Genome editing strategies and DNA repair research need powerful analytical tools. We generated a bioluminescence resonance energy transfer (BRET)-based reporter for the quantification of indel frequencies induced by DNA repair. The BRET reporter, expressed as a single molecule, consists of a mutated Renilla reniformis luciferase domain and a GFP2 domain separated by a shuttle-cloning box for the integration of any given endonuclease target sequence. The luciferase activity acts both as energy donor and as the internal standard, while the loss of GFP2 fluorescence acts as a reporter for the out-of-frame sequence alterations that result from the DNA repair via the non-homologous end joining/microhomology-mediated end joining DNA repair pathways of the endonuclease-mediated DNA double-strand break. This results in a decrease of the fluorescence/luminescence ratio. Employing this reporter in different experimental scenarios, using different cell lines and diseases targeted, we quantified the influence of both protein knockdown of DNA repair pathways as well as guide RNA mismatches on CRISPR-mediated nuclease activity and subsequent repair based on mutagenic repair on the reporter. In conclusion, we demonstrated this BRET-based reporter to be a robust and sensitive analytical tool for assessment of variety of different genome editing–based approaches.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CarrollD.Genome engineering with zinc-finger nucleases. Genetics, 2011; 4:773–782. DOI: 10.1534/genetics.111.131433.
2.
RemyS, TessonL, MenoretS, et al.Efficient gene targeting by homology-directed repair in rat zygotes using TALE nucleases. Genome Res, 2014; 8:1371–1383. DOI: 10.1101/gr.171538.113.
3.
HsuPD, LanderES, ZhangF. Development and applications of CRISPR-Cas9 for genome engineering. Cell, 2014; 6:1262–1278. DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2014.05.010.
4.
FineranPC, CharpentierE. Memory of viral infections by CRISPR-Cas adaptive immune systems: acquisition of new information. Virology, 2012; 2:202–209. DOI: 10.1016/j.virol.2012.10.003.
5.
NishimasuH, RanFA, HsuPD, et al.Crystal structure of Cas9 in complex with guide RNA and target DNA. Cell, 2014; 5:935–949. DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2014.02.001.
6.
MaY, ZhangL, HuangX. Genome modification by CRISPR/Cas9. FEBS J, 2014; 23:5186–5193. DOI: 10.1111/febs.13110.
7.
BrownTA. Mutation, repair and recombination. In: BrownTA, ed. Genomes. 2nd ed. Oxford: Wiley-Liss, 2002, p. 11.
8.
AparicioT, BaerR, GautierJ.DNA double-strand break repair pathway choice and cancer. DNA Repair (Amst), 2014:169–175. DOI: 10.1016/j.dnarep.2014.03.014.
9.
WangH, XuX.Microhomology-mediated end joining: new players join the team. Cell Biosci, 2017:6. DOI: 10.1186/s13578-017-0136-8.
10.
TruongLN, LiY, ShiLZ, et al.Microhomology-mediated end joining and homologous recombination share the initial end resection step to repair DNA double-strand breaks in mammalian cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2013; 19:7720–7725. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1213431110.
11.
MahatoB, KayaKD, FanY, et al.Pharmacologic fibroblast reprogramming into photoreceptors restores vision. Nature, 2020; 7806:83–88. DOI: 10.1038/s41586-020-2201-4.
12.
DevkotaS.The road less traveled: strategies to enhance the frequency of homology-directed repair (HDR) for increased efficiency of CRISPR/Cas-mediated transgenesis. BMB Rep, 2018; 9:437–443. DOI: 10.5483/BMBRep.2018.51.9.187.
13.
FradeJM, Ovejero-BenitoMC. Neuronal cell cycle: the neuron itself and its circumstances. Cell Cycle, 2015; 5:712–720. DOI: 10.1080/15384101.2015.1004937.
14.
PasquiniG, CoraV, SwiersyA, et al.Using transcriptomic analysis to assess double-strand break repair activity: towards precise in vivo genome editing. Int J Mol Sci, 2020; 4. DOI: 10.3390/ijms21041380.
15.
RobbGB, ed. Genome editing with CRISPR-Cas: an overview. Curr Protoc Essent Lab Tech, 2019; 19:e36. DOI: 10.1002/cpet.36.
16.
MashalRD, KoontzJ, SklarJ. Detection of mutations by cleavage of DNA heteroduplexes with bacteriophage resolvases. Nat Genet, 1995; 2:177–183. DOI: 10.1038/ng0295-177.
17.
QiuP, ShandilyaH, D'AlessioJM, et al.Mutation detection using Surveyor nuclease. BioTechniques, 2004; 4:702–707. DOI: 10.2144/04364PF01.
18.
HsiauT, ConantD, RossiN, et al.Inference of CRISPR edits from Sanger trace data. bioRxiv, 2018. DOI: 10.1101/251082.
19.
BrinkmanEK, van SteenselB. Rapid quantitative evaluation of CRISPR genome editing by TIDE and TIDER. Methods Mol Biol, 2019; 1961:29–44. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4939-9170-9_3.
20.
LonowskiLA, NarimatsuY, RiazA, et al.Genome editing using FACS enrichment of nuclease-expressing cells and indel detection by amplicon analysis. Nat Protoc, 2017; 3:581–603. DOI: 10.1038/nprot.2016.165.
21.
Højland KnudsenC, ÁsgrímsdóttirES, RahimiK, et al.A modified monomeric red fluorescent protein reporter for assessing CRISPR activity. Front Cell Dev Biol, 2018; 6:54. DOI: 10.3389/fcell.2018.00054.
22.
CoelhoMA, LiS, PaneLS, et al.BE-FLARE: a fluorescent reporter of base editing activity reveals editing characteristics of APOBEC3A and APOBEC3B. BMC Biol, 2018; 1:150. DOI: 10.1186/s12915-018-0617-1.
23.
LoeningAM, FennTD, WuAM, et al.Consensus guided mutagenesis of Renilla luciferase yields enhanced stability and light output. Protein Eng Des Sel, 2006; 9:391–400. DOI: 10.1093/protein/gzl023.
24.
DeA, AroraR, JasaniA, eds. Engineering aspects of bioluminescence resonance energy transfer systems. In: Cai W (ed) Engineering in Translational Medicine. Vol. 3. London: Springer, 2014, 257–300. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4471-4372-7_10.
25.
Dragulescu-AndrasiA, ChanCT, DeA, et al.Bioluminescence resonance energy transfer (BRET) imaging of protein-protein interactions within deep tissues of living subjects. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2011; 29:12060–12065. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1100923108.
26.
WimmerT, LorenzB, StiegerK. Quantification of the vascular endothelial growth factor with a bioluminescence resonance energy transfer (BRET) based single molecule biosensor. Biosens Bioelectron, 2016; 86:609–615. DOI: 10.1016/j.bios.2016.07.058.
27.
StumpfC, WimmerT, LorenzB, et al.Creation of different bioluminescence resonance energy transfer based biosensors with high affinity to VEGF. PLoS ONE, 2020; 3:e0230344. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0230344.
28.
WimmerT, SchroeterE, LorenzB, et al.Detection of the vascular endothelial growth factor with a novel bioluminescence resonance energy transfer pair using a two-component system. Sensors (Basel), 2017; 17:145. DOI: 10.3390/s17010145.
29.
DacresH, MichieM, AndersonA, et al.Advantages of substituting bioluminescence for fluorescence in a resonance energy transfer-based periplasmic binding protein biosensor. Biosens Bioelectron, 2013; 41:459–464. DOI: 10.1016/j.bios.2012.09.004.
30.
KobayashiH, PicardL-P, SchöneggeA-M, et al.Bioluminescence resonance energy transfer-based imaging of protein-protein interactions in living cells. Nat Protoc, 2019; 4:1084–1107. DOI: 10.1038/s41596-019-0129-7.
31.
SchlegelJ, HoffmannJ, RöllD, et al.Toward genome editing in X-linked RP-development of a mouse model with specific treatment relevant features. Transl Res, 2019; 203:57–72. DOI: 10.1016/j.trsl.2018.08.006.
32.
CertoMT, RyuBY, AnnisJE, et al.Tracking genome engineering outcome at individual DNA breakpoints. Nat Methods, 2011; 8:671–676. DOI: 10.1038/nmeth.1648.
33.
CotmanSL, VrbanacV, LebelL-A, et al.Cln3(Deltaex7/8) knock-in mice with the common JNCL mutation exhibit progressive neurologic disease that begins before birth. Hum Mol Genet, 2002; 22:2709–2721. DOI: 10.1093/hmg/11.22.2709.
34.
AllenF, CrepaldiL, AlsinetC, et al.Predicting the mutations generated by repair of Cas9-induced double-strand breaks. Nat Biotechnol 2018 Nov 27 [Epub ahead of print]; DOI: 10.1038/nbt.4317.
35.
van OverbeekM, CapursoD, CarterMM, et al.DNA repair profiling reveals nonrandom outcomes at Cas9-mediated breaks. Mol Cell, 2016; 4:633–646. DOI: 10.1016/j.molcel.2016.06.037.
36.
GallagherDN, HaberJE. Repair of a site-specific DNA cleavage: old-school lessons for Cas9-mediated gene editing. ACS Chem Biol, 2018; 2:397–405. DOI: 10.1021/acschembio.7b00760.
37.
StiegerK, Le MeurG, LasneF, et al.Long-term doxycycline-regulated transgene expression in the retina of nonhuman primates following subretinal injection of recombinant AAV vectors. Mol Ther, 2006; 5:967–975. DOI: 10.1016/j.ymthe.2005.12.001.
38.
BlomN, GammeltoftS, BrunakS. Sequence and structure-based prediction of eukaryotic protein phosphorylation sites. J Mol Biol, 1999; 5:1351–1362. DOI: 10.1006/jmbi.1999.3310.
39.
JuleniusK, MølgaardA, GuptaR, et al.Prediction, conservation analysis, and structural characterization of mammalian mucin-type O-glycosylation sites. Glycobiology, 2005; 2:153–164. DOI: 10.1093/glycob/cwh151.
40.
ChenX, ZhongS, ZhuX, et al.Rational design of human DNA ligase inhibitors that target cellular DNA replication and repair. Cancer Res, 2008; 9:3169–3177. DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-07-6636.
41.
LinY, CradickTJ, BrownMT, et al.CRISPR/Cas9 systems have off-target activity with insertions or deletions between target DNA and guide RNA sequences. Nucleic Acids Res, 2014; 11:7473–7485. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gku402.
42.
ChoSW, KimS, KimY, et al.Analysis of off-target effects of CRISPR/Cas-derived RNA-guided endonucleases and nickases. Genome Res, 2014; 1:132–141. DOI: 10.1101/gr.162339.113.
43.
KleinstiverBP, PattanayakV, PrewMS, et al.High-fidelity CRISPR-Cas9 nucleases with no detectable genome-wide off-target effects. Nature, 2016; 7587:490–495. DOI: 10.1038/nature16526.
44.
SlaymakerIM, GaoL, ZetscheB, et al.Rationally engineered Cas9 nucleases with improved specificity. Science, 2016; 6268:84–88. DOI: 10.1126/science.aad5227.
45.
JinekM, ChylinskiK, FonfaraI, et al.A programmable dual-RNA-guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity. Science, 2012; 6096:816–821. DOI: 10.1126/science.1225829.
46.
ZhangH, ZhouY, WangY, et al.A surrogate reporter system for multiplexable evaluation of CRISPR/Cas9 in targeted mutagenesis. Sci Rep, 2018; 1:1042. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-19317-x.
47.
MaruyamaT, DouganSK, TruttmannMC, et al.Increasing the efficiency of precise genome editing with CRISPR-Cas9 by inhibition of nonhomologous end joining. Nat Biotechnol, 2015; 5:538–542. DOI: 10.1038/nbt.3190.
48.
van ChuT, WeberT, WefersB, et al.Increasing the efficiency of homology-directed repair for CRISPR-Cas9-induced precise gene editing in mammalian cells. Nat Biotechnol, 2015; 5:543–548. DOI: 10.1038/nbt.3198.
49.
LiG, LiuD, ZhangX, et al.Suppressing Ku70/Ku80 expression elevates homology-directed repair efficiency in primary fibroblasts. Int J Biochem Cell Biol, 2018:154–160. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocel.2018.04.011.
50.
TranN-T, BashirS, LiX, et al.Enhancement of precise gene editing by the association of Cas9 with homologous recombination factors. Front Genet, 2019; 10:365. DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2019.00365.
51.
CharpentierM, KhedherAHY, MenoretS, et al.CtIP fusion to Cas9 enhances transgene integration by homology-dependent repair. Nat Commun, 2018; 1:1133. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-03475-7.
52.
ZhaoH, DoyleTC, WongRJ, et al.Characterization of coelenterazine analogs for measurements of Renilla luciferase activity in live cells and living animals. Mol Imaging, 2004; 1:153535002004031. DOI: 10.1162/15353500200403181.
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.
