STAT3-hyper IgE syndrome (STAT3-HIES) is a primary immunodeficiency presenting with destructive lung disease along with other symptoms. CRISPR-Cas9-mediated adenine base editors (ABEs) have the potential to correct one of the most common STAT3-HIES causing heterozygous STAT3 mutations (c.1144C>T/p.R382W). As a proof-of-concept, we successfully applied ABEs to correct STAT3 p.R382W in patient fibroblasts and induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs). Treated primary STAT3-HIES patient fibroblasts showed a correction efficiency of 29% ± 7% without detectable off-target effects evaluated through whole-genome and high-throughput sequencing. Compared with untreated patient fibroblasts, corrected single-cell clones showed functional rescue of STAT3 signaling with significantly increased STAT3 DNA-binding activity and target gene expression of CCL2 and SOCS3. Patient-derived iPSCs were corrected with an efficiency of 30% ± 6% and differentiated to alveolar organoids showing preserved plasticity in treated cells. In conclusion, our results are supportive for ABE-based gene correction as a potential causative treatment of STAT3-HIES.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
MinegishiY, SaitoM, TsuchiyaS, et al.Dominant-negative mutations in the DNA-binding domain of STAT3 cause hyper-IgE syndrome. Nature. 2007; 448:1058–1062. DOI: 10.1038/nature06096.
2.
HollandSM, DeLeoFR, ElloumiHZ, et al.STAT3 mutations in the hyper-IgE syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2007; 357:1608–1619. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa073687.
3.
RennerED, RylaarsdamS, Anover-SombkeS, et al.Novel signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 (STAT3) mutations, reduced T(H)17cell numbers, and variably defective STAT3 phosphorylation in hyper-IgE syndrome. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2008; 122:181–187. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2008.04.037.
4.
ChandesrisMO, MelkiI, NatividadA, et al.Autosomal dominant STAT3 deficiency and hyper-IgE syndrome: Molecular, cellular, and clinical features from a French national survey. Medicine (Baltimore). 2012; 91:e1–e19. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0b013e31825f95b9.
5.
HaglB, HeinzV, SchlesingerA, et al.Key findings to expedite the diagnosis of hyper-IgE syndromes in infants and young children. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2016; 27:177–184. DOI: 10.1111/pai.12512.
6.
FreemanAF, RennerED, HendersonC, et al.Lung parenchyma surgery in autosomal dominant hyper-IgE syndrome. J Clin Immunol. 2013; 33:896–902. DOI: 10.1007/s10875-013-9890-5.
7.
KronerC, NeumannJ, Ley-ZaporozhanJ, et al.Lung disease in STAT3 hyper-IgE syndrome requires intense therapy. Allergy. 2019; 74:1691–1702. DOI: 10.1111/all.13753.
8.
HsuAP, DavisJ, PuckJM, et al.STAT3 hyper IgE syndrome. In: GeneReviews®. (Adam MP, Ardinger HH, Pagon RA, et al.; eds). Seattle, WA: University of Washington, Seattle.1993.
9.
CastagnoliR, DelmonteOM, CalzoniE, et al.Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in primary immunodeficiency diseases: Current status and future perspectives. Front Pediatr. 2019; 7:295. DOI: 10.3389/fped.2019.00295.
10.
YanagimachiM, OhyaT, YokosukaT, et al.The potential and limits of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for the treatment of autosomal dominant hyper-IgE syndrome. J Clin Immunol. 2016; 36:511–516. DOI: 10.1007/s10875-016-0278-1.
11.
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.
12.
PelhamSJ, LenthallHC, DeenickEK, et al.Elucidating the effects of disease-causing mutations on STAT3 function in autosomal-dominant hyper-IgE syndrome. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2016; 138:1210–1213.e1215. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2016.04.020.
13.
BorchinB, ChenJ, BarberiT. Derivation and FACS-mediated purification of PAX3+/PAX7+ skeletal muscle precursors from human pluripotent stem cells. Stem Cell Rep. 2013; 1:620–631. DOI: 10.1016/j.stemcr.2013.10.007.
14.
D'AmourKA, AgulnickAD, EliazerS, et al.Efficient differentiation of human embryonic stem cells to definitive endoderm. Nat Biotechnol. 2005; 23:1534–1541. DOI: 10.1038/nbt1163.
15.
ShiY, KirwanP, LiveseyFJ. Directed differentiation of human pluripotent stem cells to cerebral cortex neurons and neural networks. Nat Protoc. 2012; 7:1836–1846. DOI: 10.1038/nprot.2012.116.
16.
LivakKJ, SchmittgenTD. Analysis of relative gene expression data using real-time quantitative PCR and the 2(-Delta Delta C(T)) method. Methods. 2001; 25:402–408. DOI: 10.1006/meth.2001.1262.
17.
JacobA, MorleyM, HawkinsF, et al.Differentiation of human pluripotent stem cells into functional lung alveolar epithelial cells. Cell Stem Cell. 2017; 21:472–488.e410. DOI: 10.1016/j.stem.2017.08.014.
18.
JacobA, VedaieM, RobertsDA, et al.Derivation of self-renewing lung alveolar epithelial type II cells from human pluripotent stem cells. Nat Protoc. 2019; 14:3303–3332. DOI: 10.1038/s41596-019-0220-0.
19.
HawkinsF, KramerP, JacobA, et al.Prospective isolation of NKX2-1-expressing human lung progenitors derived from pluripotent stem cells. J Clin Invest. 2017; 127:2277–2294. DOI: 10.1172/JCI89950.
20.
StemmerM, ThumbergerT, Del Sol KeyerM, et al.CCTop: An intuitive, flexible and reliable CRISPR/Cas9 target prediction tool. PLoS One. 2015; 10:e0124633. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0124633.
21.
LadungaI. Finding similar nucleotide sequences using network BLAST searches. Curr Protoc Bioinformatics. 2017; 58:3 3 1–3 3 25. DOI: 10.1002/cpbi.29.
22.
ConcordetJP, HaeusslerM. CRISPOR: Intuitive guide selection for CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing experiments and screens. Nucleic Acids Res. 2018; 46:W242–W245. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gky354.
23.
KluesnerMG, NedveckDA, LahrWS, et al.EditR: A method to quantify base editing from Sanger sequencing. CRISPR J. 2018; 1:239–250. DOI: 10.1089/crispr.2018.0014.
24.
McKennaA, HannaM, BanksE, et al.The Genome Analysis Toolkit: A MapReduce framework for analyzing next-generation DNA sequencing data. Genome Res. 2010; 20:1297–1303. DOI: 10.1101/gr.107524.110.
25.
KruscheP, TriggL, BoutrosPC, et al.Best practices for benchmarking germline small-variant calls in human genomes. Nat Biotechnol. 2019; 37:555–560. DOI: 10.1038/s41587-019-0054-x.
26.
ChenN. Using RepeatMasker to identify repetitive elements in genomic sequences. Curr Protoc Bioinformatics. 2004;Chapter 4:Unit 4.10. DOI: 10.1002/0471250953.bi0410s05.
27.
Tarailo-GraovacM, ChenN. Using RepeatMasker to identify repetitive elements in genomic sequences. Curr Protoc Bioinformatics. 2009;Chapter 4:Unit 4.10. DOI: 10.1002/0471250953.bi0410s25.
28.
ChenK, WallisJW, McLellanMD, et al.BreakDancer: An algorithm for high-resolution mapping of genomic structural variation. Nat Methods. 2009; 6:677–681. DOI: 10.1038/nmeth.1363.
29.
FanX, AbbottTE, LarsonD, et al.BreakDancer: Identification of genomic structural variation from paired-end read mapping. Curr Protoc Bioinformatics. 2014; 45:15.6.1-11. DOI: 10.1002/0471250953.bi1506s45.
30.
RauschT, ZichnerT, SchlattlA, et al.DELLY: Structural variant discovery by integrated paired-end and split-read analysis. Bioinformatics. 2012; 28:i333–i339. DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bts378.
31.
AbyzovA, UrbanAE, SnyderM, et al.CNVnator: An approach to discover, genotype, and characterize typical and atypical CNVs from family and population genome sequencing. Genome Res. 2011; 21:974–984. DOI: 10.1101/gr.114876.110.
32.
LayerRM, ChiangC, QuinlanAR, et al.LUMPY: A probabilistic framework for structural variant discovery. Genome Biol. 2014; 15:R84. DOI: 10.1186/gb-2014-15-6-r84.
33.
ChenX, Schulz-TrieglaffO, ShawR, et al.Manta: Rapid detection of structural variants and indels for germline and cancer sequencing applications. Bioinformatics. 2016; 32:1220–1222. DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btv710.
34.
YeK, SchulzMH, LongQ, et al.Pindel: A pattern growth approach to detect break points of large deletions and medium sized insertions from paired-end short reads. Bioinformatics. 2009; 25:2865–2871. DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp394.
35.
YeK, GuoL, YangX, et al.Split-read indel and structural variant calling using PINDEL. Methods Mol Biol. 2018; 1833:95–105. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4939-8666-8_7.
36.
RobinsonJT, ThorvaldsdottirH, WengerAM, et al.Variant review with the integrative genomics viewer. Cancer Res. 2017; 77:e31–e34. DOI: 10.1158/0008–5472.CAN-17-0337.
37.
MorettiA, FonteyneL, GiesertF, et al.Somatic gene editing ameliorates skeletal and cardiac muscle failure in pig and human models of Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Nat Med. 2020; 26:207–214. DOI: 10.1038/s41591-019-0738-2.
38.
DmitrievaNI, WaltsAD, NguyenDP, et al.Impaired angiogenesis and extracellular matrix metabolism in autosomal-dominant hyper-IgE syndrome. J Clin Invest. 2020; 130:4167–4181. DOI: 10.1172/JCI135490.
39.
ZookJM, McDanielJ, OlsonND, et al.An open resource for accurately benchmarking small variant and reference calls. Nat Biotechnol. 2019; 37:561–566. DOI: 10.1038/s41587-019-0074-6.
40.
LeeHK, WilliM, MillerSM, et al.Targeting fidelity of adenine and cytosine base editors in mouse embryos. Nat Commun. 2018; 9:4804. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-07322-7.
41.
LiuZ, LuZ, YangG, et al.Efficient generation of mouse models of human diseases via ABE- and BE-mediated base editing. Nat Commun. 2018; 9:2338. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-04768-7.
42.
KimS, KimD, ChoSW, et al.Highly efficient RNA-guided genome editing in human cells via delivery of purified Cas9 ribonucleoproteins. Genome Res. 2014; 24:1012–1019. DOI: 10.1101/gr.171322.113.
43.
JinS, ZongY, GaoQ, et al.Cytosine, but not adenine, base editors induce genome-wide off-target mutations in rice. Science. 2019; 364:292–295. DOI: 10.1126/science.aaw7166.
44.
HindeE, PandzicE, YangZ, et al.Quantifying the dynamics of the oligomeric transcription factor STAT3 by pair correlation of molecular brightness. Nat Commun. 2016; 7:11047. DOI: 10.1038/ncomms11047.
45.
GriesingerAM, JosephsonRJ, DonsonAM, et al.Interleukin-6/STAT3 pathway signaling drives an inflammatory phenotype in group A ependymoma. Cancer Immunol Res. 2015; 3:1165–1174. DOI: 10.1158/2326–6066.CIR-15-0061.
46.
KoblanLW, DomanJL, WilsonC, et al.Improving cytidine and adenine base editors by expression optimization and ancestral reconstruction. Nat Biotechnol. 2018; 36:843–846. DOI: 10.1038/nbt.4172.
47.
LeeC, Hyun JoD, HwangGH, et al.CRISPR-Pass: Gene rescue of nonsense mutations using adenine base editors. Mol Ther. 2019; 27:1364–1371. DOI: 10.1016/j.ymthe.2019.05.013.
48.
RyuSM, KooT, KimK, et al.Adenine base editing in mouse embryos and an adult mouse model of Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Nat Biotechnol. 2018; 36:536–539. DOI: 10.1038/nbt.4148.
49.
SongC-Q, JiangT, RichterM, et al.Adenine base editing in an adult mouse model of tyrosinaemia. Nat Biomed Eng. 2020; 4:125–130. DOI: 10.1038/s41551-019-0357-8.
50.
KoblanLW, ErdosMR, WilsonC, et al.In vivo base editing rescues Hutchinson-Gilford progeria syndrome in mice. Nature. 2021; 589:608–614. DOI: 10.1038/s41586-020-03086-7.
51.
ReesHA, WilsonC, DomanJL, et al.Analysis and minimization of cellular RNA editing by DNA adenine base editors. Sci Adv. 2019; 5:eaax5717. DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aax5717.
52.
KormannMS, HasenpuschG, AnejaMK, et al.Expression of therapeutic proteins after delivery of chemically modified mRNA in mice. Nat Biotechnol. 2011; 29:154–157. DOI: 10.1038/nbt.1733.
53.
MahinyAJ, DewerthA, MaysLE, et al.In vivo genome editing using nuclease-encoding mRNA corrects SP-B deficiency. Nat Biotechnol. 2015; 33:584–586. DOI: 10.1038/nbt.3241.
54.
LevyJM, YehWH, PendseN, et al.Cytosine and adenine base editing of the brain, liver, retina, heart and skeletal muscle of mice via adeno-associated viruses. Nat Biomed Eng. 2020; 4:97–110. DOI: 10.1038/s41551-019-0501-5.
55.
NCOB. Genome editing—An ethical review. London, England: Nuffield Council on Bioethics. 2016.
56.
National Academies of SciencesEngineering, and Medicine; National Academy of Medicine; National Academy of Sciences; Committee on Human GeneEditing. Human Genome Editing: Science, Ethics, and Governance. Human genome editing: Science, ethics, and governance. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.2017.
57.
NCOB. Patient access to experimental treatments. Bioethics Briefing Note of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics. 2018.
CornelMC, HowardHC, LimD, et al.Moving towards a cure in genetics: What is needed to bring somatic gene therapy to the clinic?. Eur J Hum Genet. 2019; 27:484–487. DOI: 10.1038/s41431-018-0309-x.
60.
NicolD, EcksteinL, MorrisonM, et al.Key challenges in bringing CRISPR-mediated somatic cell therapy into the clinic. Genome Med. 2017; 9:85. DOI: 10.1186/s13073-017-0475-4.
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.
