author Salvagnin, Umberto
Unkel, Katharina
Sprink, Thorben
Bundock, Paul
Sevenier, Robert
Bogdanović, Milica
Todorović, Slađana
Cankar, Katarina
Hakkert, Johanna Christina
Schijlen, Elio
Nieuwenhuis, Ronald
Hingsamer, Maria
Kulmer, Veronika
Kernitzkyi, Michael
Bosch, Dirk
Martens, Stefan
Malnoy, Mickael
author_facet Salvagnin, Umberto
Unkel, Katharina
Sprink, Thorben
Bundock, Paul
Sevenier, Robert
Bogdanović, Milica
Todorović, Slađana
Cankar, Katarina
Hakkert, Johanna Christina
Schijlen, Elio
Nieuwenhuis, Ronald
Hingsamer, Maria
Kulmer, Veronika
Kernitzkyi, Michael
Bosch, Dirk
Martens, Stefan
Malnoy, Mickael
author_sort Salvagnin, Umberto
collection PubMed
description Root chicory (Cichorium intybus L. var. sativum) is used to extract inulin, a fructose polymer used as a natural sweetener and prebiotic. However, bitter tasting sesquiterpene lactones, giving chicory its known flavour, need to be removed during inulin extraction. To avoid this extraction and associated costs, recently chicory variants with a lower sesquiterpene lactone content were created by inactivating the four copies of the germacrene A synthase gene (CiGAS-S1, -S2, -S3, -L) which encode the enzyme initiating bitter sesquiterpene lactone biosynthesis in chicory. In this study, different delivery methods for CRISPR/Cas9 reagents have been compared regarding their efficiency to induce mutations in the CiGAS genes, the frequency of off-target mutations as well as their environmental and economic impacts. CRISPR/Cas9 reagents were delivered by Agrobacterium-mediated stable transformation or transient delivery by plasmid or preassembled ribonucleic complexes (RNPs) using the same sgRNA. All methods used lead to a high number of INDEL mutations within the CiGAS-S1 and CiGAS-S2 genes, which match the used sgRNA perfectly; additionally, the CiGAS-S3 and CiGAS-L genes, which have a single mismatch with the sgRNA, were mutated but with a lower mutation efficiency. While using both RNPs and plasmids delivery resulted in biallelic, heterozygous or homozygous mutations, plasmid delivery resulted in 30% of unwanted integration of plasmid fragments in the genome. Plants transformed via Agrobacteria often showed chimerism and a mixture of CiGAS genotypes. This genetic mosaic becomes more diverse when plants were grown over a prolonged period. While the genotype of the on-targets varied between the transient and stable delivery methods, no off-target activity in six identified potential off-targets with two to four mismatches was found. The environmental impacts (greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and primary energy demand) of the methods are highly dependent on their individual electricity demand. From an economic view - like for most research and development activities - employment and value-added multiplier effects are high; particularly when compared to industrial or manufacturing processes. Considering all aspects, we conclude that using RNPs is the most suitable method for genome editing in chicory since it led to a high efficiency of editing, no off-target mutations, non-transgenic plants with no risk of unwanted integration of plasmid DNA and without needed segregation of transgenes.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10131283
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-101312832023-04-27 A comparison of three different delivery methods for achieving CRISPR/Cas9 mediated genome editing in Cichorium intybus L. Salvagnin, Umberto Unkel, Katharina Sprink, Thorben Bundock, Paul Sevenier, Robert Bogdanović, Milica Todorović, Slađana Cankar, Katarina Hakkert, Johanna Christina Schijlen, Elio Nieuwenhuis, Ronald Hingsamer, Maria Kulmer, Veronika Kernitzkyi, Michael Bosch, Dirk Martens, Stefan Malnoy, Mickael Front Plant Sci Plant Science Root chicory (Cichorium intybus L. var. sativum) is used to extract inulin, a fructose polymer used as a natural sweetener and prebiotic. However, bitter tasting sesquiterpene lactones, giving chicory its known flavour, need to be removed during inulin extraction. To avoid this extraction and associated costs, recently chicory variants with a lower sesquiterpene lactone content were created by inactivating the four copies of the germacrene A synthase gene (CiGAS-S1, -S2, -S3, -L) which encode the enzyme initiating bitter sesquiterpene lactone biosynthesis in chicory. In this study, different delivery methods for CRISPR/Cas9 reagents have been compared regarding their efficiency to induce mutations in the CiGAS genes, the frequency of off-target mutations as well as their environmental and economic impacts. CRISPR/Cas9 reagents were delivered by Agrobacterium-mediated stable transformation or transient delivery by plasmid or preassembled ribonucleic complexes (RNPs) using the same sgRNA. All methods used lead to a high number of INDEL mutations within the CiGAS-S1 and CiGAS-S2 genes, which match the used sgRNA perfectly; additionally, the CiGAS-S3 and CiGAS-L genes, which have a single mismatch with the sgRNA, were mutated but with a lower mutation efficiency. While using both RNPs and plasmids delivery resulted in biallelic, heterozygous or homozygous mutations, plasmid delivery resulted in 30% of unwanted integration of plasmid fragments in the genome. Plants transformed via Agrobacteria often showed chimerism and a mixture of CiGAS genotypes. This genetic mosaic becomes more diverse when plants were grown over a prolonged period. While the genotype of the on-targets varied between the transient and stable delivery methods, no off-target activity in six identified potential off-targets with two to four mismatches was found. The environmental impacts (greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and primary energy demand) of the methods are highly dependent on their individual electricity demand. From an economic view - like for most research and development activities - employment and value-added multiplier effects are high; particularly when compared to industrial or manufacturing processes. Considering all aspects, we conclude that using RNPs is the most suitable method for genome editing in chicory since it led to a high efficiency of editing, no off-target mutations, non-transgenic plants with no risk of unwanted integration of plasmid DNA and without needed segregation of transgenes. Frontiers Media S.A. 2023-04-12 /pmc/articles/PMC10131283/ /pubmed/37123849 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2023.1111110 Text en Copyright © 2023 Salvagnin, Unkel, Sprink, Bundock, Sevenier, Bogdanović, Todorović, Cankar, Hakkert, Schijlen, Nieuwenhuis, Hingsamer, Kulmer, Kernitzkyi, Bosch, Martens and Malnoy https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Plant Science
Salvagnin, Umberto
Unkel, Katharina
Sprink, Thorben
Bundock, Paul
Sevenier, Robert
Bogdanović, Milica
Todorović, Slađana
Cankar, Katarina
Hakkert, Johanna Christina
Schijlen, Elio
Nieuwenhuis, Ronald
Hingsamer, Maria
Kulmer, Veronika
Kernitzkyi, Michael
Bosch, Dirk
Martens, Stefan
Malnoy, Mickael
A comparison of three different delivery methods for achieving CRISPR/Cas9 mediated genome editing in Cichorium intybus L.
title A comparison of three different delivery methods for achieving CRISPR/Cas9 mediated genome editing in Cichorium intybus L.
title_full A comparison of three different delivery methods for achieving CRISPR/Cas9 mediated genome editing in Cichorium intybus L.
title_fullStr A comparison of three different delivery methods for achieving CRISPR/Cas9 mediated genome editing in Cichorium intybus L.
title_full_unstemmed A comparison of three different delivery methods for achieving CRISPR/Cas9 mediated genome editing in Cichorium intybus L.
title_short A comparison of three different delivery methods for achieving CRISPR/Cas9 mediated genome editing in Cichorium intybus L.
title_sort comparison of three different delivery methods for achieving crispr/cas9 mediated genome editing in cichorium intybus l.
topic Plant Science
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10131283/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37123849
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2023.1111110
work_keys_str_mv AT salvagninumberto acomparisonofthreedifferentdeliverymethodsforachievingcrisprcas9mediatedgenomeeditingincichoriumintybusl
AT unkelkatharina acomparisonofthreedifferentdeliverymethodsforachievingcrisprcas9mediatedgenomeeditingincichoriumintybusl
AT sprinkthorben acomparisonofthreedifferentdeliverymethodsforachievingcrisprcas9mediatedgenomeeditingincichoriumintybusl
AT bundockpaul acomparisonofthreedifferentdeliverymethodsforachievingcrisprcas9mediatedgenomeeditingincichoriumintybusl
AT sevenierrobert acomparisonofthreedifferentdeliverymethodsforachievingcrisprcas9mediatedgenomeeditingincichoriumintybusl
AT bogdanovicmilica acomparisonofthreedifferentdeliverymethodsforachievingcrisprcas9mediatedgenomeeditingincichoriumintybusl
AT todorovicslađana acomparisonofthreedifferentdeliverymethodsforachievingcrisprcas9mediatedgenomeeditingincichoriumintybusl
AT cankarkatarina acomparisonofthreedifferentdeliverymethodsforachievingcrisprcas9mediatedgenomeeditingincichoriumintybusl
AT hakkertjohannachristina acomparisonofthreedifferentdeliverymethodsforachievingcrisprcas9mediatedgenomeeditingincichoriumintybusl
AT schijlenelio acomparisonofthreedifferentdeliverymethodsforachievingcrisprcas9mediatedgenomeeditingincichoriumintybusl
AT nieuwenhuisronald acomparisonofthreedifferentdeliverymethodsforachievingcrisprcas9mediatedgenomeeditingincichoriumintybusl
AT hingsamermaria acomparisonofthreedifferentdeliverymethodsforachievingcrisprcas9mediatedgenomeeditingincichoriumintybusl
AT kulmerveronika acomparisonofthreedifferentdeliverymethodsforachievingcrisprcas9mediatedgenomeeditingincichoriumintybusl
AT kernitzkyimichael acomparisonofthreedifferentdeliverymethodsforachievingcrisprcas9mediatedgenomeeditingincichoriumintybusl
AT boschdirk acomparisonofthreedifferentdeliverymethodsforachievingcrisprcas9mediatedgenomeeditingincichoriumintybusl
AT martensstefan acomparisonofthreedifferentdeliverymethodsforachievingcrisprcas9mediatedgenomeeditingincichoriumintybusl
AT malnoymickael acomparisonofthreedifferentdeliverymethodsforachievingcrisprcas9mediatedgenomeeditingincichoriumintybusl
AT salvagninumberto comparisonofthreedifferentdeliverymethodsforachievingcrisprcas9mediatedgenomeeditingincichoriumintybusl
AT unkelkatharina comparisonofthreedifferentdeliverymethodsforachievingcrisprcas9mediatedgenomeeditingincichoriumintybusl
AT sprinkthorben comparisonofthreedifferentdeliverymethodsforachievingcrisprcas9mediatedgenomeeditingincichoriumintybusl
AT bundockpaul comparisonofthreedifferentdeliverymethodsforachievingcrisprcas9mediatedgenomeeditingincichoriumintybusl
AT sevenierrobert comparisonofthreedifferentdeliverymethodsforachievingcrisprcas9mediatedgenomeeditingincichoriumintybusl
AT bogdanovicmilica comparisonofthreedifferentdeliverymethodsforachievingcrisprcas9mediatedgenomeeditingincichoriumintybusl
AT todorovicslađana comparisonofthreedifferentdeliverymethodsforachievingcrisprcas9mediatedgenomeeditingincichoriumintybusl
AT cankarkatarina comparisonofthreedifferentdeliverymethodsforachievingcrisprcas9mediatedgenomeeditingincichoriumintybusl
AT hakkertjohannachristina comparisonofthreedifferentdeliverymethodsforachievingcrisprcas9mediatedgenomeeditingincichoriumintybusl
AT schijlenelio comparisonofthreedifferentdeliverymethodsforachievingcrisprcas9mediatedgenomeeditingincichoriumintybusl
AT nieuwenhuisronald comparisonofthreedifferentdeliverymethodsforachievingcrisprcas9mediatedgenomeeditingincichoriumintybusl
AT hingsamermaria comparisonofthreedifferentdeliverymethodsforachievingcrisprcas9mediatedgenomeeditingincichoriumintybusl
AT kulmerveronika comparisonofthreedifferentdeliverymethodsforachievingcrisprcas9mediatedgenomeeditingincichoriumintybusl
AT kernitzkyimichael comparisonofthreedifferentdeliverymethodsforachievingcrisprcas9mediatedgenomeeditingincichoriumintybusl
AT boschdirk comparisonofthreedifferentdeliverymethodsforachievingcrisprcas9mediatedgenomeeditingincichoriumintybusl
AT martensstefan comparisonofthreedifferentdeliverymethodsforachievingcrisprcas9mediatedgenomeeditingincichoriumintybusl
AT malnoymickael comparisonofthreedifferentdeliverymethodsforachievingcrisprcas9mediatedgenomeeditingincichoriumintybusl