Crispar Cas

By Johnny Love 12165487

It was over a hundred and fifty years ago that Gregory Mendel discovered simple
Mendelian inheritance and over this time human have gone on to expand these
techniques. One of the earlier methods was selective breeding which is
renowned for dog breeding and was also primarily used heavily in selective
breeding of crops. These ideas were taken further to the production of targeted
genomic sequencing which is a method that changes genomic sequences in
living cells and organisms and has recently become a key, powerful tool for
biological research of today, particularly if its role in gene therapy, addressing
ethical concerns. One of the potential candidates in this new epoch of genetics is
crispr cas which is a gene editing mechanism system derived from the bacterial
immune system that has the potential to be used as an alternative to other
current genome editing techniques which is evidence as it has already been used
in numerous animal studies. However, its still in its infancy for human use and
may require caution for its future.
Cripsr is a gene editing mechanism derived from a bacterial immune defence
against exogenous DNA that is composed of clustered regulatory interspaced
short palindromic repeats (crispr) that provides immunity to bacteria. CRISPR
systems work by an engineered RNA formed by fusing crRNA and tracrRNA
forming sgRNA for sequence-binding to double stranded DNA (Cong et al., 2013).
Three types of CRISPR/Cas systems exist with type 2 being the most prevalently
used. In type 2 systems, the Cas9 serves as an RNA-guided DNA endonuclease
that cleaves DNA upon crRNAtracrRNA target recognition and makes double
stranded breaks. These double stranded breaks lead to activation of two repair
pathways by non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) or homologous directed repair
(HDR) which is the repair pathway that requires repair template. An alternative
to crispr are Zinc Finger Nucleases which were one of the first types of genome
editing methods to be developed which are fusions of the nonspecific DNA
cleavage domain from FokI restriction endonuclease with Zinc-Finger proteins.
These ZFN dimers induce targeted DNA DSBs that stimulate DNA damage
response pathways. The binding specificity of the designed zinc-finger domain
directs the ZFN to a specific genomic site (Gaj, Gersbach, & Barbas, 2013).
TALENs are another alternative to crispr and are based off TALE effectors (TALEs)
which were originally discovered in Xanthomonas, a pathogenic bacteria with a
type III secretion system (T3S), which secretes and translocates effector proteins
into plant cells. TALEs are used by to make TALENs by fusing a TALE with a FokI
cleavage domain as ZFNs which can then edit the genomes of most organisms
and cell types by inducing double-strand breaks, which initiates repair
mechanisms in the cell to reconnect the DNA via Non-homologous end joining
(NHEJ). This results in insertions or deletions (indels) in the genome. New
exogenous DNA can also be introduced into a genome utilizing NHEJ. However,
TALENs greatly differ in efficiency between species, cell type, nuclease, and

target gene, so in some cases this method can be less predictable and effective.
Zinc finger nucleases and TALENSs both induce double stranded breaks that
activate damage response pathways much similar to crispr but ZFN and TALEN
are composed of zinc finger protein or TALE respectively plus FokI fusion protein
while crispr consists of a guide RNA and cas9 protein and furthermore, crispr has
a lower cost, is more time efficient, utilises RNA instead of protein and can target
multiple sites(Carroll, 2014; Gaj et al., 2013; Wanyou et al., 2015). Cripsr has
already been proven to work in gene editing in a number of systems zebra fish,
mice, c. elegans, crops and etc.
Crispr cas has proven to work for targeted genome editing. Customised sgRNAs
were generated directing Cas9 alterations of endogenous genes in zebra fish
embryos and the frequency of altered alleles in single embryos was assessed
using a T7 endonuclease and furthermore to test the efficiency of the sgRNA:
Cas9 system in zebra fish, they constructed ten additional sgRNAs, each targeted
to another sequence in the fh gene and the remaining nine targeted to sites in
nine other endogenous genes. This showed that the sgRNA:Cas9 system
successfully targeted >80% of the sites tested in zebra fish (Hwang et al., 2013)
.Crispr has been successfully shown to work for multi-gene targeting in mice as
well. This may save time for generation of mice carrying mutations in multiple
genes because they are traditionally generated by sequential recombination in
embryonic stem cells and/or by time consuming inter-crossing of mice with single
mutations. CRISPR/Cas-mediated gene editing can permit the simultaneous
disruption of five genes (Tet1, 2, 3, Sry, Uty - 8 alleles) for mouse embryonic
stem cells with high efficiency. It was shown that coinjection of Cas9 mRNA and
single-guide RNAs (sgRNAs) targeting Tet1 and Tet2 into zygotes generated mice
with bialelic mutations in both genes worked with an efficiency of 80% (Wang et
al., 2013).Thus, the CRISPR/Cas system allows the one-step generation of
animals carrying mutations in multiple genes, an approach that will greatly
accelerate the study of functionally redundant genes and of epistatic gene
interactions.
Crispr cas can be used for designing experiments generating targeted loss of
function mutants. A generated vector expressing cas9 and sgRNA and an added
NLS to ensure the nuclear localisation, and a putative polymerase 3 promotor for
expression of the sgRNA was used as the basis for an experiment for C.Elegans
targeted loss of function (Friedland et al., 2013). It is known that crispr works
through double stranded breaks that can be repaired through the pathway of
nonhomologous end joining (NHEJ), which generates insertions and deletions
(indels) in the vicinity of the cleavage site(Cho, Kim, Kim, & Kim, 2013; Cong et
al., 2013).Therefore indels disrupting the coding sequences of genes would show
alleles that cause unique phenotypes. Crispr was shown to generate disruptions
in 53/66 (80.3%), 27/35 (77. 1%) and 13/72 (18.1%) of the F1 worms
screened(Friedland et al., 2013) indicating it works as a tool for generating loss
of function. Crispr has been shown to work to induce sequence-specific genome
editing in rice. This was facilitated by the design of two sgRNA, (SP1 and SP2),
which target different DNA strands of the rice OsPDS gene with a targeted
mutagenesis rate of 15%(Shan et al., 2013). Cloning and sequencing revealed

indels in the targeted OsPDS gene with the highest frequency of mutations were
obtained with a sgRNA with 20 nucleotides (nts) of sequence complementary to
the OsPDS-SP1 target site (P = 0.039)(Shan et al., 2013).
Crispr may help as a supplementary tool in studying human disease as it allows
for the more simplified production of genetically modified model species
monkeys for human research. Monkeys serve as an important model species for
studying human diseases but their research has been hindered by the difficulty
in producing monkeys with the desired mutations. Crispr cas has been shown to
achieve precise and simultaneous disruptions of two target genes (ppar-g and
Rag1) with no off target mutagenesis (Niu et al., 2014). This shows that the
simultaneous addition of cas9 mRNA and sgRNAs are a precise and simplified
way to target multiple genes. In addition, lentiviruses have already been used to
make successful transgenic monkeys(Niu et al., 2010) but they are not as
successful (Chan, 2013) as they have not been able to work successfully for
precise gene targeting as does crispr.
Cripsr is still in its infancy for human use and may require caution for its future.
At present, we dont know in scrupulous details the mechanism of crispr in
human zygotes because a serious knowledge gap remains in our understanding
of these mechanisms and in the efficiency and potential off-target effects of
using crispr which is evidenced by the attempt of Chinese researchers to use
crispr in tripronuclear (3PN) zygotes to cleave the endogenous -globin gene
(HBB) (Liang et al., 2015). The experiment demonstrated that the efficiency of
(HDR) for HBB was low and embryos would result in mosaics. Also, off-target
cleavages were produced which has already been seen (Fu et al., 2013) as well
as the endogenous delta-globin gene (HBD) interfering with exogenous donor
oligos leading to undesired mutations(Liang et al., 2015). This highlighted the
current knowledge gap and the need to be cautious and further improve the
fidelity and specificity of crispr before any clinical human trial can take place as it
is still in development and the edits will be permanent.
Furthermore, some have insisted on imposing a moratorium to discourage germ
line genome modifications for clinical applications in humans, in order to create
ethically responsible use for the technology (Cyranoski, 2015; Marshall, 2000;
Norman, 1983; Vogel, 2015). Others have suggested that this is pointless and
unenforceable as it will only drive this type of research underground (Hawkes,
2015) others see this type of research as a godsend and the future of modern
medicine as it allows the possible total eradication of genetic diseases that have
long existed in some families germ lines such as Huntingtons disease,duchenne
muscular dystrophy, fragile x syndrome, cystic fibrosis (Baltimore et al., 2015;
Doudna, 2015; Li et al., 2015; Pellagatti, Dolatshad, Valletta, & Boultwood, 2015;
Saayman, Ali, Morris, & Weinberg, 2015; Vasil'eva, Melino, & Barlev, 2015; Wu et
al., 2015) Others say we need to create forums where information can be spread
about the risks and rewards of using this technology and its applications and
implications so that practitioners can make informed decisions about how they
are using it and weigh up the risks and rewards and pros and cons. Encourage
the support of research to further improve the specific efficiency of crispr cas

genome engineering technology for human and non-human models so to

improve its relevant potential applications in human germ line gene therapy.
(Baltimore et al., 2015) Also to create a global representative body of developers
and users of genome engineering technology and experts in genetics, law,
bioethics, policies etc to consider the important issues that arises from this
technology and to create appropriate polices where applicable.
Crispr cas is a gene editing mechanism system derived from the bacterial
immune system that has the potential to be used as an alternative to other
current genome editing techniques which is evidence as it has already been used
in numerous animal studies. However, its still in its infancy for human use and
may require caution for its future. It is an improved gene editing system that was
built upon by a pre-existing mechanism present in bacteria as a means of
immune defence against exogenous dna that works by NHEJ and HDR. Zinc
finger nucleases and TALENs like crispr both induce double stranded breaks that
activate damage response pathways much similar to crispr but crispr has a lower
cost, is more time efficient, utilises RNA instead of protein and can target
multiple sites. Crispr has been shown to work in zebra fish by alteration of
endogenous target genes with a success rate of >80% and mice and may save
time for multi-gene targeting as this approach will greatly accelerate the in vivo
study of functionally redundant genes. It can be used for studies generating
targeted loss of function mutants as shown in the study of C.Elegans. It has been
shown to work to induce sequence-specific genome editing in rice of the rice
OsPDS gene with a targeted mutagenesis rate of 15%.It may help as a
supplementary tool in studying human disease as it allows for the more
simplified production of genetically modified model species monkeys for human
research. Cripsr cas is still in its infancy as shown by the low efficiency of HDR for
HBB, unintended off-target cleavages and endogenous genes interfering with
exogenous donor oligos leading to undesired mutations. Therefore some say we
may need to impose a moratorium to impose its possible unethical use but
other says this technology is good as it will possibly allow for the possible total
eradication of genetic diseases. Others say we need to create institutions to
advise people of the implications of this technology. Whatever the technology
holds, genetics has sure come a long way since the days of Gregory Mendel and
crispr is sure to be added to the timeline in the history of genetics.

References

Baltimore, D., Berg, P., Botchan, M., Carroll, D., Charo, R. A., Church, G., . . .
Yamamoto, K. R. (2015). Biotechnology. A prudent path forward for
genomic engineering and germline gene modification. Science, 348(6230),
36-38. doi: 10.1126/science.aab1028
Carroll, D. (2014). Genome engineering with targetable nucleases. Annu Rev
Biochem, 83, 409-439. doi: 10.1146/annurev-biochem-060713-035418
Chan, A. W. (2013). Progress and prospects for genetic modification of nonhuman
primate models in biomedical research. Ilar j, 54(2), 211-223. doi:
10.1093/ilar/ilt035
Cho, S. W., Kim, S., Kim, J. M., & Kim, J. S. (2013). Targeted genome engineering
in human cells with the Cas9 RNA-guided endonuclease. Nat Biotechnol,
31(3), 230-232. doi: 10.1038/nbt.2507
Cong, L., Ran, F. A., Cox, D., Lin, S., Barretto, R., Habib, N., . . . Marraffini, L. A.
(2013). Multiplex genome engineering using CRISPR/Cas systems. Science,
339(6121), 819-823.
Cyranoski, D. (2015). Ethics of embryo editing divides scientists. Nature,
519(7543), 272-272. doi: 10.1038/519272a

Doudna, J. A. (2015). Genomic engineering and the future of medicine. Jama,

313(8), 791-792. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.287
Friedland, A. E., Tzur, Y. B., Esvelt, K. M., Colaiacovo, M. P., Church, G. M., &
Calarco, J. A. (2013). Heritable genome editing in C. elegans via a CRISPRCas9 system. Nat Methods, 10(8), 741-743. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.2532
Fu, Y., Foden, J. A., Khayter, C., Maeder, M. L., Reyon, D., Joung, J. K., & Sander, J.
D. (2013). High-frequency off-target mutagenesis induced by CRISPR-Cas
nucleases in human cells. Nature Biotechnology, 31(9), 822-826. doi:
10.1038/nbt.2623
Gaj, T., Gersbach, C. A., & Barbas, C. F., 3rd. (2013). ZFN, TALEN, and
CRISPR/Cas-based methods for genome engineering. Trends Biotechnol,
31(7), 397-405. doi: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2013.04.004
Hawkes, N. (2015). UK scientists reject call for moratorium on gene editing. Bmj,
350, h2601. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h2601
Hwang, W. Y., Fu, Y., Reyon, D., Maeder, M. L., Tsai, S. Q., Sander, J. D., . . . Joung,
J. K. (2013). Efficient genome editing in zebrafish using a CRISPR-Cas
system. Nat Biotechnol, 31(3), 227-229. doi: 10.1038/nbt.2501
Li, H. L., Fujimoto, N., Sasakawa, N., Shirai, S., Ohkame, T., Sakuma, T., . . . Hotta,
A. (2015). Precise correction of the dystrophin gene in duchenne muscular
dystrophy patient induced pluripotent stem cells by TALEN and CRISPRCas9. Stem Cell Reports, 4(1), 143-154. doi: 10.1016/j.stemcr.2014.10.013
Liang, P., Xu, Y., Zhang, X., Ding, C., Huang, R., Zhang, Z., . . . Huang, J. (2015).
CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing in human tripronuclear zygotes.
Protein & Cell, 6(5), 363-372. doi: 10.1007/s13238-015-0153-5
Marshall, E. (2000). Medical ethics. Moratorium urged on germ line gene therapy.
Science, 289(5487), 2023.
Niu, Y., Shen, B., Cui, Y., Chen, Y., Wang, J., Wang, L., . . . Li, T. (2014). Generation
of Gene-Modified Cynomolgus Monkey via Cas9/RNA-Mediated Gene
Targeting in One-Cell Embryos. Cell, 156(4), 836-843. doi:
10.1016/j.cell.2014.01.027
Niu, Y., Yu, Y., Bernat, A., Yang, S., He, X., Guo, X., . . . Ji, W. (2010). Transgenic
rhesus monkeys produced by gene transfer into early-cleavagestage
embryos using a simian immunodeficiency virus-based vector.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America, 107(41), 17663-17667. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1006563107
Norman, C. (1983). Clerics urge ban on altering germline cells. Science,
220(4604), 1360-1361.
Pellagatti, A., Dolatshad, H., Valletta, S., & Boultwood, J. (2015). Application of
CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing to the study and treatment of disease. Arch
Toxicol. doi: 10.1007/s00204-015-1504-y
Saayman, S., Ali, S. A., Morris, K. V., & Weinberg, M. S. (2015). The therapeutic
application of CRISPR/Cas9 technologies for HIV. Expert Opin Biol Ther, 112. doi: 10.1517/14712598.2015.1036736
Shan, Q., Wang, Y., Li, J., Zhang, Y., Chen, K., Liang, Z., . . . Gao, C. (2013).
Targeted genome modification of crop plants using a CRISPR-Cas system.
Nat Biotechnol, 31(8), 686-688. doi: 10.1038/nbt.2650
Vasil'eva, E. A., Melino, D., & Barlev, N. A. (2015). [CRISPR/Cas system for
genome editing in pluripotent stem cells]. Tsitologiia, 57(1), 19-30.
Vogel, G. (2015). Embryo engineering alarm. Science, 347(6228), 1301. doi:
10.1126/science.347.6228.1301
Wang, H., Yang, H., Shivalila, C. S., Dawlaty, M. M., Cheng, A. W., Zhang, F., &
Jaenisch, R. (2013). One-step generation of mice carrying mutations in
multiple genes by CRISPR/Cas-mediated genome engineering. Cell, 153(4),
910-918. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2013.04.025

Wanyou, F., Yifan, D., Lisha, M., Cooper, D. K. C., Deshun, S., & Zhiming, C.
(2015). The Potential of the Combination of CRISPR/Cas9 and Pluripotent
Stem Cells to Provide Human Organs from Chimaeric Pigs. International
Journal Of Molecular Sciences, 16(3), 6545-6556. doi:
10.3390/ijms16036545
Wu, Y., Zhou, H., Fan, X., Zhang, Y., Zhang, M., Wang, Y., . . . Li, J. (2015).
Correction of a genetic disease by CRISPR-Cas9-mediated gene editing in
mouse spermatogonial stem cells. Cell Res, 25(1), 67-79. doi:
10.1038/cr.2014.160