Safety considerations for gene therapies of inherited preleukemia syndromes, including severe congenital neutropenia (CN), are paramount. We compared several strategies for CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing of autosomal-dominant ELANE mutations in CD34+ cells from two CN patients head-to-head. We tested universal and allele-specific ELANE knockout, ELANE mutation correction by homology-directed repair (HDR) with AAV6, and allele-specific HDR with ssODN. All strategies were not toxic, had at least 30% editing, and rescued granulopoiesis in vitro. In contrast to published data, allele-specific indels in the last exon of ELANE also restored granulopoiesis. Moreover, by implementing patient-derived induced pluripotent stem cells for GUIDE-Seq off-target analysis, we established a clinically relevant “personalized” assessment of off-target activity of gene editing on the background of the patient’s genome. We found that allele-specific approaches had the most favorable off-target profiles. Taken together, a well-defined head-to-head comparison pipeline for selecting the appropriate gene therapy is essential for diseases with several gene editing strategies available.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
FiumaraM, FerrariS, Omer-JavedA, et al.Genotoxic effects of base and prime editing in human hematopoietic stem cells. Nat Biotechnol, 2023; 42(6):877–891; doi: 10.1038/s41587-023-01915-4
2.
SkokowaJ, SteinemannD, Katsman-KuipersJE, et al.Cooperativity of RUNX1 and CSF3R mutations in severe congenital neutropenia: A unique pathway in myeloid leukemogenesis. Blood, 2014; 123(14):2229–2237; doi: 10.1182/blood-2013-11-538025
FioreddaF, IacobelliS, Van BiezenA, et al.Severe Aplastic Anemia the Inborn Error, and the Pediatric Disease Working Parties of the European Society for Blood and Bone Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) and Stem Cell Transplant for Immunodeficiencies in Europe (SCETIDE). Stem cell transplantation in severe congenital neutropenia: An analysis from the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. Blood J Am Soc Hematol, 2015; 126(16):1885–1892; quiz 1970.
5.
MakaryanV, ZeidlerC, BolyardAA, et al.The diversity of mutations and clinical outcomes for ELANE-associated neutropenia. Curr Opin Hematol, 2015; 22(1):3–11; doi: 10.1097/MOH.0000000000000105
6.
PhamCT. Neutrophil serine proteases: Specific regulators of inflammation. Nat Rev Immunol, 2006; 6(7):541–550; doi: 10.1038/nri1841
7.
NasriM, RitterM, MirP, et al.CRISPR/Cas9-mediated ELANE knockout enables neutrophilic maturation of primary hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells and induced pluripotent stem cells of severe congenital neutropenia patients. Haematologica, 2020; 105(3):598–609; doi: 10.3324/haematol.2019.221804
8.
TranNT, GrafR, Wulf-GoldenbergA, et al.CRISPR-Cas9-Mediated ELANE Mutation Correction in Hematopoietic Stem and Progenitor Cells to Treat Severe Congenital Neutropenia. Mol Ther, 2020; 28(12):2621–2634; doi: 10.1016/j.ymthe.2020.08.004
9.
RaoS, YaoY, de BritoJS, et al.Dissecting ELANE neutropenia pathogenicity by human HSC gene editing. Cell Stem Cell, 2021; 28(5):833–845. e5.
10.
SaboP, MakaryanV, DickenY, et al.Mutant allele knockout with novel CRISPR nuclease promotes myelopoiesis in ELANE neutropenia. Mol Ther Methods Clin Dev, 2022; 26:119–131; doi: 10.1016/j.omtm.2022.06.002
11.
NasriM, RitterMU, MirP, et al.CRISPR-Cas9n-mediated ELANE promoter editing for gene therapy of severe congenital neutropenia. Mol Ther, 2024; 32(6):1628–1642; doi: 10.1016/j.ymthe.2024.03.037
12.
GermeshausenM, DeerbergS, PeterY, et al.The Spectrum of ELANE Mutations and their Implications in Severe Congenital and Cyclic Neutropenia. Hum Mutat, 2013; 34(6):905–914; doi: 10.1002/humu.22308
13.
CharlesworthCT, HsuI, WilkinsonAC, et al.Immunological barriers to haematopoietic stem cell gene therapy. Nat Rev Immunol, 2022; 22(12):719–733; doi: 10.1038/s41577-022-00698-0
DeverDP, BakRO, ReinischA, et al.CRISPR/Cas9 β-globin gene targeting in human haematopoietic stem cells. Nature, 2016; 539(7629):384–389; doi: 10.1038/nature20134
16.
ChoSW, KimS, KimY, et al.Analysis of off-target effects of CRISPR/Cas-derived RNA-guided endonucleases and nickases. Genome Res, 2013; 24(1):132–141; doi: 10.1101/gr.162339.113
17.
SpiekermannK, RoeslerJ, EmmendoerfferA, et al.Functional features of neutrophils induced by G-CSF and GM-CSF treatment: Differential effects and clinical implications. Leukemia, 1997; 11(4):466–478; doi: 10.1038/sj.leu.2400607
18.
DoniniM, FontanaS, SavoldiG, et al.G-CSF treatment of severe congenital neutropenia reverses neutropenia but does not correct the underlying functional deficiency of the neutrophil in defending against microorganisms. Blood, 2007; 109(11):4716–4723; doi: 10.1182/blood-2006-09-045427
19.
LiuQ, ZhangL, ShuZ, et al.Two paternal mosaicism of mutation in ELANE causing severe congenital neutropenia exhibit normal neutrophil morphology and ROS production. Clin Immunol, 2019; 203:53–58. (
20.
DannenmannB, ZahabiA, MirP, et al.Human iPSC-based model of severe congenital neutropenia reveals elevated UPR and DNA damage in CD34+ cells preceding leukemic transformation. Exp Hematol, 2019; 71:51–60; doi: 10.1016/j.exphem.2018.12.006
21.
NasriM, MirP, DannenmannB, et al.Fluorescent labeling of CRISPR/Cas9 RNP for gene knockout in HSPCs and iPSCs reveals an essential role for GADD45b in stress response. Blood Adv, 2019; 3(1):63–71; doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2017015511
22.
DannenmannB, NasriM, WelteK, et al.CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing of human-induced pluripotent stem cells followed by granulocytic differentiation. In: RNA Interference and CRISPR Technologies: Technical Advances and New Therapeutic Opportunities. (SioudM ed.) Springer US: New York, NY; 2020; pp. 471–483.
23.
DannenmannB, KlimiankouM, OswaldB, et al.iPSC modeling of stage-specific leukemogenesis reveals BAALC as a key oncogene in severe congenital neutropenia. Cell Stem Cell, 2021; 28(5):906–922.e6; doi: 10.1016/j.stem.2021.03.023
24.
ScottDA, ZhangF.Implications of Human Genetic Variation in CRISPR-Based Therapeutic Genome Editing. Nature Medicine, 2017; 23:1095–1101; doi: 10.1038/nm.4377
25.
CancellieriS, ZengJ, LinLY, et al.Human genetic diversity alters off-target outcomes of therapeutic gene editing. Nat Genet, 2023; 55(1):34–43; doi: 10.1038/s41588-022-01257-y
26.
CromerMK, MajetiKR, RettigGR, et al.Comparative analysis of CRISPR off-target discovery tools following ex vivo editing of CD34+ hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells. Mol Ther, 2023; 31(4):1074–1087; doi: 10.1016/j.ymthe.2023.02.011
27.
WienertB, CromerMK. CRISPR nuclease off-target activity and mitigation strategies. Front Genome Ed, 2022; 4:1112956; doi: 10.3389/fgeed.2022.1050507
28.
PorteusMH. A new class of medicines through DNA editing. N Engl J Med, 2019; 380(10):947–959; doi: 10.1056/NEJMra1800729
29.
BakRO, DeverDP, PorteusMH. CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing in human hematopoietic stem cells. Nat Protoc, 2018; 13(2):358–376; doi: 10.1038/nprot.2017.143
30.
RomeroZ, LomovaA, SaidS, et al.Editing the sickle cell disease mutation in human hematopoietic stem cells: Comparison of endonucleases and homologous donor templates. Mol Ther, 2019; 27(8):1389–1406; doi: 10.1016/j.ymthe.2019.05.014
31.
SchiroliG, ContiA, FerrariS, et al.Precise gene editing preserves hematopoietic stem cell function following transient p53-mediated DNA damage response. Cell Stem Cell, 2019; 24(4):551–565.e8; doi: 10.1016/j.stem.2019.02.019
32.
FerrariS, JacobA, BerettaS, et al.Efficient gene editing of human long-term hematopoietic stem cells validated by clonal tracking. Nat Biotechnol, 2020; 38(11):1298–1308; doi: 10.1038/s41587-020-0551-y
33.
DudekAM, PorteusMH. Answered and unanswered questions in early-stage viral vector transduction biology and innate primary cell toxicity for ex-vivo gene editing. Front Immunol, 2021; 12:660302; doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.660302
34.
LeeB-C, GriceM, WuC, et al.Clonal dynamics of HDR-Edited HSPCs targeting the CD33 locus in rhesus macaques. Blood, 2022; 140(Supplement 1):309–310; doi: 10.1182/blood-2022-166504
35.
DemirciS, KhanMBN, HinojosaG, et al.Ex vivo culture resting time impacts transplantation outcomes of genome-edited human hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells in xenograft mouse models. Cytotherapy, 2024; 26(6):641–648; doi: 10.1016/j.jcyt.2024.02.011
36.
XuL, LahiriP, SkowronskiJ, et al.Molecular dynamics of genome editing with CRISPR-Cas9 and rAAV6 virus in human HSPCs to treat sickle cell disease. Mol Ther Methods Clin Dev, 2023; 30:317–331; doi: 10.1016/j.omtm.2023.07.009
37.
BioG. Graphite Bio Announces Voluntary Pause of Phase 1/2 CEDAR Study of Nulabeglogene Autogedtemcel (Nula-Cel) for Sickle Cell Disease [Press Release]. Businesswire; 2023.
YoungRE, ThompsonRD, LarbiKY, et al.Neutrophil elastase (NE)-deficient mice demonstrate a nonredundant role for NE in neutrophil migration, generation of proinflammatory mediators, and phagocytosis in response to zymosan particles in vivo. J Immunol, 2004; 172(7):4493–4502; doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.172.7.4493
40.
TurchianoG, AndrieuxG, KlermundJ, et al.Quantitative evaluation of chromosomal rearrangements in gene-edited human stem cells by CAST-Seq. Cell Stem Cell, 2021; 28(6):1136–1147.e5; doi: 10.1016/j.stem.2021.02.002
41.
HöijerI, EmmanouilidouA, ÖstlundR, et al.CRISPR-Cas9 induces large structural variants at on-target and off-target sites in vivo that segregate across generations. Nat Commun, 2022; 13(1):627; doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-28244-5
42.
BaoXR, PanY, LeeCM, et al.Tools for experimental and computational analyses of off-target editing by programmable nucleases. Nat Protoc, 2021; 16(1):10–26; doi: 10.1038/s41596-020-00431-y
43.
HildebrandtCCM, JM. Justice in CRISPR/Cas9 research and clinical applications. AMA J Ethics, 2018; 20(9):E826–E833; doi: 10.1001/amajethics.2018.826
44.
DorsetSR, BakRO. The p53 challenge of hematopoietic stem cell gene editing. Mol Ther Methods Clin Dev, 2023; 30:83–89; doi: 10.1016/j.omtm.2023.06.003
45.
DeWittMA, MagisW, BrayNL, et al.Selection-free genome editing of the sickle mutation in human adult hematopoietic stem/progenitor cells. Sci Transl Med, 2016; 8(360):360ra134; doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aaf9336
46.
PattabhiS, LottiSN, BergerMP, et al.In vivo outcome of homology-directed repair at the HBB gene in HSC using alternative donor template delivery methods. Mol Ther Nucleic Acids, 2019; 17:277–288; doi: 10.1016/j.omtn.2019.05.025
47.
LindeboomRGH, VermeulenM, LehnerB, et al.The impact of nonsense-mediated mRNA decay on genetic disease, gene editing and cancer immunotherapy. Nat Genet, 2019; 51(11):1645–1651; doi: 10.1038/s41588-019-0517-5
48.
LiC, GeorgakopoulouA, NewbyGA, et al.In vivo HSC prime editing rescues sickle cell disease in a mouse model. Blood, 2023; 141(17):2085–2099; doi: 10.1182/blood.2022018252
49.
ShiD, ToyonagaS, AndersonDG. In vivo RNA delivery to hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells via targeted lipid nanoparticles. Nano Lett, 2023; 23(7):2938–2944; doi: 10.1021/acs.nanolett.3c00304
50.
BredaL, PappTE, TriebwasserMP, et al.In vivo hematopoietic stem cell modification by mRNA delivery. Science, 2023; 381(6656):436–443; doi: 10.1126/science.ade6967
51.
FerrariS, NaldiniL. A step toward stem cell engineering in vivo. Science, 2023; 381(6656):378–379; doi: 10.1126/science.adj0997
52.
HsiauT, ConantD, RossiN, et al.Inference of CRISPR edits from Sanger trace data. bioRxiv, 2019; 251082; doi: 10.1101/251082
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.
