Cargando…

Evaluation of CRISPR gene-editing tools in zebrafish

BACKGROUND: Zebrafish have practical features that make them a useful model for higher-throughput tests of gene function using CRISPR/Cas9 editing to create ‘knockout’ models. In particular, the use of G(0) mosaic mutants has potential to increase throughput of functional studies significantly but m...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Uribe-Salazar, José M., Kaya, Gulhan, Sekar, Aadithya, Weyenberg, KaeChandra, Ingamells, Cole, Dennis, Megan Y.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8734261/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34986794
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12864-021-08238-1
_version_ 1784627980075532288
author Uribe-Salazar, José M.
Kaya, Gulhan
Sekar, Aadithya
Weyenberg, KaeChandra
Ingamells, Cole
Dennis, Megan Y.
author_facet Uribe-Salazar, José M.
Kaya, Gulhan
Sekar, Aadithya
Weyenberg, KaeChandra
Ingamells, Cole
Dennis, Megan Y.
author_sort Uribe-Salazar, José M.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Zebrafish have practical features that make them a useful model for higher-throughput tests of gene function using CRISPR/Cas9 editing to create ‘knockout’ models. In particular, the use of G(0) mosaic mutants has potential to increase throughput of functional studies significantly but may suffer from transient effects of introducing Cas9 via microinjection. Further, a large number of computational and empirical tools exist to design CRISPR assays but often produce varied predictions across methods leaving uncertainty in choosing an optimal approach for zebrafish studies. METHODS: To systematically assess accuracy of tool predictions of on- and off-target gene editing, we subjected zebrafish embryos to CRISPR/Cas9 with 50 different guide RNAs (gRNAs) targeting 14 genes. We also investigate potential confounders of G(0)-based CRISPR screens by assaying control embryos for spurious mutations and altered gene expression. RESULTS: We compared our experimental in vivo editing efficiencies in mosaic G(0) embryos with those predicted by eight commonly used gRNA design tools and found large discrepancies between methods. Assessing off-target mutations (predicted in silico and in vitro) found that the majority of tested loci had low in vivo frequencies (< 1%). To characterize if commonly used ‘mock’ CRISPR controls (larvae injected with Cas9 enzyme or mRNA with no gRNA) exhibited spurious molecular features that might exacerbate studies of G(0) mosaic CRISPR knockout fish, we generated an RNA-seq dataset of various control larvae at 5 days post fertilization. While we found no evidence of spontaneous somatic mutations of injected larvae, we did identify several hundred differentially-expressed genes with high variability between injection types. Network analyses of shared differentially-expressed genes in the ‘mock’ injected larvae implicated a number of key regulators of common metabolic pathways, and gene-ontology analysis revealed connections with response to wounding and cytoskeleton organization, highlighting a potentially lasting effect from the microinjection process that requires further investigation. CONCLUSION: Overall, our results provide a valuable resource for the zebrafish community for the design and execution of CRISPR/Cas9 experiments. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12864-021-08238-1.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8734261
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-87342612022-01-07 Evaluation of CRISPR gene-editing tools in zebrafish Uribe-Salazar, José M. Kaya, Gulhan Sekar, Aadithya Weyenberg, KaeChandra Ingamells, Cole Dennis, Megan Y. BMC Genomics Research BACKGROUND: Zebrafish have practical features that make them a useful model for higher-throughput tests of gene function using CRISPR/Cas9 editing to create ‘knockout’ models. In particular, the use of G(0) mosaic mutants has potential to increase throughput of functional studies significantly but may suffer from transient effects of introducing Cas9 via microinjection. Further, a large number of computational and empirical tools exist to design CRISPR assays but often produce varied predictions across methods leaving uncertainty in choosing an optimal approach for zebrafish studies. METHODS: To systematically assess accuracy of tool predictions of on- and off-target gene editing, we subjected zebrafish embryos to CRISPR/Cas9 with 50 different guide RNAs (gRNAs) targeting 14 genes. We also investigate potential confounders of G(0)-based CRISPR screens by assaying control embryos for spurious mutations and altered gene expression. RESULTS: We compared our experimental in vivo editing efficiencies in mosaic G(0) embryos with those predicted by eight commonly used gRNA design tools and found large discrepancies between methods. Assessing off-target mutations (predicted in silico and in vitro) found that the majority of tested loci had low in vivo frequencies (< 1%). To characterize if commonly used ‘mock’ CRISPR controls (larvae injected with Cas9 enzyme or mRNA with no gRNA) exhibited spurious molecular features that might exacerbate studies of G(0) mosaic CRISPR knockout fish, we generated an RNA-seq dataset of various control larvae at 5 days post fertilization. While we found no evidence of spontaneous somatic mutations of injected larvae, we did identify several hundred differentially-expressed genes with high variability between injection types. Network analyses of shared differentially-expressed genes in the ‘mock’ injected larvae implicated a number of key regulators of common metabolic pathways, and gene-ontology analysis revealed connections with response to wounding and cytoskeleton organization, highlighting a potentially lasting effect from the microinjection process that requires further investigation. CONCLUSION: Overall, our results provide a valuable resource for the zebrafish community for the design and execution of CRISPR/Cas9 experiments. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12864-021-08238-1. BioMed Central 2022-01-06 /pmc/articles/PMC8734261/ /pubmed/34986794 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12864-021-08238-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Uribe-Salazar, José M.
Kaya, Gulhan
Sekar, Aadithya
Weyenberg, KaeChandra
Ingamells, Cole
Dennis, Megan Y.
Evaluation of CRISPR gene-editing tools in zebrafish
title Evaluation of CRISPR gene-editing tools in zebrafish
title_full Evaluation of CRISPR gene-editing tools in zebrafish
title_fullStr Evaluation of CRISPR gene-editing tools in zebrafish
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of CRISPR gene-editing tools in zebrafish
title_short Evaluation of CRISPR gene-editing tools in zebrafish
title_sort evaluation of crispr gene-editing tools in zebrafish
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8734261/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34986794
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12864-021-08238-1
work_keys_str_mv AT uribesalazarjosem evaluationofcrisprgeneeditingtoolsinzebrafish
AT kayagulhan evaluationofcrisprgeneeditingtoolsinzebrafish
AT sekaraadithya evaluationofcrisprgeneeditingtoolsinzebrafish
AT weyenbergkaechandra evaluationofcrisprgeneeditingtoolsinzebrafish
AT ingamellscole evaluationofcrisprgeneeditingtoolsinzebrafish
AT dennismegany evaluationofcrisprgeneeditingtoolsinzebrafish