CRISPR Digest #14

Two years ago, in spring 2015, Liang et al. published the first report of gene-editing in human embryos using CRISPR/Cas9 (mentioned previously here, here and here). At the time no high-profile journal was willing to take on the risk of publishing what was perceived to be a controversial study. Liang et al. were trying to correct mutations in the human beta-globin gene – mutations in this gene can lead to a group of diseases called beta thalassaemias, including sickle cell anaemia – in human embryos that had been fertilised by two sperm cells (and could therefore never develop). In fact, the take-home message from their study was that using the techniques available to them at the time led to a host of unwanted side effects, including the creation of mutations at other sites in the embryo genome and the “correction” of the beta-globin gene with a similar gene called delta-globin.

Last month, a different group (Ma et al. – four first authors and five corresponding authors!) published more work on human embryo CRISPR/Cas9 gene-editing, this time in Nature. Like Liang et al. this paper also tried to tackle a monogenic disease, a disease that is caused by a well-defined mutation in a single gene, called hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. The affected gene is MYBPC3 and when mutated (denoted as DeltaGAGT in the figure below) this leads to a thickening of the heart muscle, which in turn can cause heart failure. The authors used donor sperm with the MYBPC3 mutation together with healthy oocytes to perform their experiments. In the first approach the eggs were fertilised by the sperm and only subsequently, during S phase, were the guide RNA, Cas9 protein and a piece of non-mutated donor DNA injected. The guide RNA was designed to specifically recognise the mutant version of MYBPC3, which recruits the Cas9 protein to make a cut in the DNA, and then the donor DNA would serve as a template to repair the sperm’s mutated gene. Ma et al. observed that this technique worked but often generated so-called mosaic embryos, which contained a mixture of healthy and mutated cells. This incomplete gene correction happened because during S phase both the maternal and paternal chromosomes duplicate and therefore the CRISPR/Cas9 system would have to correct two mutated MYBPC3 genes before the first cell division.

Screen Shot 2017-09-10 at 16.16.44
Schematic depicting CRISPR/Cas9 stage at zygote stage (top) versus together with sperm (bottom) – copied directly from Ma et al, 2017

In a second approach, Ma et al. wanted to overcome this mosaicism by injecting the CRISPR components together with the sperm during the M phase of the oocyte. Now only one copy of mutant MYBPC3 had to be corrected and this succeeded in producing completely healthy embryos. Ma et al. also checked to make sure that these embryos did not carry any unwanted, off-target mutations.

Last but not least, Ma et al. provided evidence that often the human zygote used the healthy maternal gene to provide a template for the repair of the mutated paternal gene, instead of the injected DNA template. This is significant because in most cell types the DNA double-strand breaks caused by Cas9 are usually repaired in an imprecise manner (called non-homologous end joining) and lead to further mutations. Ma et al. therefore argued that “human gametes and embryos employ a different DNA damage response system”.

This finding could be of huge importance, both to the basic understanding of human embryonic development as well as to potential therapeutic CRISPR/Cas9 applications. However, four days after the Nature paper was published online, several prominent scientists posted a riposte on the pre-print server bioRxiv. Egli et al. criticised the first paper quite heavily by raising theoretical objections/concerns; they couldn’t have tried to replicate the experiments in such a short time frame. [Note that this pre-print was, of course, not peer-reviewed, although the authors have confirmed that they were trying to get their work published in Nature as well.]

Among other more technical issues to do with the way in which healthy and mutant genes were detected, Egli et al. pointed out that after fertilisation the maternal and paternal chromosomes remain physically separated (indicated by the arrows in the figure below) until just before the first cell division. Therefore, Egli et al. argued, it is highly unlikely that the healthy maternal MYBPC3 gene could serve as a template for the repair of the mutant paternal gene. This strikes me as a strong argument, not being at all familiar with early human development. Overall, Egli et al. suggested that Ma et al. were simply not detecting the mutant gene in their embryos but not providing good enough evidence of a corrected gene. The scientific debate will, no doubt, continue and I think having bioRxiv as such a rapid place for the exchange of ideas can drive scientific discourse.

Egli et al - early development
Pictures of a human zygote (fertilised egg/oocyte) and its very early development – copied directly from Egli et al, 2017

Since this is a digest it should also contain some other relevant CRISPR/Cas9-related news. One of the post docs I met at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in 2014, Serif Senturk, published a paper early this year in which the authors show how they can switch CRISPR on or off in living cells. They did this by fusing the Cas9 protein to another, destabilising protein domain, which caused the attached Cas9 to get degraded. However, when a “shield molecule” was added to the cells, the destabilising domain was no longer active and the Cas9 could accumulate. This innovation counteracts the problem of off-target effects, which are often due to the long duration that Cas9 is active for. Pretty neat system, I think.

Senturk 2017

Schematic depicting Cas9 fused to a destabilising domain – copied directly from Senturk et al, 2017


References:

Egli D, Zuccaro M, Kosicki M, Church G, Bradley A, Jasin M (2017) Inter-homologue repair in fertilized human eggs?
bioRxiv: http://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/08/28/181255

Liang P, Xu Y, Zhang X, Ding C, Huang R, Zhang Z, Lv J, Xie X, Chen Y, Li Y, Sun Y, Bai Y, Songyang Z, Ma W, Zhou C, Huang J (2015) CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing in human tripronuclear zygotes. Protein Cell: 1-10

Ma H, Marti-Gutierrez N, Park SW, Wu J, Lee Y, Suzuki K, Koski A, Ji D, Hayama T, Ahmed R, Darby H, Van Dyken C, Li Y, Kang E, Park AR, Kim D, Kim ST, Gong J, Gu Y, Xu X et al. (2017) Correction of a pathogenic gene mutation in human embryos. Nature 548: 413-419

Senturk S, Shirole NH, Nowak DG, Corbo V, Pal D, Vaughan A, Tuveson DA, Trotman LC, Kinney JB, Sordella R (2017) Rapid and tunable method to temporally control gene editing based on conditional Cas9 stabilization. Nature Communications 8: 14370

Advertisements

CRISPR Digest #13

It’s time to go back to some of the basic biology behind the whole CRISPR gene-editing hype. This week Cell and Molecular Cell published two nice papers on the why and how of CRISPR.

In one of my earliest posts on this blog, CRISPR Craze, I gave a brief overview of how CRISPR works in prokaryotes. I’ll reiterate here: bacteria and archaea have evolved a response against invading pathogens, often bacteriophages (viruses that infect bacteria), which has been compared to our mammalian immune system. In essence, CRISPR allows bacteria to recognise when a pathogen, and specifically its DNA, is infecting the cell again. During the first round of infection the bacterium incorporates parts of the pathogen’s DNA in its own genome and therefore keeps a record or memory of that invader. Then, during a second round of infection, the DNA can be transcribed into RNA by the bacterium, which is used as a “guide” to detect the invading DNA (since the RNA and DNA will be complementary). Additionally, the guiding RNA will bring/guide one (or several, depending on the exact type of system) so-called CRISPR-associated protein (Cas) to the invading DNA. The Cas protein(s) is then responsible for cleaving the pathogen’s DNA and thus thwarting the infection. CRISPR in a nutshell. Easy.

If you think about it, the findings from Pawluk et al., 2016 will not come as a surprise. First, bacteriophages infect bacteria. Second, bacteria evolve an intricate mechanism to defend themselves against the viruses and other, potentially harmful “mobile genetic elements”. So third – the logical conclusion – bacteriophages find a way to shut down the CRISPR defence. Pawluk et al. found that the Cas9 protein in the bacterial species Neisseria meningitidis can be inhibited by phage anti-CRISPR proteins:

anti-crispr

Schematic representation of the anti-CRISPR system, which can also be used in mammalian gene-editing system – image copied directly from Pawluk et al, 2016

In particular, Pawluk et al. discovered three acr genes in N. meningitidis, which code for the Acr proteins. The acr genes are incorporated into the bacterial genome but originally came from bacteriophages or mobile genetic elements. Biochemical experiments showed that the Acr proteins can bind directly to Cas9 and stop it from cutting DNA. Lastly, Pawluk et al. demonstrated that the Acr proteins can be expressed in mammalian cells to inhibit Cas9 activity there as well. This means that future CRISPR genome-editing experiments can be fine-tuned by switching off Cas9. Being able to turn Cas9 off may be especially important for future gene therapy treatments, since preventing Cas9 from being active for too long will reduce its off-target/side effects.

The second interesting paper for this digest, Patterson et al., 2016, investigated how bacterial cells regulate when their CRISPR system is active or not. The decision to have a fully active “immune system” or not is important because it is energetically costly to have the defence mechanism in place when there is little or no threat. Patterson et al. used a species of bacteria called Serratia to examine how the density of the bacterial population influences whether CRISPR is turned on or off. Many bacterial species use a system called quorum sensing to assess whether there are many other bacterial cells nearby. For example, Serratia cells produce and secrete a small chemical (of the homoserine lactone class), which, when present in sufficient quantities, can change which genes the bacterial cells express. When the population of cells is sparse the chemical does not reach a high enough concentration to have an effect. The experiments in this paper show that at high concentrations of the small chemical, and thus at a high cell density, Serratia cells de-repress the cas genes. In other words, when there are a lot of cells in one place they collectively switch on their immune system. This makes sense: infections spread more easily among humans in crowded places and it is similar in bacterial populations. Overall, these two papers are a beautiful demonstration of how “basic” research into highly relevant and applicable technologies are still, and will continue to be, important.

Lastly, since this is the last post before Christmas and the New Year, and possibly even until we say good-bye to President Obama, let me share this resource with you:

altmetric

Screenshot from the Altmetric website listing its top 100 most-discussed journal articles of 2016

Altmetrics are “metrics and qualitative data that are complementary to traditional, citation-based metrics” and track how much and in what form scientific research is being discussed. For example, a useful but very technical paper may get many citations in the scientific literature but might not be widely talked about by people outside that field. Other new papers, that may be controversial or have wide-ranging societal implications, will also be distributed in other ways (e.g. on Twitter, Facebook, Wikipedia and on blogs). So, for your festive reading, I recommend having a browse through Altmetrics’ 100 most-discussed articles from this year. Merry Christmas!

References:

Patterson AG, Jackson SA, Taylor C, Evans GB, Salmond GPC, Przybilski R, Staals RHJ, Fineran PC Quorum Sensing Controls Adaptive Immunity through the Regulation of Multiple CRISPR-Cas Systems. Molecular Cell 64: 1102-1108

Pawluk A, Amrani N, Zhang Y, Garcia B, Hidalgo-Reyes Y, Lee J, Edraki A, Shah M, Sontheimer EJ, Maxwell KL, Davidson AR (2016) Naturally Occurring Off-Switches for CRISPR-Cas9. Cell 167: 1829-1838.e1829

New Scientist Live

This weekend the ExCeL centre in London hosted an event called New Scientist Live, which was aimed at the general public and invited speakers across various fields, including Brain & Body, Technology, Earth and Cosmos. Additionally, there were stands and interactive stations run by various scientific institutions from across the UK and Europe, including The Francis Crick Institute, the Royal Society of Biology and the European Space Agency, to name a few.

But, to be honest, I was already sold when I saw the giant bacterium (precise species is still a matter of debate; could be E. coli) hanging from the ceiling:

img_1154

Apart from this excellent demonstration of how cool cells are I want to write about two highlights.

  1. The talk by Molly Crockett on “What makes us moral?”
    Molly Crockett has a lab at the Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford (but will be moving to Yale next year) where she and her research group study the neuroscience of “morality”. Dr Crockett’s talk was all-round excellent: from the clarity of her speaking, to the information on the slides, the science simplified enough to be understandable, yet retaining the references on the slides so that one can look up the original research (Crockett et al., 2014 and 2015, both open access!). The main finding of the 2014 paper was that people tend to be “hyperaltruistic”: when deciding whether to inflict painful electric shocks to oneself or another anonymous human being, the person deciding needed to be offered/paid more money to hurt another person. People also decided more slowly when the effects were to be felt by the other person rather than oneself. Importantly, and Dr Crockett emphasised this in her talk, these studies were conducted with real people and real electric shocks so that the results from their experiments might give us information about real life situations, as opposed to hypothetical ethical dilemmas. Possibly one of the most famous of these dilemmas is one in which a person needs to decide whether to save five people by actively sacrificing one, or to passively let five people die:moral-dilemmaIn the 2015 paper the authors then go on to test whether various drugs  – the antidepressant Citalopram, a selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitor and Levodopa, a dopamine precursor – can alter this moral decision making. Interestingly, the antidepressant reduced the overall number of electric shocks the deciders were giving out, both to themselves and to others. The hyperaltruism was preserved since deciders still gave fewer shocks to the receivers for the same amount of money. Levodopa, on the other hand abolished this hyperaltruistic effect:

    crockett-2015

    Bar charts showing the effects of citalopram and levodopa on harm aversion – copied directly from Crockett et al., 2015

    Obviously the talk and the papers go into much more detail, especially with the statistics used to evaluate these admittedly small effects. Lastly, it’s important to note that, as Dr Crockett pointed out, none of this means that researchers are working on, or should be working on, developing a “morality drug”…

  2. The science magazine Nautilus published by the MIT Press.
    Nautilus starts where the New Scientist stops, namely, where things get really interesting. To me, the New Scientist poses similar questions to the ones I might ask, but often fails to really answer them or provide a satisfactory explanation as to why there is no answer (yet). When I do read its articles they often leave me with more questions than before, which, of course, isn’t a bad thing. However, after reading a few articles of Nautilus it seems that this magazine is more thought-provoking: the articles are longer and maybe more on the creative side, but retain the references at the end, and the style of writing is more enjoyable to me. For instance, an article called “The Wisdom of the Aging Brain” by Anil Ananthaswamy discusses the possibility that there are neural circuits, or certain regions of the brain, that, with training and age, allow us to become wiser.
    So if any of my few readers is feeling particularly generous today then why not consider getting me the Sep/Oct edition…?

References:

Crockett MJ, Kurth-Nelson Z, Siegel JZ, Dayan P, Dolan RJ (2014) Harm to others outweighs harm to self in moral decision making. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111: 17320-17325

Crockett Molly J, Siegel Jenifer Z, Kurth-Nelson Z, Ousdal Olga T, Story G, Frieband C, Grosse-Rueskamp Johanna M, Dayan P, Dolan Raymond J (2015) Dissociable Effects of Serotonin and Dopamine on the Valuation of Harm in Moral Decision Making. Current Biology 25: 1852-1859

CRISPR Digest #12

I know what you’re all thinking. When is she finally going to post about CRISPR again? It’s been too long. Well, you’re absolutely right and I’m going to make up for it. Last week I glimpsed a short article on the Science News site discussing the first CRISPR-modified cabbage. The botanist Stefan Jansson at Umeå University in Sweden “cultivated, grew, and ate a plant that had its genome edited with CRISPR-Cas9”. This is obviously very fitting since one of the pioneers of the technology, Emmanuelle Charpentier, carried out some of the seminal work at the same university between 2009 and 2014.

To cheer you up at the end of the summer, here have a listen to a short radio report on the CRISPR cabbage served with garlic and pasta – it’s in Swedish but that makes it all the more charming.

http://sverigesradio.se/sida/embed?type=publication&id=6508845

On a slightly more serious note though, I wrote about CRISPR gene-editing in the context of HIV infection in a previous post, and want to follow up here. In the last paper I discussed (Kaminski et al, 2016), the authors showed, as a proof-of-principle, that it is possible to use the Cas9 protein to cut out the HIV genome from infected T cells’ genomes, at least in a model of HIV infection. However, following this promising result two papers published more recently (both Wang et al, 2016 – sadly not me) show that the same process actually generates HIV mutants that can become infectious again. In particular, when the Cas9 protein cuts the HIV DNA that is integrated in the human genome, the human cells try to repair the cut in a process called non-homologous end joining (NHEJ). This correction mechanism, however, is prone to making errors and can sometimes lead to the creation of HIV DNA sequences that can replicate again. These HIV DNA sequences could then potentially produce new virus particles that can replicate, start a new round of infection and are, of course, resistant to the original CRISPR/Cas9 targeting, since they now contain new mutations. Once again science proves to be more fickle than originally thought; it really shouldn’t surprise us anymore.

wang-2016

Schematic showing how HIV can escape CRISPR/Cas9 editing – copied directly from Wang et al, 2016, Cell Reports

To return to and end on a more culinary note: not only has the world now seen CRISPR cabbage, but a report (Ren et al, 2016) published a couple of weeks ago demonstrated that the gene-editing technology also works in grapes, Chardonnay to be precise. The scientists modified the gene coding for the L-idonate dehydrogenase protein, which is involved in producing tartaric acid. So it is in theory possible to generate sweeter, or at least less acidic, grapes:

screen-shot-2016-09-18-at-16-17-57

Genome-edited Chardonnay plant – copied directly from Ren et al, 2016

References:

Kaminski R, Chen Y, Fischer T, Tedaldi E, Napoli A, Zhang Y, Karn J, Hu W, Khalili K (2016) Elimination of HIV-1 Genomes from Human T-lymphoid Cells by CRISPR/Cas9 Gene Editing. Scientific Reports 6: 22555

Ren C, Liu X, Zhang Z, Wang Y, Duan W, Li S, Liang Z (2016) CRISPR/Cas9-mediated efficient targeted mutagenesis in Chardonnay (Vitis vinifera L.). Scientific Reports 6: 32289

Wang Z, Pan Q, Gendron P, Zhu W, Guo F, Cen S, Wainberg Mark A, Liang C (2016) CRISPR/Cas9-Derived Mutations Both Inhibit HIV-1 Replication and Accelerate Viral Escape. Cell Reports 15: 481-9

Wang G, Zhao N, Berkhout B, Das AT (2016) CRISPR-Cas9 Can Inhibit HIV-1 Replication but NHEJ Repair Facilitates Virus Escape. Mol Ther 24: 522-526

CRISPR Digest #7

As mentioned numerous times already, CRISPR is a genome-editing technology that can precisely and efficiently target specific DNA sequences and either delete or make changes to genes. The technique has also been modified so that it can be used to switch genes on or off. However, all these functions rely on the matching of a guide RNA molecule to the DNA sequence. Although this step, finding a guide RNA sequence for the desired DNA sequence, is relatively easy, these guide RNAs will also hit other regions of the genome. These so-called off-target effects can interfere with an experiment and ultimately, also hamper attempts to use CRISPR in therapeutic gene-editing settings. Therefore it is crucial to have a better understanding of how the guide RNAs find their targets so that better guides can be designed. Chari et al. (2015) used 1400 guide RNAs in various human cell lines and analysed the off-target effects, which were affected not only by the sequence of bases but also the three-dimensional structure of the targeted DNA sequences (chromatin status). Using this experimental information they designed a new, freely available software that is better at designing guide RNAs. Other programmes rely on algorithms that only take the raw DNA sequence into account.

HIV_H9_T-cell_II

Human T cell (green) during an HIV (yellow) infection – image from Wikemedia Commons

Although this recent paper (Schumann et al., 2015) did not yet utilise this new software, the researchers around Jennifer Doudna, one of the CRISPR pioneers, did succeed in editing human T cells. These are white blood cells that form part of the body’s immune system and are important for clearing infected or cancerous cells, but are themselves the target of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV; see image). In particular, HIV particles force entry into some T cells by attaching to a protein receptor called CXCR4. Schumann et al. managed to use CRISPR to drastically reduce the expression of CXCR4 on human T cells – eventually such T cells might be injected back into patients to make them more resistant to HIV infection.

Sometimes T cells can become inactivated or blocked, rendering them unable to perform their functions. Often this blockage is carried out by a protein called PD-1, which is located on the surface of T cells. Some cancer immuno-therapies – notably melanoma treatment – target PD-1, allowing the cells to become active once again and attack the malignant cells. Schumann et al. also used CRISPR to make small changes to the PD-1 gene in T cells, showing that it might be possibly to replace or complement some forms of cancer therapy with gene-editing in the future.

References:

Chari R, Mali P, Moosburner M, Church GM (2015) Unraveling CRISPR-Cas9 genome engineering parameters via a library-on-library approach. Nature Methods advance online publication

Schumann K, Lin S, Boyer E, Simeonov DR, Subramaniam M, Gate RE, Haliburton GE, Ye CJ, Bluestone JA, Doudna JA, Marson A (2015) Generation of knock-in primary human T cells using Cas9 ribonucleoproteins. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences