Modern genome editing tools such as CRISPR-Cas9 have revolutionized mammalian genome engineering, yet translation to in vivo applications remains limited by low efficiency and frequent occurrence of mosaicism. Sperm-mediated delivery of editing reagents is one proposed alternative that may mitigate these issues. This method depends on efficient transfection of genome editing materials into viable spermatozoa, a critical yet frequently overlooked parameter. Using FACS, we compared electroporation (Neon NxT) and lipofection (CRISPRMAX) for introducing CRISPR-Cas9 ribonucleoproteins into viable rabbit spermatozoa. Electroporation, shown to enable Cas9 and plasmid transfection in spermatozoa from other species, performed poorly once dead spermatozoa were excluded. In contrast, Lipofectamine CRISPRMAX improved transfection efficiency with minimal effects on spermatozoa viability and motility. These findings emphasize the importance of distinguishing true transfection (transfection of viable spermatozoa) from total transfection and highlight lipofection as a promising alternative to electroporation for sperm-based genome editing, with potential applications in rabbit genome engineering.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
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
2.
CongL, RanFA, CoxD, et al.Multiplex genome engineering using CRISPR/Cas systems. Science, 2013; 339(6121):819–823; doi: 10.1126/science.1231143
3.
HsuPD, LanderES, ZhangF. Development and applications of CRISPR-Cas9 for genome engineering. Cell, 2014; 157(6):1262–1278; doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2014.05.010
4.
DoudnaJA, CharpentierE. Genome editing. The new frontier of genome engineering with CRISPR-Cas9. Science, 2014; 346(6213):1258096; doi: 10.1126/science.1258096
5.
TanW, CarlsonDF, LanctoCA, et al.Efficient nonmeiotic allele introgression in livestock using custom endonucleases. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2013; 110(41):16526–16531; doi: 10.1073/pnas.1310478110
6.
LillicoSG, ProudfootC, CarlsonDF, et al.Live pigs produced from genome edited zygotes. Sci Rep, 2013; 3:2847; doi: 10.1038/srep02847
7.
JaenischR, MintzB. Simian virus 40 DNA sequences in DNA of healthy adult mice derived from preimplantation blastocysts injected with viral DNA. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 1974; 71(4):1250–1254; doi: 10.1073/pnas.71.4.1250
8.
HammerRE, PurselVG, RexroadCEJr, et al.Production of transgenic rabbits, sheep and pigs by microinjection. Nature, 1985; 315(6021):680–683; doi: 10.1038/315680a0
9.
ZhaoJ, LaiL, JiW, et al.Genome editing in large animals: Current status and future prospects. Natl Sci Rev, 2019; 6(3):402–420; doi: 10.1093/nsr/nwz013
10.
OrmandyEH, DaleJ, GriffinG. Genetic engineering of animals: Ethical issues, including welfare concerns. Can Vet J, 2011; 52(5):544–550.
11.
FengG, JensenFE, GreelyHT, et al.Opportunities and limitations of genetically modified nonhuman primate models for neuroscience research. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2020; 117(39):24022–24031; doi: 10.1073/pnas.2006515117
12.
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
13.
WangH, YangH, ShivalilaCS, et al.One-step generation of mice carrying mutations in multiple genes by CRISPR/Cas-mediated genome engineering. Cell, 2013; 153(4):910–918; doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2013.04.025
14.
GordonJW, RuddleFH. Integration and stable germ line transmission of genes injected into mouse pronuclei. Science, 1981; 214(4526):1244–1246; doi: 10.1126/science.6272397
15.
ShakweerWME, KrivoruchkoAY, DessoukiSM, et al.A review of transgenic animal techniques and their applications. J Genet Eng Biotechnol, 2023; 21(1):55; doi: 10.1186/s43141-023-00502-z
16.
KanekoT, MashimoT. Simple Genome Editing of Rodent Intact Embryos by Electroporation. PLoS One, 2015; 10(11):e0142755; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0142755
17.
LinJC, Van EenennaamAL. Electroporation-Mediated Genome Editing of Livestock Zygotes. Front Genet, 2021; 12:648482; doi: 10.3389/fgene.2021.648482
18.
CamargoLSA, OwenJR, Van EenennaamAL, et al.Efficient One-Step Knockout by Electroporation of Ribonucleoproteins Into Zona-Intact Bovine Embryos. Front Genet, 2020; 11:570069; doi: 10.3389/fgene.2020.570069AL
19.
TaniharaF, HirataM, NguyenNT, et al.One-Step Generation of Multiple Gene-Edited Pigs by Electroporation of the CRISPR/Cas9 System into Zygotes to Reduce Xenoantigen Biosynthesis. Int J Mol Sci, 2021; 22(5):2249; doi: 10.3390/ijms22052249
20.
MehravarM, ShiraziA, NazariM, et al.Mosaicism in CRISPR/Cas9-mediated genome editing. Dev Biol, 2019; 445(2):156–162; doi: 10.1016/j.ydbio.2018.10.008
21.
YamashitaS, KogasakaY, HiradateY, et al.Suppression of mosaic mutation by co-delivery of CRISPR associated protein 9 and three-prime repair exonuclease 2 into porcine zygotes via electroporation. J Reprod Dev, 2020; 66(1):41–48; doi: 10.1262/jrd.2019-088
22.
SalvesenHA, GrupenCG, McFarlaneGR. Tackling mosaicism in gene edited livestock. Front Anim Sci, 2024; 5; doi: 10.3389/fanim.2024.13681551368155
23.
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
24.
DuselisAR, VranaPB. Retrieval of mouse oocytes. J Vis Exp, 2007(3):185; doi: 10.3791/185
25.
FerreLB, Alvarez-GallardoH, RomoS, et al.Transvaginal ultrasound-guided oocyte retrieval in cattle: State-of-the-art and its impact on the in vitro fertilization embryo production outcome. Reprod Domestic Animals, 2023; 58(3):363–378; doi: 10.1111/rda.14303
SalehWM. Assessment of different methods of bovine oocytes collection, maturation and Invitro fertilization of abattoir specimens. Ijvs, 2017; 31(1):55–65; doi: 10.33899/ijvs.2017.126711
28.
SwansonWF. The challenge of assisted reproduction for conservation of wild felids - A reality check. Theriogenology, 2023; 197:133–138; doi: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2022.11.018
29.
HanY, ZhouJ, ZhangR, et al.Genome-edited rabbits: Unleashing the potential of a promising experimental animal model across diverse diseases. Zool Res, 2024; 45(2):253–262; doi: 10.24272/j.issn.2095-8137.2023.201
30.
XuJ, ZhangJ, YangD, et al.Gene Editing in Rabbits: Unique Opportunities for Translational Biomedical Research. Front Genet, 2021; 12:642444; doi: 10.3389/fgene.2021.642444
31.
ChangMC. Fertilization of rabbit ova in vitro. Nature, 1959; 184(Suppl 7):466–467; doi: 10.1038/184466a0
32.
MillsJA, JeitlesGG, BrackettBG. BGEmbryo transfer following in vitro and in vivo fertilization of rabbit ova. Fertil Steril, 1973; 24(8):602–608.
33.
SongJ, ZhangJ, XuJ, et al.Genome engineering technologies in rabbits. J Biomed Res, 2020; 35(2):135–147; doi: 10.7555/JBR.34.20190133
34.
HamzeJG, Peris-FrauP, Galiano-CogolludoB, et al.Efficient and repeatable in vitro fertilization in rabbits. Theriogenology, 2024; 217:64–71; doi: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2024.01.009
35.
SirardMA, CoenenK. In vitro maturation and embryo production in cattle. Methods Mol Biol, 2006; 348:35–42; doi: 10.1007/978-1-59745-154-3_2
36.
AgungB, OtoiT, FuchimotoD, et al.In vitro fertilization and development of porcine oocytes matured in follicular fluid. J Reprod Dev, 2013; 59(2):103–106; doi: 10.1262/jrd.2011-050
37.
Welfare TBoA. Code of Practice for the Housing and Care of Laboratory Mice, Rats, Guinea Pigs and Rabbits. Victorian Government Department of Primary Industries: Victorian Government Gazette; 2004.
38.
LavitranoM, CamaioniA, FazioVM, et al.Sperm cells as vectors for introducing foreign DNA into eggs: Genetic transformation of mice. Cell, 1989; 57(5):717–723; doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(89)90787-3
39.
LavitranoM, BacciML, ForniM, et al.Efficient production by sperm-mediated gene transfer of human decay accelerating factor (hDAF) transgenic pigs for xenotransplantation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2002; 99(22):14230–14235; doi: 10.1073/pnas.222550299
40.
Kumar PramodR, KumarR, MitraA. Transgenic expression of green fluorescent protein in caprine embryos produced through electroporation-aided sperm-mediated gene transfer. Gene, 2016; 576(1 Pt 3):505–511; doi: 10.1016/j.gene.2015.10.066
CooperCA, ChallagullaA, JenkinsKA, et al.Generation of gene edited birds in one generation using sperm transfection assisted gene editing (STAGE). Transgenic Res, 2017; 26(3):331–347; doi: 10.1007/s11248-016-0003-0
43.
DaneluzLO, AcostaIB, NunesLS, et al.Efficiency and cell viability implications using tip type electroporation in zebrafish sperm cells. Mol Biol Rep, 2020; 47(8):5879–5887; doi: 10.1007/s11033-020-05658-2
44.
BlodornEB, DominguesWB, KomninouER, et al.Voltages up to 600V did not affect cryopreserved bovine spermatozoa on capillary-type electroporation. Reprod Biol, 2018; 18(4):416–421; doi: 10.1016/j.repbio.2018.09.003
45.
da SilvaZ, de SouzaAP, PandolfiJRC, et al.Comparison between electroporation and polyfection in pig sperm: Efficiency and cell viability implications. Zygote, 2018; 26(4):286–293; doi: 10.1017/S0967199418000205
46.
Dos Santos da SilvaL, Borges DominguesW, Fagundes BarretoB, et al.Capillary electroporation affects the expression of miRNA-122-5p from bull sperm cells. Gene, 2021; 768:145286; doi: 10.1016/j.gene.2020.145286
47.
ZurisJA, ThompsonDB, ShuY, et al.Cationic lipid-mediated delivery of proteins enables efficient protein-based genome editing in vitro and in vivo. Nat Biotechnol, 2015; 33(1):73–80; doi: 10.1038/nbt.3081
48.
YuX, LiangX, XieH, et al.Improved delivery of Cas9 protein/gRNA complexes using lipofectamine CRISPRMAX. Biotechnol Lett, 2016; 38(6):919–929; doi: 10.1007/s10529-016-2064-9
49.
DuX, QuinnA, MenziesM, et al.Optimizing the delivery of CRISPR/Cas9 ribonucleoproteins for efficient genome editing in bovine embryos. Gene, 2025; 966:149715; doi: 10.1016/j.gene.2025.149715
50.
Pineiro-SilvaC, GadeaJ. Optimization of lipofection protocols for CRISPR/Cas9 delivery in porcine zona pellucida intact oocytes: A study of coincubation duration and reagent efficacy. Theriogenology, 2024; 230:121–129; doi: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2024.09.014
51.
LinQ, TakebayashiK, TorigoeN, et al.Evaluation of culture methods and chemical reagent combinations on CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing systems by lipofection in pig zygotes. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Anim, 2024; 60(7):725–731; doi: 10.1007/s11626-024-00908-0
52.
DominguesWB, da SilveiraTLR, KomninouER, et al.Flow cytometric sex sorting affects CD4 membrane distribution and binding of exogenous DNA on bovine sperm cells. Zygote, 2017; 25(4):519–528; doi: 10.1017/S0967199417000375
53.
Analysis SP. ICE Analysis. 2019.
54.
DickeyRP, PyrzakR, LuPY, et al.Comparison of the sperm quality necessary for successful intrauterine insemination with World Health Organization threshold values for normal sperm. Fertil Steril, 1999; 71(4):684–689; doi: 10.1016/s0015-0282(98)00519-6
55.
TakaoD, KamimuraS. Single-cell electroporation of fluorescent probes into sea urchin sperm cells and subsequent FRAP analysis. Zoolog Sci, 2010; 27(3):279–284; doi: 10.2108/zsj.27.279
56.
FlanaganSP, FogelR, EdkinsAL, et al.Nonspecific nuclear uptake of anti-MUC1 aptamers by dead cells: The role of cell viability monitoring in aptamer targeting of membrane-bound protein cancer biomarkers. Anal Methods, 2021; 13(9):1191–1203; doi: 10.1039/d0ay01878c
57.
LarsenL, ScheikeT, JensenTK, et al.Computer-assisted semen analysis parameters as predictors for fertility of men from the general population. The Danish First Pregnancy Planner Study Team. Hum Reprod, 2000; 15(7):1562–1567; doi: 10.1093/humrep/15.7.1562
58.
BeggsDSM, IronsMR, PerryPC, et al.BULLCHECK: Veterinary Bull Breeding Soundness Evaluation. Australian Veterinary Association: Australian Cattle Veterinarians, 2021.
59.
BaiL, ZhaoY, ZhouY, et al.Advances in immunological sorting of X and Y chromosome-bearing sperm: From proteome to sex-specific proteins. Front Vet Sci, 2025; 12:1523491; doi: 10.3389/fvets.2025.1523491
SharpeJC, EvansKM. Advances in flow cytometry for sperm sexing. Theriogenology, 2009; 71(1):4–10; doi: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2008.09.021
62.
JohnsonLA, FlookJP, HawkHW. Sex preselection in rabbits: Live births from X and Y sperm separated by DNA and cell sorting. Biol Reprod, 1989; 41(2):199–203; doi: 10.1095/biolreprod41.2.199
63.
RibeiroSC, SartoriusG, PletscherF, et al.Isolation of spermatozoa with low levels of fragmented DNA with the use of flow cytometry and sorting. Fertil Steril, 2013; 100(3):686–694; doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.05.030
64.
GadeaJG-V, CanovasFA, Parrington JS. Sperm-mediated gene transfer in agricultural species. In: Sperm-Mediated Gene Transfer: Concepts and Controversies. Smith KR. ed. Bentham Science Publisher: 2012; pp. 76–91.
65.
PraveenSKR, ChandrikaV, SrihariT, et al.Artificial insemination in cattle and buffalo: An update. Int J Vet Sci Anim Husbandry, 2024; 9(5):221–225; doi: 10.22271/veterinary.2024.v9.i5d.1690
YangD, XuJ, ZhuT, et al.Effective gene targeting in rabbits using RNA-guided Cas9 nucleases. J Mol Cell Biol, 2014; 6(1):97–99; doi: 10.1093/jmcb/mjt047
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.
