Systematic evaluation of CRISPR-Cas systems reveals design principles for genome editing in human cells

BackgroundWhile CRISPR-Cas systems hold tremendous potential for engineering the human genome, it is unclear how well each system performs against one another in both non-homologous end joining (NHEJ)-mediated and homology-directed repair (HDR)-mediated genome editing.ResultsWe systematically compare five different CRISPR-Cas systems in human cells by targeting 90 sites in genes with varying expression levels. For a fair comparison, we select sites that are either perfectly matched or have overlapping seed regions for Cas9 and Cpf1. Besides observing a trade-off between cleavage efficiency and target specificity for these natural endonucleases, we find that the editing activities of the smaller Cas9 enzymes from Staphylococcus aureus (SaCas9) and Neisseria meningitidis (NmCas9) are less affected by gene expression than the other larger Cas proteins. Notably, the Cpf1 nucleases from Acidaminococcus sp. BV3L6 and Lachnospiraceae bacterium ND2006 (AsCpf1 and LbCpf1, respectively) are able to perform precise gene targeting efficiently across multiple genomic loci using single-stranded oligodeoxynucleotide (ssODN) donor templates with homology arms as short as 17 nucleotides. Strikingly, the two Cpf1 nucleases exhibit a preference for ssODNs of the non-target strand sequence, while the popular Cas9 enzyme from Streptococcus pyogenes (SpCas9) exhibits a preference for ssODNs of the target strand sequence instead. Additionally, we find that the HDR efficiencies of Cpf1 and SpCas9 can be further improved by using asymmetric donors with longer arms 5′ of the desired DNA changes.ConclusionsOur work delineates design parameters for each CRISPR-Cas system and will serve as a useful reference for future genome engineering studies.

[1]  David R. Liu,et al.  CRISPR-Based Technologies for the Manipulation of Eukaryotic Genomes , 2017, Cell.

[2]  Steven Lin,et al.  Enhanced homology-directed human genome engineering by controlled timing of CRISPR/Cas9 delivery , 2014, eLife.

[3]  Martin J. Aryee,et al.  GUIDE-Seq enables genome-wide profiling of off-target cleavage by CRISPR-Cas nucleases , 2014, Nature Biotechnology.

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

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

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

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

[8]  Jin-Soo Kim,et al.  Genome-wide analysis reveals specificities of Cpf1 endonucleases in human cells , 2016, Nature Biotechnology.

[9]  Martin J Aryee,et al.  Corrigendum: CIRCLE-seq: a highly sensitive in vitro screen for genome-wide CRISPR–Cas9 nuclease off-targets , 2018, Nature Methods.

[10]  J. Doudna,et al.  The new frontier of genome engineering with CRISPR-Cas9 , 2014, Science.

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

[12]  Gang Bao,et al.  The Neisseria meningitidis CRISPR-Cas9 System Enables Specific Genome Editing in Mammalian Cells , 2016, Molecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy.

[13]  Graham Dellaire,et al.  Nuclear domain ‘knock-in’ screen for the evaluation and identification of small molecule enhancers of CRISPR-based genome editing , 2015, Nucleic acids research.

[14]  Lynda Chin,et al.  Post-translational Regulation of Cas9 during G1 Enhances Homology-Directed Repair. , 2016, Cell reports.

[15]  Chris P. Ponting,et al.  Highly Efficient Targeted Mutagenesis of Drosophila with the CRISPR/Cas9 System , 2013, Cell reports.

[16]  Lei S. Qi,et al.  Small molecules enhance CRISPR genome editing in pluripotent stem cells. , 2015, Cell stem cell.

[17]  Yongxiang Zhao,et al.  Heritable gene targeting in the mouse and rat using a CRISPR-Cas system , 2013, Nature Biotechnology.

[18]  Jong-il Kim,et al.  Digenome-seq: genome-wide profiling of CRISPR-Cas9 off-target effects in human cells , 2015, Nature Methods.

[19]  Lu Zhang,et al.  Efficient precise knockin with a double cut HDR donor after CRISPR/Cas9-mediated double-stranded DNA cleavage , 2017, Genome Biology.

[20]  David A. Brafman,et al.  The Impact of Chromatin Dynamics on Cas9-Mediated Genome Editing in Human Cells. , 2017, ACS synthetic biology.

[21]  George M. Church,et al.  Multiplex and homologous recombination–mediated genome editing in Arabidopsis and Nicotiana benthamiana using guide RNA and Cas9 , 2013, Nature Biotechnology.

[22]  Y. E. Chen,et al.  RS-1 enhances CRISPR/Cas9- and TALEN-mediated knock-in efficiency , 2016, Nature Communications.

[23]  Xiaohui Xie,et al.  Biallelic genome modification in F0 Xenopus tropicalis embryos using the CRISPR/Cas system , 2013, Genesis.

[24]  David A. Scott,et al.  In vivo genome editing using Staphylococcus aureus Cas9 , 2015, Nature.

[25]  Jörg Vogel,et al.  Processing-independent CRISPR RNAs limit natural transformation in Neisseria meningitidis. , 2013, Molecular cell.

[26]  Eunji Kim,et al.  In vivo genome editing with a small Cas9 orthologue derived from Campylobacter jejuni , 2017, Nature Communications.

[27]  E. Lander,et al.  Development and Applications of CRISPR-Cas9 for Genome Engineering , 2014, Cell.

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

[29]  Nicholas E. Propson,et al.  Efficient genome engineering in human pluripotent stem cells using Cas9 from Neisseria meningitidis , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[30]  Martin J. Aryee,et al.  Genome-wide specificities of CRISPR-Cas Cpf1 nucleases in human cells , 2016, Nature Biotechnology.

[31]  Xiujun Zhang,et al.  A chemical-inducible CRISPR-Cas9 system for rapid control of genome editing. , 2016, Nature chemical biology.

[32]  J. Joung,et al.  CIRCLE-seq: a highly sensitive in vitro screen for genome-wide CRISPR-Cas9 nuclease off-targets , 2017, Nature Methods.

[33]  CD Richardson,et al.  Non-homologous DNA increases gene disruption efficiency by altering DNA repair outcomes , 2016, Nature Communications.

[34]  Hidde L Ploegh,et al.  Inhibition of non-homologous end joining increases the efficiency of CRISPR/Cas9-mediated precise [TM: inserted] genome editing , 2015, Nature Biotechnology.

[35]  B. Cairns,et al.  The biology of chromatin remodeling complexes. , 2009, Annual review of biochemistry.

[36]  A. Regev,et al.  Cpf1 Is a Single RNA-Guided Endonuclease of a Class 2 CRISPR-Cas System , 2015, Cell.

[37]  Shondra M Pruett-Miller,et al.  High-frequency genome editing using ssDNA oligonucleotides with zinc-finger nucleases , 2011, Nature Methods.

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

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

[40]  George M. Church,et al.  Heritable genome editing in C. elegans via a CRISPR-Cas9 system , 2013, Nature Methods.

[41]  George Church,et al.  Optimization of scarless human stem cell genome editing , 2013, Nucleic acids research.

[42]  Jeffry D. Sander,et al.  Efficient In Vivo Genome Editing Using RNA-Guided Nucleases , 2013, Nature Biotechnology.

[43]  Param Priya Singh,et al.  A Platform for Rapid Exploration of Aging and Diseases in a Naturally Short-Lived Vertebrate , 2015, Cell.

[44]  David R. Liu,et al.  Evolved Cas9 variants with broad PAM compatibility and high DNA specificity , 2018, Nature.

[45]  Antonio J Giraldez,et al.  CRISPR-Cpf1 mediates efficient homology-directed repair and temperature-controlled genome editing , 2017, bioRxiv.

[46]  Jin-Soo Kim,et al.  Genome-wide target specificities of CRISPR-Cas9 nucleases revealed by multiplex Digenome-seq , 2016, Genome research.

[47]  G. Church,et al.  Cas9 as a versatile tool for engineering biology , 2013, Nature Methods.