Genome-edited human-induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) have broad applications in disease modeling, drug discovery, and regenerative medicine. Despite the development of clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)-Cas9 system, the gene editing process is inefficient and can take several weeks to months to generate edited iPSC clones. We developed a strategy to improve the efficiency of the iPSC gene editing process via application of a small-molecule, trichostatin A (TSA), a Class I and II histone deacetylase inhibitor. We observed that TSA decreased global chromatin condensation and further resulted in increased gene-editing efficiency of iPSCs by twofold to fourfold while concurrently ensuring no increased off-target effects. The edited iPSCs could be clonally expanded while maintaining genomic integrity and pluripotency. The rapid generation of therapeutically relevant gene-edited iPSCs could be enabled by these findings.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
EbertAD, LiangP, WuJC. Induced pluripotent stem cells as a disease modeling and drug screening platform. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol, 2012; 60(4):4`08–416; doi: 10.1097/FJC.0b013e318247f642.
2.
ShiY, InoueH, WuJC, et al.Induced pluripotent stem cell technology: A decade of progress. Nat Rev Drug Discov, 2017; 16(2):115–130; doi: 10.1038/nrd.2016.245
3.
DoudnaJA. The promise and challenge of therapeutic genome editing. Nature, 2020; 578(7794):229–236; doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-1978-5
4.
De MasiC, SpitalieriP, MurdoccaM, et al.Application of CRISPR/Cas9 to human-induced pluripotent stem cells: From gene editing to drug discovery. Hum Genomics, 2020; 14(1):25; doi: 10.1186/s40246-020-00276-2
5.
DashnauJL, XueQ, NelsonM, et al.A risk-based approach for cell line development, manufacturing and characterization of genetically engineered, induced pluripotent stem cell–derived allogeneic cell therapies. Cytotherapy, 2023; 25(1):1–13; doi: 10.1016/j.jcyt.2022.08.001
6.
SarkarA, MeiA, PaquolaACM, et al.Efficient generation of CA3 neurons from human pluripotent stem cells enables modeling of hippocampal connectivity in vitro. Cell Stem Cell, 2018; 22(5):684–697.e9; doi: 10.1016/j.stem.2018.04.009.
7.
SinhaD, SteyerB, ShahiPK, et al.Human iPSC modeling elucidates mutation-specific responses to gene therapy in a genotypically diverse dominant maculopathy. Am J Hum Genet, 2020; 107(2):278–292; doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2020.06.011
8.
JacobA, MorleyM, HawkinsF, et al.Differentiation of human pluripotent stem cells into functional lung alveolar epithelial cells. Cell Stem Cell, 2017; 21(4):472–488.e10; doi: 10.1016/j.stem.2017.08.014
9.
FelicianoCM, WuK, WatryHL, et al.Allele-specific gene editing rescues pathology in a human model of charcot-marie-tooth disease type 2E. Front Cell Dev Biol, 2021; 9:723023; doi: 10.3389/fcell.2021.723023
10.
NishiyamaT, ZhangY, CuiM, et al.Precise genomic editing of pathogenic mutations in RBM20 rescues dilated cardiomyopathy. Sci Transl Med, 2022; 14(672):eade1633; doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.ade1633
11.
HolmgrenG, SartipyP, AnderssonCX, et al.Expression profiling of human pluripotent stem cell-derived cardiomyocytes exposed to doxorubicin—Integration and visualization of multi-omics data. Toxicol Sci, 2018; 163(1):182–195; doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kfy012
12.
ReadheadB, HartleyBJ, EastwoodBJ, et al.Expression-based drug screening of neural progenitor cells from individuals with schizophrenia. Nat Commun, 2018; 9(1):4412; doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-06515-4
13.
NovosadovaEV, ArsenyevaEL, AntonovSA, et al.The use of human induced pluripotent stem cells for testing neuroprotective activity of pharmacological compounds. Biochem Mosc, 2019; 84(11):1296–1305; doi: 10.1134/S0006297919110075
14.
RuillierV, TournoisJ, BoissartC, et al.Rescuing compounds for Lesch-Nyhan disease identified using stem cell–based phenotypic screening. JCI Insight, 2020; 5(4):e132094; doi: 10.1172/jci.insight.132094
15.
CzernieckiSM, CruzNM, HarderJL, et al.High-throughput screening enhances kidney organoid differentiation from human pluripotent stem cells and enables automated multidimensional phenotyping. Cell Stem Cell, 2018; 22(6):929–940.e4; doi: 10.1016/j.stem.2018.04.022
16.
SmithC, GoreA, YanW, et al.Whole-genome sequencing analysis reveals high specificity of CRISPR/Cas9 and TALEN-based genome editing in human iPSCs. Cell Stem Cell, 2014; 15(1):12–13; doi: 10.1016/j.stem.2014.06.011
17.
FoltzL, HowdenS, ThomsonJ, et al.Functional assessment of patient-derived retinal pigment epithelial cells edited by CRISPR/Cas9. Int J Mol Sci, 2018; 19(12):4127; doi: 10.3390/ijms19124127
18.
SchusterS, SaravanakumarS, SchölsL, et al.Generation of a homozygous CRISPR/Cas9-mediated knockout human iPSC line for the STUB1 locus. Stem Cell Res, 2019; 34:101378; doi: 10.1016/j.scr.2018.101378
19.
Carlson-StevermerJ, DasA, AbdeenAA, et al.Design of efficacious somatic cell genome editing strategies for recessive and polygenic diseases. Nat Commun, 2020; 11(1):6277; doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-20065-8
20.
SunJ, Carlson-StevermerJ, DasU, et al.CRISPR/Cas9 editing of APP C-terminus attenuates β-cleavage and promotes α-cleavage. Nat Commun, 2019; 10(1):53; doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-07971-8
21.
WangS, MinZ, JiQ, et al.Rescue of premature aging defects in Cockayne syndrome stem cells by CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene correction. Protein Cell, 2020; 11(1):1–22; doi: 10.1007/s13238-019-0623-2
22.
JackówJ, GuoZ, HansenC, et al.CRISPR/Cas9-based targeted genome editing for correction of recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa using iPS cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci, 2019; 116(52):26846–26852; doi: 10.1073/pnas.1907081116
23.
LiHL, FujimotoN, SasakawaN, et al.Precise correction of the dystrophin gene in Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy patient induced pluripotent stem cells by TALEN and CRISPR-Cas9. Stem Cell Rep, 2015; 4(1):143–154; doi: 10.1016/j.stemcr.2014.10.013
24.
XieF, YeL, ChangJC, et al.Seamless gene correction of β-thalassemia mutations in patient-specific iPSCs using CRISPR/Cas9 and piggyBac. Genome Res, 2014; 24(9):1526–1533; doi: 10.1101/gr.173427.114
25.
HockemeyerD, SoldnerF, CookEG, et al.A drug-inducible system for direct reprogramming of human somatic cells to pluripotency. Cell Stem Cell, 2008; 3(3):346–353; doi: 10.1016/j.stem.2008.08.014
26.
LiuG-H, SuzukiK, QuJ, et al.Targeted gene correction of laminopathy-associated LMNA mutations in patient-specific iPSCs. Cell Stem Cell, 2011; 8(6):688–694; doi: 10.1016/j.stem.2011.04.019
27.
ZouJ, MaliP, HuangX, et al.Site-specific gene correction of a point mutation in human iPS cells derived from an adult patient with sickle cell disease. Blood, 2011; 118(17):4599–4608; doi: 10.1182/blood-2011-02-335554.
28.
HowdenSE, GoreA, LiZ, et al.Genetic correction and analysis of induced pluripotent stem cells from a patient with gyrate atrophy. Proc Natl Acad Sci, 2011; 108(16):6537–6542; doi: 10.1073/pnas.1103388108.
29.
CaillaudA, LévêqueA, ThédrezA, et al.FACS-assisted CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing of human induced pluripotent stem cells. STAR Protoc, 2022; 3(4):101680; doi: 10.1016/j.xpro.2022.101680.
30.
ZouJ, MaederML, MaliP, et al.Gene targeting of a disease-related gene in human induced pluripotent stem and embryonic stem cells. Cell Stem Cell, 2009; 5(1):97–110; doi: 10.1016/j.stem.2009.05.023
31.
HottaA, YamanakaS. From genomics to gene therapy: Induced pluripotent stem cells meet genome editing. Annu Rev Genet, 2015; 49(1):47–70; doi: 10.1146/annurev-genet-112414-054926
32.
FuY, SanderJD, ReyonD, et al.Improving CRISPR-Cas nuclease specificity using truncated guide RNAs. Nat Biotechnol, 2014; 32(3):279–284; doi: 10.1038/nbt.2808
33.
RanFA, HsuPD, LinC-Y, et al.Double nicking by RNA-guided CRISPR Cas9 for enhanced genome editing specificity. Cell, 2013; 154(6):1380–1389; doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2013.08.021
34.
RyanDE, TaussigD, SteinfeldI, et al.Improving CRISPR–Cas specificity with chemical modifications in single-guide RNAs. Nucleic Acids Res, 2018; 46(2):792–803; doi: 10.1093/nar/gkx1199
35.
AnzaloneAV, RandolphPB, DavisJR, et al.Search-and-replace genome editing without double-strand breaks or donor DNA. Nature, 2019; 576(7785):149–157; doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1711-4
36.
ReesHA, LiuDR. Base editing: Precision chemistry on the genome and transcriptome of living cells. Nat Rev Genet, 2018; 19(12):770–788; doi: 10.1038/s41576-018-0059-1
37.
YarnallMTN, IoannidiEI, Schmitt-UlmsC, et al.Drag-and-drop genome insertion of large sequences without double-strand DNA cleavage using CRISPR-directed integrases. Nat Biotechnol, 2023; 41(4):500–512; doi: 10.1038/s41587-022-01527-4
38.
KagitaA, LungMSY, XuH, et al.Efficient ssODN-mediated targeting by avoiding cellular inhibitory RNAs through precomplexed CRISPR-Cas9/sgRNA ribonucleoprotein. Stem Cell Rep, 2021; 16(4):985–996; doi: 10.1016/j.stemcr.2021.02.013
39.
NamiF, RamezankhaniR, VandenabeeleM, et al.Fast and efficient generation of isogenic induced pluripotent stem cell lines using adenine base editing. CRISPR J, 2021; 4(4):502–518; doi: 10.1089/crispr.2021.0006
40.
CoxDBT, GootenbergJS, AbudayyehOO, et al.RNA editing with CRISPR-Cas13. Science, 2017; 358(6366):1019–1027; doi: 10.1126/science.aaq0180
41.
KleinstiverBP, PrewMS, TsaiSQ, et al.Engineered CRISPR-Cas9 nucleases with altered PAM specificities. Nature, 2015; 523(7561):481–485; doi: 10.1038/nature14592
42.
HuJH, MillerSM, GeurtsMH, et al.Evolved Cas9 variants with broad PAM compatibility and high DNA specificity. Nature, 2018; 556(7699):57–63; doi: 10.1038/nature26155
43.
AmraniN, GaoXD, LiuP, et al.NmeCas9 is an intrinsically high-fidelity genome-editing platform. Genome Biol, 2018; 19(1):214; doi: 10.1186/s13059-018-1591-1
44.
MaruyamaT, DouganSK, TruttmannMC, et al.Increasing the efficiency of precise genome editing with CRISPR-Cas9 by inhibition of nonhomologous end joining. Nat Biotechnol, 2015; 33(5):538–542; doi: 10.1038/nbt.3190
45.
ChuVT, WeberT, WefersB, et al.Increasing the efficiency of homology-directed repair for CRISPR-Cas9-induced precise gene editing in mammalian cells. Nat Biotechnol, 2015; 33(5):543–548; doi: 10.1038/nbt.3198
46.
LinS, StaahlBT, AllaRK, et al.Enhanced homology-directed human genome engineering by controlled timing of CRISPR/Cas9 delivery. eLife, 2014; 3:e04766; doi: 10.7554/eLife.04766
ChakrabartiAM, Henser-BrownhillT, MonserratJ, et al.Target-specific precision of CRISPR-mediated genome editing. Mol Cell, 2019; 73(4):699–713.e6; doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2018.11.031
49.
LazzarottoCR, MalininNL, LiY, et al.CHANGE-seq reveals genetic and epigenetic effects on CRISPR–Cas9 genome-wide activity. Nat Biotechnol, 2020; doi: 10.1038/s41587-020-0555-7
50.
Uusi-MäkeläMIE, BarkerHR, BäuerleinCA, et al.Chromatin accessibility is associated with CRISPR-Cas9 efficiency in the zebrafish (Danio rerio). Riley BB. ed. PLoS ONE, 2018; 13(4):e0196238; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0196238
51.
ZouRS, Marin-GonzalezA, LiuY, et al.Massively parallel genomic perturbations with multi-target CRISPR interrogates Cas9 activity and DNA repair at endogenous sites. Nat Cell Biol, 2022; 24(9):1433–1444; doi: 10.1038/s41556-022-00975-z
52.
LiX, ChenW, MartinBK, et al.Chromatin context-dependent regulation and epigenetic manipulation of prime editing. preprint. Mol Biol;, 2023; In Press; doi: 10.1101/2023.04.12.536587.
53.
KalousiA, SoutoglouE. Nuclear compartmentalization of DNA repair. Curr Opin Genet Dev, 2016; 37:148–157; doi: 10.1016/j.gde.2016.05.013
54.
ClouaireT, LegubeG. DNA double strand break repair pathway choice: A chromatin based decision?. Nucleus, 2015; 6(2):107–113; doi: 10.1080/19491034.2015.1010946
55.
JeggoPA, DownsJA. Roles of chromatin remodellers in DNA double strand break repair. Exp Cell Res, 2014; 329(1):69–77; doi: 10.1016/j.yexcr.2014.09.023
SchepR, BrinkmanEK, LeemansC, et al.Impact of chromatin context on Cas9-induced DNA double-strand break repair pathway balance. Mol Cell, 2021; 81(10):2216–2230.e10; doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2021.03.032
58.
LiuB, ChenS, RoseAL, et al.Inhibition of histone deacetylase 1 (HDAC1) and HDAC2 enhances CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing. Nucleic Acids Res, 2020; 48(2):517–532; doi: 10.1093/nar/gkz1136
59.
ChenX, RinsmaM, JanssenJM, et al.Probing the impact of chromatin conformation on genome editing tools. Nucleic Acids Res, 2016; 44(13):6482–6492; doi: 10.1093/nar/gkw524
60.
JanssenJM, ChenX, LiuJ, et al.The chromatin structure of CRISPR-Cas9 target DNA controls the balance between mutagenic and homology-directed gene-editing events. Mol Ther Nucleic Acids, 2019; 16:141–154; doi: 10.1016/j.omtn.2019.02.009
61.
FujitaT, YunoM, FujiiH. Allele-specific locus binding and genome editing by CRISPR at the p16INK4a locus. Sci Rep, 2016; 6(1):30485; doi: 10.1038/srep30485
62.
DaerRM, CuttsJP, BrafmanDA, et al.The impact of chromatin dynamics on Cas9-mediated genome editing in human cells. ACS Synth Biol, 2017; 6(3):428–438; doi: 10.1021/acssynbio.5b00299
63.
Kallimasioti-PaziEM, Thelakkad ChathothK, TaylorGC, et al.Heterochromatin delays CRISPR-Cas9 mutagenesis but does not influence the outcome of mutagenic DNA repair. Misteli T. ed. PLoS Biol, 2018; 16(12):e2005595; doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2005595
64.
HorlbeckMA, WitkowskyLB, GuglielmiB, et al.Nucleosomes impede Cas9 access to DNA in vivo and in vitro. eLife, 2016; 5:e12677; doi: 10.7554/eLife.12677
65.
ChenY, ZengS, HuR, et al.Using local chromatin structure to improve CRISPR/Cas9 efficiency in zebrafish. Gong Z. ed. PLoS ONE, 2017; 12(8):e0182528; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0182528
66.
IsaacRS, JiangF, DoudnaJA, et al.Nucleosome breathing and remodeling constrain CRISPR-Cas9 function. eLife, 2016; 5:e13450; doi: 10.7554/eLife.13450
67.
CorbeskiI, GuoX, EckhardtBV, et al.Chaperoning of the histone octamer by the acidic domain of DNA repair factor APLF. Sci Adv, 2022; 8(30):eabo0517.
68.
ClarkeR, HelerR, MacDougallMS, et al.Enhanced bacterial immunity and mammalian genome editing via RNA-polymerase-mediated dislodging of Cas9 from double-strand DNA breaks. Mol Cell, 2018; 71(1):42–55.e8; doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2018.06.005
69.
KimD, KimJ-S. DIG-seq: A genome-wide CRISPR off-target profiling method using chromatin DNA. Genome Res, 2018; 28(12):1894–1900; doi: 10.1101/gr.236620.118
70.
ShinHR, SeeJ-E, KweonJ, et al.Small-molecule inhibitors of histone deacetylase improve CRISPR-based adenine base editing. Nucleic Acids Res, 2021; 49(4):2390–2399; doi: 10.1093/nar/gkab052
ZhangJ-P, YangZ-X, ZhangF, et al.HDAC inhibitors improve CRISPR-mediated HDR editing efficiency in iPSCs. Sci China Life Sci, 2021; doi: 10.1007/s11427-020-1855-4
73.
FuY-W, DaiX-Y, WangW-T, et al.Dynamics and competition of CRISPR–Cas9 ribonucleoproteins and AAV donor-mediated NHEJ, MMEJ and HDR editing. Nucleic Acids Res, 2021; 49(2):969–985; doi: 10.1093/nar/gkaa1251
74.
FuJ, FuY-W, ZhaoJ-J, et al.Improved and Flexible HDR Editing by Targeting Introns in iPSCs. Stem Cell Rev Rep, 2022; 18(5):1822–1833; doi: 10.1007/s12015-022-10331-1
75.
SinghR, KuscuC, QuinlanA, et al.Cas9-chromatin binding information enables more accurate CRISPR off-target prediction. Nucleic Acids Res, 2015; 43(18):e118–e118; doi: 10.1093/nar/gkv575
76.
OrkinSH, HochedlingerK. Chromatin connections to pluripotency and cellular reprogramming. Cell, 2011; 145(6):835–850; doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2011.05.019.
77.
NishizawaM, ChonabayashiK, NomuraM, et al.Epigenetic variation between human induced pluripotent stem cell lines is an indicator of differentiation capacity. Cell Stem Cell, 2016; 19(3):341–354; doi: 10.1016/j.stem.2016.06.019
78.
TóthKF, KnochTA, WachsmuthM, et al.Trichostatin A-induced histone acetylation causes decondensation of interphase chromatin. J Cell Sci, 2004; 117(18):4277–4287; doi: 10.1242/jcs.01293
79.
DamodaranK, VenkatachalapathyS, AlisafaeiF, et al.Compressive force induces reversible chromatin condensation and cell geometry–dependent transcriptional response. Weaver VM. ed. Mol Biol Cell, 2018; 29(25):3039–3051; doi: 10.1091/mbc.E18-04-0256
80.
BuiH-T, WakayamaS, KishigamiS, et al.Effect of trichostatin A on chromatin remodeling, histone modifications, DNA replication, and transcriptional activity in cloned mouse embryos. Biol Reprod, 2010; 83(3):454–463; doi: 10.1095/biolreprod.109.083337
81.
MoluguK, HarknessT, Carlson-StevermerJ, et al.Tracking and predicting human somatic cell reprogramming using nuclear characteristics. Biophys J, 2020; 118(9):2086–2102; doi: 10.1016/j.bpj.2019.10.014
82.
MoluguK, BattistiniGA, HeasterTM, et al.Label-free imaging to track reprogramming of human somatic cells. GEN Biotechnol, 2022; 1(2):176–191; doi: 10.1089/genbio.2022.0001
83.
SchiblerAC, JevticP, PegoraroG, et al.Identification of epigenetic modulators as determinants of nuclear size and shape. Elife, 2023; 12:e80653; doi: 10.7554/eLife.80653
84.
KurganG, TurkR, LiH, et al.CRISPAltRations: A validated cloud-based approach for interrogation of double-strand break repair mediated by CRISPR genome editing. Mol Ther Methods Clin Dev, 2021; 21:478–491; doi: 10.1016/j.omtm.2021.03.024
85.
GranjaJM, CorcesMR, PierceSE, et al.ArchR is a scalable software package for integrative single-cell chromatin accessibility analysis. Nat Genet, 2021; 53(3):403–411; doi: 10.1038/s41588-021-00790-6
86.
CarpenterAE, JonesTR, LamprechtMR, et al.CellProfiler: Image analysis software for identifying and quantifying cell phenotypes. Genome Biol, 2006; 7(10):R100; doi: 10.1186/gb-2006-7-10-r100
87.
ArshamMS, BarchMJ, LawceHJ, et al.(eds). The AGT Cytogenetics Laboratory Manual. 4th ed. Wiley, Blackwell: Hoboken, New Jersey;. 2017.
88.
Gonzalez GarciaJR, Meza-EspinozaJP. Use of the International System for Human Cytogenetic Nomenclature (ISCN). Blood, 2006; 108(12):3952–3953; doi: 10.1182/blood-2006-06-031351
89.
RobertsB, HauptA, TuckerA, et al.Systematic gene tagging using CRISPR/Cas9 in human stem cells to illuminate cell organization. Drubin DG. ed. Mol Biol Cell, 2017; 28(21):2854–2874; doi: 10.1091/mbc.e17-03-0209
90.
CarpenterAE, JonesTR, LamprechtMR, et al.CellProfiler: Image analysis software for identifying and quantifying cell phenotypes. Genome Biol, 2006; 7(10):R100; doi: 10.1186/gb-2006-7-10-r100
91.
MaliP, YangL, EsveltKM, et al.RNA-guided human genome engineering via Cas9. Science, 2013; 339(6121):823–826; doi: 10.1126/science.1232033
92.
JinekM, ChylinskiK, FonfaraI, et al.A programmable dual-RNA–guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity. Science, 2012; 337(6096):816–821; doi: 10.1126/science.1225829
93.
SchumannK, LinS, BoyerE, et al.Generation of knock-in primary human T cells using Cas9 ribonucleoproteins. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2015; 112(33):10437–10442; doi: 10.1073/pnas.1512503112
94.
JacobiAM, RettigGR, TurkR, et al.Simplified CRISPR tools for efficient genome editing and streamlined protocols for their delivery into mammalian cells and mouse zygotes. Methods, 2017; 121–122:16–28; doi: 10.1016/j.ymeth.2017.03.021
95.
TsaiSQ, ZhengZ, NguyenNT, et al.GUIDE-seq enables genome-wide profiling of off-target cleavage by CRISPR-Cas nucleases. Nat Biotechnol, 2015; 33(2):187–197; doi: 10.1038/nbt.3117
96.
LeibowitzML, PapathanasiouS, DoerflerPA, et al.Chromothripsis as an on-target consequence of CRISPR–Cas9 genome editing. Nat Genet, 2021; 53(6):895–905; doi: 10.1038/s41588-021-00838-7
97.
SilvaJ, NicholsJ, TheunissenTW, et al.Nanog is the gateway to the pluripotent ground state. Cell, 2009; 138(4):722–737; doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2009.07.039
98.
JonesSK, HawkinsJA, JohnsonNV, et al.Massively parallel kinetic profiling of natural and engineered CRISPR nucleases. Nat Biotechnol, 2021; 39(1):84–93; doi: 10.1038/s41587-020-0646-5
99.
PacesaM, LinC-H, CléryA, et al.Structural basis for Cas9 off-target activity. Cell, 2022; 185(22):4067–4081.e21; doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2022.09.026
100.
ZengY, CuiY, ZhangY, et al.The initiation, propagation and dynamics of CRISPR-SpyCas9 R-loop complex. Nucleic Acids Res, 2018; 46(1):350–361; doi: 10.1093/nar/gkx1117
101.
XueC, GreeneEC. DNA repair pathway choices in CRISPR-Cas9-mediated genome editing. Trends Genet, 2021; 37(7):639–656; doi: 10.1016/j.tig.2021.02.008
102.
BrinkmanEK, ChenT, de HaasM, et al.Kinetics and fidelity of the repair of Cas9-induced double-strand DNA breaks. Mol Cell, 2018; 70(5):801–813.e6; doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2018.04.016
103.
GellesJD, ChipukJE. Robust high-throughput kinetic analysis of apoptosis with real-time high-content live-cell imaging. Cell Death Dis, 2016; 7(12):e2493–e2493; doi: 10.1038/cddis.2016.332
104.
SharmaA, SinghK, AlmasanA. Histone H2AX phosphorylation: A marker for DNA damage. Methods Mol Biol, 2012; 920:613–626; doi: 10.1007/978-1-61779-998-3_40
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.
