Herbert Leo, Meunier Anne-Cécile, Bes Martine, Vernet Aurore, Portefaix Murielle, Durandet Franz, Michel Remy, Chaine Christian, This Patrice, Guiderdoni Emmanuel, Périn Christophe
CIRAD, UMR-AGAP, F-34398, Montpellier, France.
Université de Montpellier, Cirad, Inra, Montpellier SupAgro, F-34000, Montpellier, France.
Rice (N Y). 2020 Jan 28;13(1):5. doi: 10.1186/s12284-020-0366-y.
Genome editing tools have greatly facilitated the functional analysis of genes of interest by targeted mutagenesis. Many usable genome editing tools, including different site-specific nucleases and editor databases that allow single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) to be introduced at a given site, are now available. These tools can be used to generate high allelic diversity at a given locus to facilitate gene function studies, including examining the role of a specific protein domain or a single amino acid. We compared the effects, efficiencies and mutation types generated by our LbCPF1, SpCAS9 and base editor (BECAS9) constructs for the OsCAO1 gene. SpCAS9 and LbCPF1 have similar efficiencies in generating mutations but differ in the types of mutations induced, with the majority of changes being single-nucleotide insertions and short deletions for SpCAS9 and LbCPF1, respectively. The proportions of heterozygotes also differed, representing a majority in our LbCPF1, while with SpCAS9, we obtained a large number of biallelic mutants. Finally, we demonstrated that it is possible to specifically introduce stop codons using the BECAS9 with an acceptable efficiency of approximately 20%. Based on these results, a rational choice among these three alternatives may be made depending on the type of mutation that one wishes to introduce, the three systems being complementary. SpCAS9 remains the best choice to generate KO mutations in primary transformants, while if the desired gene mutation interferes with regeneration or viability, the use of our LbCPF1 construction will be preferred, because it produces mainly heterozygotes. LbCPF1 has been described in other studies as being as effective as SpCAS9 in generating homozygous and biallelic mutations. It will remain to be clarified in the future, whether the different LbCFP1 constructions have different efficiencies and determine the origin of these differences. Finally, if one wishes to specifically introduce stop codons, BECAS9 is a viable and efficient alternative, although it has a lower efficiency than SpCAS9 and LbCPF1 for creating KO mutations.
基因组编辑工具通过靶向诱变极大地促进了对感兴趣基因的功能分析。现在有许多可用的基因组编辑工具,包括不同的位点特异性核酸酶和允许在给定位点引入单核苷酸多态性(SNP)的编辑器数据库。这些工具可用于在给定基因座产生高等位基因多样性,以促进基因功能研究,包括研究特定蛋白质结构域或单个氨基酸的作用。我们比较了我们构建的用于水稻叶绿素a加氧酶1(OsCAO1)基因的LbCPF1、酿脓链球菌CRISPR相关蛋白9(SpCAS9)和碱基编辑器(BECAS9)产生的效果、效率和突变类型。SpCAS9和LbCPF1在产生突变方面效率相似,但诱导的突变类型不同,SpCAS9产生的变化大多是单核苷酸插入,而LbCPF1产生的大多是短缺失。杂合子的比例也不同,在我们构建的LbCPF1中占多数,而使用SpCAS9时,我们获得了大量的双等位基因突变体。最后,我们证明了使用BECAS9以大约20%的可接受效率特异性引入终止密码子是可行的。基于这些结果,可以根据想要引入的突变类型在这三种方法中做出合理选择,这三种系统是互补的。SpCAS9仍然是在初级转化体中产生敲除(KO)突变的最佳选择,而如果所需的基因突变干扰再生或活力,则优先使用我们构建的LbCPF1,因为它主要产生杂合子。在其他研究中,LbCPF1在产生纯合和双等位基因突变方面与SpCAS9一样有效。不同的LbCFP1构建体是否具有不同的效率以及确定这些差异的来源,还有待于未来进一步阐明。最后,如果想要特异性引入终止密码子,BECAS9是一种可行且有效的选择,尽管它在创建KO突变方面的效率低于SpCAS9和LbCPF1。