Efficient site-directed insertion of heterologous DNA into a genome remains an outstanding challenge. Recombinases that can integrate kilobase-sized DNA constructs are difficult to reprogram to user-defined loci, while genomic insertion using CRISPR-Cas methods relies on inefficient host DNA repair machinery. Here, we describe a Cas-Transposon (CasTn) system for genomic insertions that uses a Himar1 transposase fused to a catalytically dead dCas9 nuclease to mediate programmable, site-directed transposition. Using cell-free in vitro assays, we demonstrated that the Himar–dCas9 fusion protein increased the frequency of transposon insertion at a single targeted TA dinucleotide by >300-fold compared to a random transposase, and that site-directed transposition is dependent on target choice while robust to log-fold variations in protein and DNA concentrations. We also showed that Himar–dCas9 mediates directed transposition into plasmids in Escherichia coli. This work highlights CasTn as a new modality for host-independent, programmable, site-directed DNA insertions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
EsveltKM, WangHH. Genome-scale engineering for systems and synthetic biology. Mol Syst Biol, 2013; 9:641. DOI: 10.1038/msb.2012.66.
2.
AndrewsBJ, ProteauGA, BeattyLG, et al.The FLP recombinase of the 2 micron circle DNA of yeast: interaction with its target sequences. Cell, 1985; 40:795–803. DOI: 10.1016/0092-8674(85)90339-3.
3.
AbremskiK, HoessR. Bacteriophage P1 site-specific recombination. Purification and properties of the Cre recombinase protein. J Biol Chem, 1984; 259:1509–1514.
4.
BolusaniS, MaCH, PaekA, et al.Evolution of variants of yeast site-specific recombinase Flp that utilize native genomic sequences as recombination target sites. Nucleic Acids Res, 2006; 34:5259–5269. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkl548.
5.
BuchholzF, StewartAF. Alteration of Cre recombinase site specificity by substrate-linked protein evolution. Nat Biotechnol, 2001; 19:1047–1052. DOI: 10.1038/nbt1101-1047.
6.
CongL, RanFA, CoxD, et al.Multiplex genome engineering using CRISPR/Cas systems. Science, 2013; 339:819–823. DOI: 10.1126/science.1231143.
7.
JinekM, ChylinskiK, FonfaraI, et al.A programmable dual-RNA-guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity. Science, 2012; 337:816–821. DOI: 10.1126/science.1225829.
8.
UrnovFD, RebarEJ, HolmesMC, et al.Genome editing with engineered zinc finger nucleases. Nat Rev Genet, 2010; 11:636–646. DOI: 10.1038/nrg2842.
9.
JoungJK, SanderJD. TALENs: a widely applicable technology for targeted genome editing. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol, 2013; 14:49–55. DOI: 10.1038/nrm3486.
10.
KowalczykowskiSC. An overview of the molecular mechanisms of recombinational DNA repair. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol, 2015; 7. DOI: 10.1101/cshperspect.a016410.
11.
Munoz-LopezM, Garcia-PerezJL. DNA transposons: nature and applications in genomics. Curr Genomics, 2010; 11:115–128. DOI: 10.2174/138920210790886871.
12.
CurcioMJ, DerbyshireKM. The outs and ins of transposition: from mu to kangaroo. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol, 2003; 4:865–877. DOI: 10.1038/nrm1241.
13.
LampeDJ, ChurchillME, RobertsonHM. A purified mariner transposase is sufficient to mediate transposition in vitro. EMBO J, 1996; 15:5470–5479. DOI: 10.1002/j.1460-2075.1996.tb00930.x.
14.
RichardsonJM, DawsonA, O'HaganN, et al.Mechanism of Mos1 transposition: insights from structural analysis. EMBO J, 2006; 25:1324–1334. DOI: 10.1038/sj.emboj.7601018.
15.
RichardsonJM, CollomsSD, FinneganDJ, et al.Molecular architecture of the Mos1 paired-end complex: the structural basis of DNA transposition in a eukaryote. Cell, 2009; 138:1096–1108. DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2009.07.012.
16.
Claeys BouuaertC, LipkowK, AndrewsSS, et al.The autoregulation of a eukaryotic DNA transposon. eLife, 2013; 2:e00668. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.00668.
17.
van OpijnenT, CamilliA. Transposon insertion sequencing: a new tool for systems-level analysis of microorganisms. Nat Rev Microbiol, 2013; 11:435–442. DOI: 10.1038/nrmicro3033.
18.
ZhangL, SankarU, LampeDJ, et al.The Himar1 mariner transposase cloned in a recombinant adenovirus vector is functional in mammalian cells. Nucleic Acids Res, 1998; 26:3687–3693. DOI: 10.1093/nar/26.16.3687.
19.
LampeDJ, GrantTE, RobertsonHM. Factors affecting transposition of the Himar1 mariner transposon in vitro. Genetics, 1998; 149:179–187.
20.
LampeDJ, AkerleyBJ, RubinEJ, et al.Hyperactive transposase mutants of the Himar1 mariner transposon. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 1999; 96:11428–11433. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.96.20.11428.
21.
GoodmanAL, McNultyNP, ZhaoY, et al.Identifying genetic determinants needed to establish a human gut symbiont in its habitat. Cell Host Microbe, 2009; 6:279–289. DOI: 10.1016/j.chom.2009.08.003.
22.
van OpijnenT, BodiKL, CamilliA. Tn-seq: high-throughput parallel sequencing for fitness and genetic interaction studies in microorganisms. Nat Methods, 2009; 6:767–772. DOI: 10.1038/nmeth.1377.
23.
ZhangJK, PritchettMA, LampeDJ, et al.In vivo transposon mutagenesis of the methanogenic archaeon Methanosarcina acetivorans C2A using a modified version of the insect mariner-family transposable element Himar1. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2000; 97:9665–9670. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.160272597.
24.
MoreroNR, ZulianiC, KumarB, et al.Targeting IS608 transposon integration to highly specific sequences by structure-based transposon engineering. Nucleic Acids Res, 2018; 46:4152–4163. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gky235.
25.
MaragathavallyKJ, KaminskiJM, CoatesCJ. Chimeric Mos1 and piggyBac transposases result in site-directed integration. FASEB J, 2006; 20:1880–1882. DOI: 10.1096/fj.05-5485fje.
26.
OwensJB, UrschitzJ, StoytchevI, et al.Chimeric piggyBac transposases for genomic targeting in human cells. Nucleic Acids Res, 2012; 40:6978–6991. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gks309.
27.
OwensJB, MauroD, StoytchevI, et al.Transcription activator like effector (TALE)-directed piggyBac transposition in human cells. Nucleic Acids Res, 2013; 41:9197–9207. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkt677.
28.
LuoW, GalvanDL, WoodardLE, et al.Comparative analysis of chimeric ZFP-, TALE- and Cas9-piggyBac transposases for integration into a single locus in human cells. Nucleic Acids Res, 2017; 45:8411–8422. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkx572.
29.
FengX, BednarzAL, CollomsSD. Precise targeted integration by a chimaeric transposase zinc-finger fusion protein. Nucleic Acids Res, 2010; 38:1204–1216. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkp1068.
30.
StreckerJ, LadhaA, GardnerZ, et al.RNA-guided DNA insertion with CRISPR-associated transposases. Science, 2019; 365:48–53. DOI: 10.1126/science.aax9181.
31.
KlompeSE, VoPLH, Halpin-HealyTS, et al.Transposon-encoded CRISPR-Cas systems direct RNA-guided DNA integration. Nature, 2019; 571:219–225. DOI: 10.1038/s41586-019-1323-z.
32.
QiLS, LarsonMH, GilbertLA, et al.Repurposing CRISPR as an RNA-guided platform for sequence-specific control of gene expression. Cell, 2013; 152:1173–1183. DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2013.02.022.
33.
BikardD, JiangW, SamaiP, et al.Programmable repression and activation of bacterial gene expression using an engineered CRISPR-Cas system. Nucleic Acids Res, 2013; 41:7429–7437. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkt520.
34.
GilbertLA, LarsonMH, MorsutL, et al.CRISPR-mediated modular RNA-guided regulation of transcription in eukaryotes. Cell, 2013; 154:442–451. DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2013.06.044.
35.
GuilingerJP, ThompsonDB, LiuDR. Fusion of catalytically inactive Cas9 to FokI nuclease improves the specificity of genome modification. Nat Biotechnol, 2014; 32:577–582. DOI: 10.1038/nbt.2909.
36.
TsaiSQ, WyvekensN, KhayterC, et al.Dimeric CRISPR RNA-guided FokI nucleases for highly specific genome editing. Nat Biotechnol, 2014; 32:569–576. DOI: 10.1038/nbt.2908.
37.
GaudelliNM, KomorAC, ReesHA, et al.Programmable base editing of A*T to G*C in genomic DNA without DNA cleavage. Nature, 2017; 551:464–471. DOI: 10.1038/nature24644.
38.
KomorAC, KimYB, PackerMS, et al.Programmable editing of a target base in genomic DNA without double-stranded DNA cleavage. Nature, 2016; 533:420–424. DOI: 10.1038/nature17946.
39.
ChaikindB, BessenJL, ThompsonDB, et al.A programmable Cas9-serine recombinase fusion protein that operates on DNA sequences in mammalian cells. Nucleic Acids Res, 2016; 44:9758–9770. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkw707.
40.
KearnsNA, PhamH, TabakB, et al.Functional annotation of native enhancers with a Cas9-histone demethylase fusion. Nat Methods, 2015; 12:401–403. DOI: 10.1038/nmeth.3325.
41.
HiltonIB, D'IppolitoAM, VockleyCM, et al.Epigenome editing by a CRISPR-Cas9-based acetyltransferase activates genes from promoters and enhancers. Nat Biotechnol, 2015; 33:510–517. DOI: 10.1038/nbt.3199.
42.
BhattS, ChalmersR. Targeted DNA transposition in vitro using a dCas9-transposase fusion protein. Nucleic Acids Res, 2019; 47:8126–8135. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkz552.
43.
PickensLB, TangY, ChooiYH. Metabolic engineering for the production of natural products. Annu Rev Chem Biomol Eng, 2011; 2:211–236. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-chembioeng-061010-114209.
44.
EsveltKM, SmidlerAL, CatterucciaF, et al.Concerning RNA-guided gene drives for the alteration of wild populations. eLife, 2014; 3. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.03401.
45.
RondaC, ChenSP, CabralV, et al.Metagenomic engineering of the mammalian gut microbiome in situ. Nat Methods, 2019; 16:167–170. DOI: 10.1038/s41592-018-0301-y.
46.
RohlandN, ReichD. Cost-effective, high-throughput DNA sequencing libraries for multiplexed target capture. Genome Res, 2012; 22:939–946. DOI: 10.1101/gr.128124.111.
47.
LangmeadB, SalzbergSL. Fast gapped-read alignment with Bowtie 2. Nat Methods, 2012; 9:357–359. DOI: 10.1038/nmeth.1923.
48.
SundaresanR, ParameshwaranHP, YogeshaSD, et al.RNA-independent DNA cleavage activities of Cas9 and Cas12a. Cell Rep, 2017; 21:3728–3739. DOI: 10.1016/j.celrep.2017.11.100.
49.
VigdalTJ, KaufmanCD, IzsvakZ, et al.Common physical properties of DNA affecting target site selection of sleeping beauty and other Tc1/mariner transposable elements. J Mol Biol, 2002; 323:441–452. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-2836(02)00991-9.
50.
TrubitsynaM, MorrisER, FinneganDJ, et al.Biochemical characterization and comparison of two closely related active mariner transposases. Biochemistry, 2014; 53:682–689. DOI: 10.1021/bi401193w.
51.
MiloR, JorgensenP, MoranU, et al.BioNumbers—the database of key numbers in molecular and cell biology. Nucleic Acids Res, 2010; 38:D750–753. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkp889.
52.
LampeDJ. Bacterial genetic methods to explore the biology of mariner transposons. Genetica, 2010; 138:499–508. DOI: 10.1007/s10709-009-9401-z.
53.
WarmingS, CostantinoN, CourtDL, et al.Simple and highly efficient BAC recombineering using galK selection. Nucleic Acids Res, 2005; 33:e36. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gni035.
54.
LiXT, ThomasonLC, SawitzkeJA, et al.Positive and negative selection using the tetA-sacB cassette: recombineering and P1 transduction in Escherichia coli. Nucleic Acids Res, 2013; 41:e204. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkt1075.
55.
DeVitoJA. Recombineering with tolC as a selectable/counter-selectable marker: remodeling the rRNA operons of Escherichia coli. Nucleic Acids Res, 2008; 36:e4. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkm1084.
56.
LiuD, ChalmersR. Hyperactive mariner transposons are created by mutations that disrupt allosterism and increase the rate of transposon end synapsis. Nucleic Acids Res, 2014; 42:2637–2645. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkt1218.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
