The production of genome-edited livestock has traditionally relied on either somatic cell nuclear transfer cloning of an edited cell or microinjection of gene-editing reagents into developing embryos. Electroporation of gene-editing reagents into zygotes offers an alternative that is both high throughput and easy to use. Transfer of large (>1 kb) homology-directed repair (HDR) donor nucleic acid templates into mammalian zygotes is hindered by the thick extracellular zona pellucida (ZP) glycoprotein layer. A potentially scalable approach to deliver HDR templates of up to 4.9 kb into zygotes is to use recombinant adeno-associated virus (rAAV) vectors. In this study, electroporation conditions were optimized to efficiently deliver CRISPR-associated protein 9 (Cas9):single guide RNA (sgRNA) ribonucleoprotein (RNP) complexes to bovine and ovine zygotes, while retaining embryo viability. rAAV vectors were then used to transduce a 3.9-kb HDR template in combination with electroporation of Cas9:sgRNA RNP editing reagents 6 h postinsemination to generate bovine blastocysts with a targeted 2.7 kb knock-in (KI) at the H11 safe harbor locus. With this approach, there was no need to remove or weaken the ZP of the blastocysts that developed, and a KI rate of up to ∼38% was observed. However, to circumvent transduction of the cumulus cells, the oocytes were denuded before transduction that decreased the blastocyst development rate. In addition, genetic mosaicism was observed in the blastocysts. These results highlight that further optimization of editing approaches will be required to achieve nonmosaic embryos with a targeted KI at scale for livestock applications.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
McFarlaneGR, SalvesenHA, SternbergA, et al.On-farm livestock genome editing using cutting edge reproductive technologies. Front Sustain Food Syst, 2019; 3; doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2019.00106
2.
KeeferCL. Artificial cloning of domestic animals. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2015; 112(29):8874–8878; doi: 10.1073/pnas.1501718112
3.
LinJC, Van EenennaamAL. Electroporation-mediated genome editing of livestock zygotes. Front Genet, 2021; 12:648482.
4.
DumeauCE, MonfortA, KisslingL, et al.Introducing gene deletions by mouse zygote electroporation of Cas12a/Cpf1. Transgenic Res, 2019; 28(5–6):525–535; doi: 10.1007/s11248-019-00168-9
5.
NakagawaY, SakumaT, TakeoT, et al.Electroporation-mediated genome editing in vitrified/warmed mouse zygotes created by IVF via ultra-superovulation. Exp Anim, 2018; 67(4):535–543; doi: 10.1538/expanim.18–0062
6.
PengH, WuYY, ZhangY. Efficient delivery of DNA and morpholinos into mouse preimplantation embryos by electroporation. PLos One, 2012; 7(8);e43748; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0043748
7.
RemyS, ChenouardV, TessonL, et al.Generation of gene-edited rats by delivery of CRISPR/Cas9 protein and donor DNA into intact zygotes using electroporation. Sci Rep, 2017; 7;16554; doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-16328-y
8.
TeixeiraM, PyBF, BoscC, et al.Electroporation of mice zygotes with dual guide RNA/Cas9 complexes for simple and efficient cloning-free genome editing. Sci Rep, 2018; 8(1):474; doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-18826-5
9.
TroderSE, EbertLK, ButtL, et al.An optimized electroporation approach for efficient CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing in murine zygotes. PLoS One, 2018; 13(5):e0196891; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0196891
10.
HirataM, TaniharaF, WittayaratM, et al.Genome mutation after introduction of the gene editing by electroporation of Cas9 protein (GEEP) system in matured oocytes and putative zygotes. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Anim, 2019; 55(4):237–242; doi: 10.1007/s11626-019-00338-3
11.
HirataM, WittayaratM, TaniharaF, et al.One-step genome editing of porcine zygotes through the electroporation of a CRISPR/Cas9 system with two guide RNAs. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Anim, 2020; 56(8):614–621.
12.
MiaoD, GiassettiMI, CiccarelliM, et al.Simplified pipelines for genetic engineering of mammalian embryos by CRISPR-Cas9 electroporationdagger. Biol Reprod, 2019; 101(1):177–187; doi: 10.1093/biolre/ioz075
13.
TaniharaF, HirataM, NguyenNT, et al.Generation of PDX-1 mutant porcine blastocysts by introducing CRISPR/Cas9-system into porcine zygotes via electroporation. Anim Sci J, 2019; 90(1):55–61; doi: 10.1111/asj.13129
14.
TaniharaF, HirataM, NguyenNT, et al.Efficient generation of GGTA1-deficient pigs by electroporation of the CRISPR/Cas9 system into in vitro-fertilized zygotes. BMC Biotechnol, 2020; 20(1):40; doi: 10.1186/s12896-020-00638-7
15.
CamargoLSA, OwenJR, Van EenennaamAL, et al.Efficient one-step knockout by electroporation of ribonucleoproteins into zona-intact bovine embryos. Front Genet, 2020; 11(1047):570069; doi: 10.3389/fgene.2020.570069
16.
NamulaZ, WittayaratM, HirataM, et al.Genome mutation after the introduction of the gene editing by electroporation of Cas9 protein (GEEP) system into bovine putative zygotes. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Anim, 2019; 55(8):598–603; doi: 10.1007/s11626-019-00385-w
17.
TaniharaF, HirataM, MorikawaS, et al.The effects of electroporation on viability and quality of in vivo-derived bovine blastocysts. J Reprod Dev, 2019; 65(5):475–479; doi: 10.1262/jrd.2019–2049
18.
WeiJ, GaynorP, ColeS, et al.Developing the laboratory conditions for bovine zygote-mediated genome editing by electroporation. In Proceedings of the World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, 2018; 11:1118.
19.
MahdiAK, MedranoJF, RossPJ. Single-step genome editing of small ruminant embryos by electroporation. Int J Mol Sci, 2022; 23(18):10218; doi: 10.3390/ijms231810218
20.
RomeoC, ChenS-H, GouldingE, et al.AAV diffuses across zona pellucida for effortless gene delivery to fertilized eggs. Biochem Biophys Res Commun, 2020; 526(1):85–90; doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2020.03.026
21.
BagheriH, FriedmanH, ShaoH, et al.TIE: A method to electroporate long DNA templates into preimplantation embryos for CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing. CRISPR J, 2018; 1:223–229; doi: 10.1089/crispr.2017.0020
22.
ChenS, SunS, MoonenD, et al.CRISPR-READI: Efficient generation of knockin mice by CRISPR RNP electroporation and AAV donor infection. Cell Rep, 2019; 27(13):3780.e4–3789.e4; doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2019.05.103
23.
NonnenmacherM, WeberT. Intracellular transport of recombinant adeno-associated virus vectors. Gene Ther, 2012; 19(6):649–658; doi: 10.1038/gt.2012.6
24.
NasoMF, TomkowiczB, PerryWL 3rd, et al.Adeno-associated virus (AAV) as a vector for gene therapy. BioDrugs, 2017; 31(4):317–334; doi: 10.1007/s40259-017-0234-5
25.
GalibertL, HyvönenA, ErikssonRAE, et al.Functional roles of the membrane-associated AAV protein MAAP. Sci Rep, 2021; 11(1):21698; doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-01220-7
26.
Aponte-UbillusJJ, BarajasD, PeltierJ, et al.Molecular design for recombinant adeno-associated virus (rAAV) vector production. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol, 2018; 102(3):1045–1054; doi: 10.1007/s00253-017-8670-1
27.
HackerUT, BentlerM, KaniowskaD, et al.Towards clinical implementation of adeno-associated virus (AAV) vectors for cancer gene therapy: Current status and future perspectives. Cancers (Basel), 2020; 12(7):1889; doi: 10.3390/cancers12071889
28.
MizunoN, MizutaniE, SatoH, et al.Intra-embryo gene cassette knockin by CRISPR/Cas9-mediated genome editing with adeno-associated viral vector. iScience, 2018; 9:286–297; doi: 10.1016/j.isci.2018.10.030
29.
YoonY, WangD, TaiPW, et al.Streamlined ex vivo and in vivo genome editing in mouse embryos using recombinant adeno-associated viruses. Nat Commun, 2018; 9(1):412; doi: 10.1038/s41467-017-02706-7
30.
OwenJR, HennigSL, McNabbBR, et al.One-step generation of a targeted knock-in calf using the CRISPR-Cas9 system in bovine zygotes. BMC Genomics, 2021; 22(1):118; doi: 10.1186/s12864-021-07418-3
31.
PapapetrouEP, SchambachA. Gene insertion into genomic safe harbors for human gene therapy. Mol Ther, 2016; 24(4):678–684; doi: 10.1038/mt.2016.38
32.
BishopTF, Van EenennaamAL. Genome editing approaches to augment livestock breeding programs. J Exp Biol, 2020; 223(PtSuppl 1):jeb207159; doi: 10.1242/jeb.207159
33.
CataláMG, IzquierdoD, UzbekovaS, et al.Brilliant Cresyl Blue stain selects largest oocytes with highest mitochondrial activity, maturation-promoting factor activity and embryo developmental competence in prepubertal sheep. Reproduction, 2011; 142(4):517–527; doi: 10.1530/rep-10-0528
34.
ChenW, McKennaA, SchreiberJ, et al.Massively parallel profiling and predictive modeling of the outcomes of CRISPR/Cas9-mediated double-strand break repair. Nucleic Acids Res, 2019; 47(15):7989–8003; doi: 10.1093/nar/gkz487
35.
KrivonogovaAS, BruterAV, MakutinaVA, et al.AAV infection of bovine embryos: Novel, simple and effective tool for genome editing. Theriogenology, 2022; 193(77–86); doi: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2022.09.007
36.
ZhangL, JiangS, WozniakPJ, et al.Cumulus cell function during bovine oocyte maturation, fertilization, and embryo development in vitro. Mol Reprod Dev, 1995; 40(3):338–344; doi: 10.1002/mrd.1080400310
37.
FatehiAN, ZeinstraEC, KooijRV, et al.Effect of cumulus cell removal of in vitro matured bovine oocytes prior to in vitro fertilization on subsequent cleavage rate. Theriogenology, 2002; 57(4):1347–1355; doi: 10.1016/S0093-691X(01)00717-8
38.
OwenJR, HennigSL, McNabbBR, et al.Harnessing endogenous repair mechanisms for targeted gene knock-in of bovine embryos. Sci Rep, 2020; 10(1):16031; doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-72902-x
39.
LonerganP, RizosD, WardF, et al.Factors influencing oocyte and embryo quality in cattle. Reprod Nutr Dev, 2001; 41(5):427–437
40.
Lamas-ToranzoI, Galiano-CogolludoB, Cornudella-ArdiacaF, et al.Strategies to reduce genetic mosaicism following CRISPR-mediated genome edition in bovine embryos. Sci Rep, 2019; 9(1):14900; doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-51366-8
41.
SalvesenHA, ByrneTJ, WhitelawCBA, et al.Simulating the commercial implementation of gene-editing for influenza A virus resistance in pigs: An economic and genetic analysis. Genes, 2022; 13(8):1436
42.
BogliottiYS, WuJ, VilarinoM, et al.Efficient derivation of stable primed pluripotent embryonic stem cells from bovine blastocysts. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2018; 115(9):2090–2095; doi: 10.1073/pnas.1716161115
43.
HennigSL, OwenJR, LinJC, et al.Evaluation of mutation rates, mosaicism and off target mutations when injecting Cas9 mRNA or protein for genome editing of bovine embryos. Sci Rep, 2020; 10(1):22309; doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-78264-8
44.
YuanM, ZhangJ, GaoY, et al.HMEJ-based safe-harbor genome editing enables efficient generation of cattle with increased resistance to tuberculosis. J Biol Chem, 2021; 296:100497; doi: 10.1016/j.jbc.2021.100497
45.
LabunK, MontagueTG, KrauseM, et al.CHOPCHOP v3: Expanding the CRISPR web toolbox beyond genome editing. Nucleic Acids Res, 2019; 47(W1):W171–W174; doi: 10.1093/nar/gkz365
46.
BrinkmanEK, ChenT, AmendolaM, et al.Easy quantitative assessment of genome editing by sequence trace decomposition. Nucleic Acids Res, 2014; 42(22):e168–e168; doi: 10.1093/nar/gku936
47.
MagočT, SalzbergSL. FLASH: Fast length adjustment of short reads to improve genome assemblies. Bioinformatics, 2011; 27(21):2957–2963; doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btr507
48.
LiH, DurbinR. Fast and accurate short read alignment with Burrows-Wheeler transform. Bioinformatics, 2009; 25(14):1754–1760; doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp324
49.
LindsayH, BurgerA, BiyongB, et al.CrispRVariants charts the mutation spectrum of genome engineering experiments. Nat Biotechnol, 2016; 34(7):701–702; doi: 10.1038/nbt.3628
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.
