ABE8e Corrects Pax6-Aniridic Variant in Humanized Mouse ESCs and via LNPs in Ex Vivo Cortical Neurons

INTRODUCTION

Aniridia is a rare congenital vision-loss disease caused by heterozygous variants in the PAX6 gene. There is no vision-saving therapy, but one exciting approach is to use CRISPR/Cas9 to permanently correct the causal genomic variants. Preclinical studies to develop such a therapy in animal models face the challenge of showing efficacy when binding human DNA. Thus, we hypothesized that a CRISPR gene therapy can be developed and optimized in humanized mouse embryonic stem cells (ESCs) that will be able to distinguish between an aniridia patient variant and nonvariant chromosome and lay the foundation for human therapy.

METHODS

To answer the challenge of binding human DNA, we proposed the "CRISPR Humanized Minimally Mouse Models" (CHuMMMs) strategy. Thus, we minimally humanized Pax6 exon 9, the location of the most common aniridia variant c.718C > T. We generated and characterized a nonvariant CHuMMMs mouse, and a CHuMMMs cell-based disease model, in which we tested five CRISPR enzymes for therapeutic efficacy. We then delivered the therapy via lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) to alter a second variant in ex vivo cortical primary neurons.

RESULTS

We successfully established a nonvariant CHuMMMs mouse and three novel CHuMMMs aniridia cell lines. We showed that humanization did not disrupt Pax6 function in vivo, as the mouse showed no ocular phenotype. We developed and optimized a CRISPR therapeutic strategy for aniridia in the in vitro system, and found that the base editor, ABE8e, had the highest correction of the patient variant at 76.8%. In the ex vivo system, the LNP-encapsulated ABE8e ribonucleoprotein (RNP) complex altered the second patient variant and rescued 24.8% Pax6 protein expression.

CONCLUSION

We demonstrated the usefulness of the CHuMMMs approach, and showed the first genomic editing by ABE8e encapsulated as an LNP-RNP. Furthermore, we laid the foundation for translation of the proposed CRISPR therapy to preclinical mouse studies and eventually patients with aniridia.

Prediction of Base Editing Efficiencies and Outcomes Using DeepABE and DeepCBE

Adenine base editors (ABEs) and cytosine base editors (CBEs) have been widely used to introduce disease-relevant point mutations at target DNA sites of interest. However, the introduction of point mutations using base editors can be difficult due to low editing efficiencies and/or the existence of multiple target nucleotides within the base editing window at the target site. Thus, previous works have relied heavily on experimentally evaluating the base editing efficiencies and outcomes using time-consuming and labor-intensive multi-step experimental processes. DeepABE and DeepCBE are deep learning-based computational models to predict the efficiencies and outcome frequencies of ABE and CBE at given target DNA sites, in silico. Here, we describe the step-by-step procedure for the accurate determination of specific target nucleotides for ABE or CBE editing on the online available web tool, (DeepBaseEditor, https://deepcrispr.info/DeepBaseEditor ).

Functional Analysis of Variants in BRCA1 Using CRISPR Base Editors

To date, methods such as fluorescent reporter assays, embryonic stem cell viability assays, and therapeutic drug-based sensitivity assays have been used to evaluate the function of the variants of uncertain significance (VUS) of the BRCA genes. However, these methods have limitations as they are associated with overexpression and do not apply to post-transcriptional regulation. Therefore, there are several VUS whose functions are unclear. Recently, we devised a new way to assess the functionality of variants in BRCA1 via a CRISPR-mediated base editor to overcome these limitations. We precisely introduced the target nucleotide substitution in living cells and identified variants whose functions were not defined. Here, we describe the methods for the functional appraisal of BRCA1 variants using CRISPR-based base editors.

Targeted Mutagenesis in Mice Using a Base Editor

Base editors, such as cytosine and adenine base editors, are composed of nickase Cas9 (nCas9) and deaminase and serve as Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR)-based enzymatic tools for specific nucleotide substitutions. They are mainly the most effective genome editing tools for introducing point mutations, such as C-to-T and A-to-G conversions. The enhanced base editor, a C-to-G base editor (CGBE), can perform other nucleotide substitutions, such as C-to-G conversions. Here, we introduce a method for generating mouse models with point mutations using a base editing system.

Heterologous Expression and Purification of a CRISPR-Cas9-Based Adenine Base Editor

CRISPR-cas9-guided adenine base editors (ABEs) site-specifically convert the A-T base pair to G-C base pair in genomic DNA. The intracellular delivery of ABE proteins preassembled with guide RNAs (gRNAs) has shown greatly reduced off-target effects compared with that of plasmids or viral vectors containing ABE and gRNA-encoding sequences. For efficient gene editing by the ribonucleoprotein delivery method, the ABE-gRNA complexes need to be prepared in high purity and quantity. Here we describe the expression and purification procedure of ABEmax, one of high-efficiency ABE versions.

A large-scale genome and transcriptome sequencing analysis reveals the mutation landscapes induced by high-activity adenine base editors in plants

Background

The high-activity adenine base editors (ABEs), engineered with the recently-developed tRNA adenosine deaminases (TadA8e and TadA9), show robust base editing activity but raise concerns about off-target effects.

Results

In this study, we perform a comprehensive evaluation of ABE8e- and ABE9-induced DNA and RNA mutations in Oryza sativa. Whole-genome sequencing analysis of plants transformed with four ABEs, including SpCas9n-TadA8e, SpCas9n-TadA9, SpCas9n-NG-TadA8e, and SpCas9n-NG-TadA9, reveal that ABEs harboring TadA9 lead to a higher number of off-target A-to-G (A>G) single-nucleotide variants (SNVs), and that those harboring CRISPR/SpCas9n-NG lead to a higher total number of off-target SNVs in the rice genome. An analysis of the T-DNAs carrying the ABEs indicates that the on-target mutations could be introduced before and/or after T-DNA integration into plant genomes, with more off-target A>G SNVs forming after the ABEs had integrated into the genome. Furthermore, we detect off-target A>G RNA mutations in plants with high expression of ABEs but not in plants with low expression of ABEs. The off-target A>G RNA mutations tend to cluster, while off-target A>G DNA mutations rarely clustered.

Conclusion

Our findings that Cas proteins, TadA variants, temporal expression of ABEs, and expression levels of ABEs contribute to ABE specificity in rice provide insight into the specificity of ABEs and suggest alternative ways to increase ABE specificity besides engineering TadA variants.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13059-022-02618-w.

Off-target effects of base editors: what we know and how we can reduce it

The recently discovered CRISPR-Cas9 modification, base editors (BEs), is considered as one of the most promising tools for correcting disease-causing mutations in humans, since it allows point substitutions to be edited without generating double-stranded DNA breaks, and, therefore, with a significant decrease in non-specific activity. Until recently, this method was considered the safest, but at the same time, it is quite effective. However, recent studies of non-specific activity of BEs revealed that some of them lead to the formation of a huge number of off-targets in both DNA and RNA, occurring due to the nature of the Cas9-fused proteins used. In this review article, we have considered and combined data from numerous studies about the most commonly used and more described in detail APOBEC-based BEs and Target-AID version of CBE, as well as ABE7 and ABE8 with their basic modifications into TadA to improve BEs' specificity. In our opinion, modern advances in molecular genetics make it possible to dramatically reduce the off-target activity of base editors due to introducing mutations into the domains of deaminases or inhibition of Cas9 by anti-CRISPR proteins, which returns BEs to the leading position in genome editing technologies.

CRISPR base editing and prime editing: DSB and template-free editing systems for bacteria and plants

CRISPR-Cas (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats-CRISPR associated) has been extensively exploited as a genetic tool for genome editing. The RNA guided Cas nucleases generate DNA double-strand break (DSB), triggering cellular repair systems mainly Non-homologous end-joining (NHEJ, imprecise repair) or Homology-directed repair (HDR, precise repair). However, DSB typically leads to unexpected DNA changes and lethality in some organisms. The establishment of bacteria and plants into major bio-production platforms require efficient and precise editing tools. Hence, in this review, we focus on the non-DSB and template-free genome editing, i.e., base editing (BE) and prime editing (PE) in bacteria and plants. We first highlight the development of base and prime editors and summarize their studies in bacteria and plants. We then discuss current and future applications of BE/PE in synthetic biology, crop improvement, evolutionary engineering, and metabolic engineering. Lastly, we critically consider the challenges and prospects of BE/PE in PAM specificity, editing efficiency, off-targeting, sequence specification, and editing window.

Single-nucleotide editing for zebra3 and wsl5 phenotypes in rice using CRISPR/Cas9-mediated adenine base editors

The CRISPR/Cas9-mediated base editing technology can efficiently generate point mutations in the genome without introducing a double-strand break (DSB) or supplying a DNA donor template for homology-directed repair (HDR). In this study, adenine base editors (ABEs) were used for rapid generation of precise point mutations in two distinct genes, OsWSL5, and OsZEBRA3 (Z3), in both rice protoplasts and regenerated plants. The precisely engineered point mutations were stably inherited to subsequent generations. These single nucleotide alterations resulted in single amino acid changes and associated wsl5 and z3 phenotypes as evidenced by white stripe leaf and light green/dark green leaf pattern, respectively. Through selfing and genetic segregation, transgene-free, base edited wsl5 and z3 mutants were obtained in a short period of time. We noticed a novel mutation (V540A) in Z3 locus could also mimic the phenotype of Z3 mutation (S542P). Furthermore, we observed unexpected non- A/G or T/C mutations in the ABE editing window in a few of the edited plants. The ABE vectors and the method from this study could be used to simultaneously generate point mutations in multiple target genes in a single transformation and serve as a useful base editing tool for crop improvement as well as basic studies in plant biology.

Development of a Simple and Quick Method to Assess Base Editing in Human Cells

Base editing is a form of genome editing that can directly convert a single base (C or A) to another base (T or G), which is of great potential in biomedical applications. The broad application of base editing is limited by its low activity and specificity, which still needs to be resolved. To address this, a simple and quick method for the determination of its activity/specificity is highly desired. Here, we developed a novel system, which could be harnessed for quick detection of editing activity and specificity of base editors (BEs) in human cells. Specifically, multiple cloning sites (MCS) were inserted into the human genome via lentivirus, and base editing targeting the MCS was performed with BEs. The base editing activities were assessed by specific restriction enzymes. The whole process only includes nucleotide-based targeting the MCS, editing, PCR, and digestion, thus, we named it NOTEPAD. This straightforward approach could be easily accessed by molecular biology laboratories. With this method, we could easily determine the BEs editing efficiency and pattern. The results revealed that BEs triggered more off-target effects in the genome than on plasmids including genomic indels (insertions and deletions). We found that ABEs (adenine base editors) had better fidelity than CBEs (cytosine base editors). Our system could be harnessed as a base editing assessment platform, which would pave the way for the development of next-generation BEs.