Heterochromatin delays CRISPR-Cas9 mutagenesis but does not influence the outcome of mutagenic DNA repair

Genome editing occurs in the context of chromatin, which is heterogeneous in structure and function across the genome. Chromatin heterogeneity is thought to affect genome editing efficiency, but this has been challenging to quantify due to the presence of confounding variables. Here, we develop a method that exploits the allele-specific chromatin status of imprinted genes in order to address this problem in cycling mouse embryonic stem cells (mESCs). Because maternal and paternal alleles of imprinted genes have identical DNA sequence and are situated in the same nucleus, allele-specific differences in the frequency and spectrum of mutations induced by CRISPR-Cas9 can be unequivocally attributed to epigenetic mechanisms. We found that heterochromatin can impede mutagenesis, but to a degree that depends on other key experimental parameters. Mutagenesis was impeded by up to 7-fold when Cas9 exposure was brief and when intracellular Cas9 expression was low. In contrast, the outcome of mutagenic DNA repair was unaffected by chromatin state, with similar efficiencies of homology-directed repair (HDR) and deletion spectra on maternal and paternal chromosomes. Combined, our data show that heterochromatin imposes a permeable barrier that influences the kinetics, but not the endpoint, of CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing and suggest that therapeutic applications involving low-level Cas9 exposure will be particularly affected by chromatin status.

[1]  Abdullahi Umar Ibrahim,et al.  Genome Engineering Using the CRISPR Cas9 System , 2019 .

[2]  Dana Carroll,et al.  Nucleosomes inhibit target cleavage by CRISPR-Cas9 in vivo , 2018, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[3]  Jeremy M. Stark,et al.  C-NHEJ without indels is robust and requires synergistic function of distinct XLF domains , 2018, Nature Communications.

[4]  Waseem Akhtar,et al.  Kinetics and Fidelity of the Repair of Cas9-Induced Double-Strand DNA Breaks , 2018, Molecular cell.

[5]  D. Llères,et al.  Meg3 Non-coding RNA Expression Controls Imprinting by Preventing Transcriptional Upregulation in cis. , 2018, Cell reports.

[6]  Rick L. Stevens,et al.  A communal catalogue reveals Earth’s multiscale microbial diversity , 2017, Nature.

[7]  Michael J. Lawson,et al.  Kinetics of dCas9 target search in Escherichia coli , 2017, Science.

[8]  E. Mizutani,et al.  Derivation of ground-state female ES cells maintaining gamete-derived DNA methylation , 2017, Nature.

[9]  Andrej J. Savol,et al.  Prolonged Mek1/2 suppression impairs the developmental potential of embryonic stem cells , 2017, Nature.

[10]  Leslie S. Edwards,et al.  Mapping the genomic landscape of CRISPR–Cas9 cleavage , 2017, Nature Methods.

[11]  V. Myer,et al.  Characterization of the interplay between DNA repair and CRISPR/Cas9-induced DNA lesions at an endogenous locus , 2017, Nature Communications.

[12]  A. Kondo,et al.  Targeted nucleotide editing using hybrid prokaryotic and vertebrate adaptive immune systems , 2016, Science.

[13]  K. Haynes,et al.  The impact of chromatin dynamics on Cas9-mediated genome editing in human cells , 2016, bioRxiv.

[14]  A. May,et al.  DNA Repair Profiling Reveals Nonrandom Outcomes at Cas9-Mediated Breaks. , 2016, Molecular cell.

[15]  T. Fujita,et al.  Allele-specific locus binding and genome editing by CRISPR at the p16INK4a locus , 2016, Scientific Reports.

[16]  B. Reina-San-Martin,et al.  Temporal and Spatial Uncoupling of DNA Double Strand Break Repair Pathways within Mammalian Heterochromatin. , 2016, Molecular cell.

[17]  Gregory A. Breuer,et al.  A single double-strand break system reveals repair dynamics and mechanisms in heterochromatin and euchromatin , 2016, Genes & development.

[18]  M. Gonçalves,et al.  Probing the impact of chromatin conformation on genome editing tools , 2016, Nucleic acids research.

[19]  W. Lim,et al.  Nucleosome breathing and remodeling constrain CRISPR-Cas9 function , 2016, eLife.

[20]  David R. Liu,et al.  Programmable editing of a target base in genomic DNA without double-stranded DNA cleavage , 2016, Nature.

[21]  Tatsunori B. Hashimoto,et al.  Cas9 Functionally Opens Chromatin , 2016, PloS one.

[22]  Max A. Horlbeck,et al.  Nucleosomes impede Cas9 access to DNA in vivo and in vitro , 2016, eLife.

[23]  T. Takumi,et al.  Sequence features associated with the cleavage efficiency of CRISPR/Cas9 system , 2016, Scientific Reports.

[24]  Aurélie Teissandier,et al.  An epigenetic switch ensures transposon repression upon dynamic loss of DNA methylation in embryonic stem cells , 2016, eLife.

[25]  Jacob E Corn,et al.  Enhancing homology-directed genome editing by catalytically active and inactive CRISPR-Cas9 using asymmetric donor DNA , 2016, Nature Biotechnology.

[26]  John J. Wyrick,et al.  Nucleosomes Inhibit Cas9 Endonuclease Activity in Vitro. , 2015, Biochemistry.

[27]  R. Tjian,et al.  Dynamics of CRISPR-Cas9 genome interrogation in living cells , 2015, Science.

[28]  Christopher M. Vockley,et al.  Genome-wide specificity of DNA binding, gene regulation, and chromatin remodeling by TALE- and CRISPR/Cas9-based transcriptional activators , 2015, Genome research.

[29]  Charles E. Vejnar,et al.  CRISPRscan: designing highly efficient sgRNAs for CRISPR/Cas9 targeting in vivo , 2015, Nature Methods.

[30]  G. Church,et al.  Unraveling CRISPR-Cas9 genome engineering parameters via a library-on-library approach , 2015, Nature Methods.

[31]  T. Misteli,et al.  Histone modifications predispose genome regions to breakage and translocation , 2015, Genes & development.

[32]  M. Ohmuraya,et al.  Production of knockout mice by DNA microinjection of various CRISPR/Cas9 vectors into freeze-thawed fertilized oocytes , 2015, BMC Biotechnology.

[33]  G. Legube,et al.  DNA double strand break repair pathway choice: a chromatin based decision? , 2015, Nucleus.

[34]  B. Reina-San-Martin,et al.  Nuclear position dictates DNA repair pathway choice , 2014, Genes & development.

[35]  David A. Scott,et al.  Genome-wide binding of the CRISPR endonuclease Cas9 in mammalian cells , 2014, Nature Biotechnology.

[36]  S. Jackson,et al.  Transcriptionally active chromatin recruits homologous recombination at DNA double-strand breaks , 2014, Nature Structural &Molecular Biology.

[37]  Thomas M. Keane,et al.  The ancestor of extant Japanese fancy mice contributed to the mosaic genomes of classical inbred strains , 2013, Genome research.

[38]  James E. DiCarlo,et al.  RNA-Guided Human Genome Engineering via Cas9 , 2013, Science.

[39]  Le Cong,et al.  Multiplex Genome Engineering Using CRISPR/Cas Systems , 2013, Science.

[40]  Jennifer Doudna,et al.  RNA-programmed genome editing in human cells , 2013, eLife.

[41]  G. Kelsey,et al.  New insights into establishment and maintenance of DNA methylation imprints in mammals , 2013, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[42]  R. Greenberg,et al.  Acetylation Limits 53BP1 Association with Damaged Chromatin to Promote Homologous Recombination , 2012, Nature Structural &Molecular Biology.

[43]  Shilin Chen,et al.  FastUniq: A Fast De Novo Duplicates Removal Tool for Paired Short Reads , 2012, PloS one.

[44]  Steven L Salzberg,et al.  Fast gapped-read alignment with Bowtie 2 , 2012, Nature Methods.

[45]  Yoko Ito,et al.  Status of Genomic Imprinting in Epigenetically Distinct Pluripotent Stem Cells , 2012, Stem cells.

[46]  A. Ferguson-Smith Genomic imprinting: the emergence of an epigenetic paradigm , 2011, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[47]  Felix Krueger,et al.  Bismark: a flexible aligner and methylation caller for Bisulfite-Seq applications , 2011, Bioinform..

[48]  Elo Leung,et al.  A TALE nuclease architecture for efficient genome editing , 2011, Nature Biotechnology.

[49]  P. Jeggo,et al.  The influence of heterochromatin on DNA double strand break repair: Getting the strong, silent type to relax. , 2010, DNA repair.

[50]  Richard Durbin,et al.  Fast and accurate long-read alignment with Burrows–Wheeler transform , 2010, Bioinform..

[51]  B. Cairns The logic of chromatin architecture and remodelling at promoters , 2009, Nature.

[52]  Reiner Schulz,et al.  Regulation of alternative polyadenylation by genomic imprinting. , 2008, Genes & development.

[53]  Marco Foiani,et al.  Regulation of DNA repair throughout the cell cycle , 2008, Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology.

[54]  T. Bestor,et al.  WAMIDEX: A web atlas of murine genomic imprinting and differential expression , 2008, Epigenetics.

[55]  F. Pauler,et al.  Active and repressive chromatin are interspersed without spreading in an imprinted gene cluster in the mammalian genome. , 2007, Molecular cell.

[56]  Wolf Reik,et al.  Interaction between differentially methylated regions partitions the imprinted genes Igf2 and H19 into parent-specific chromatin loops , 2004, Nature Genetics.

[57]  D. Barlow,et al.  The non-coding Air RNA is required for silencing autosomal imprinted genes , 2002, Nature.

[58]  G. Stamatoyannopoulos,et al.  Quantification of DNaseI-sensitivity by real-time PCR: quantitative analysis of DNaseI-hypersensitivity of the mouse beta-globin LCR. , 2001, Journal of molecular biology.

[59]  Shirley M. Tilghman,et al.  CTCF mediates methylation-sensitive enhancer-blocking activity at the H19/Igf2 locus , 2000, Nature.

[60]  Max A. Horlbeck,et al.  Nucleosomes Impede Cas 9 Access to DNA in vivo and in vitro , 2016 .

[61]  Alexandro E. Trevino,et al.  Genome editing using Cas9 nickases. , 2014, Methods in enzymology.

[62]  Claude-Alain H. Roten,et al.  Fast and accurate short read alignment with Burrows–Wheeler transform , 2009, Bioinform..