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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |