Difference between revisions of "Team:Valencia UPV/Proof"

 
(33 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{:Team:Valencia_UPV/Templates:generaljs}}
+
{{:Team:Valencia_UPV/Templates:headerGeneralUPV}}
{{:Team:Valencia_UPV/Templates:headerUPV}}
+
 
{{:Team:Valencia_UPV/Templates:generalcss}}
+
 
<html>
 
<html>
 +
<body>
  
 
+
<style>
  <body>
+
.page-header{
  <div id="mainContent">
+
background-position-y:-27em;
    <p>
+
}
+
@media screen and (max-width: 1370px){
</ul>
+
.page-header{
</div><a name="gRNA_Testing_System"></a></br></br><h3>gRNA Testing System</h3><p><h3>Abstract</h3></p>
+
background-position-y:-15em;
 
+
}
 
+
}
 
+
</style>
<p>We have designed a modular gRNA testing system in order to check if the gRNA provided by the Data Processing Software works as expected on the plant variety to improve. This system works as a <b>genetic switch</b> that remains OFF if the gRNA does not work, and turns ON when the Cas9 does a double stranded break in the target. The device performance is based on the fact that the <b>luciferase reporter gene</b> is out of its reading frame. When CRISPR/Cas9 system works as expected, meaning that the <b>gRNA is well designed</b>, it will introduce indels in our device and the luciferase will be placed on its correct reading frame. Therefore, we will be able to detect bioluminescence with a luciferase assay. </p>
+
  <section class="page-header page-header-lg parallax parallax-3" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/c/ca/T--Valencia_UPV--DNA.jpg');">
 
+
<div class="overlay dark-5"><!-- dark overlay [1 to 9 opacity] --></div>
 
+
<div class="container">
 
+
<h1>Split Cas9</h1>
<p><b><u>gRNA Testing System</b></u></p>
+
</div>
 
+
    </section>
<p>gRNA is a key element in genome editing with CRISPR/Cas9 system, since it leads endonuclease Cas9 where the modification must be produced. That means  gRNA must work properly in the plant variety that we want to improve. </p>
+
<section><div class="container-fluid"><div class="row"><div class="col-md-2 col-sm-3"><div class="side-nav margin-bottom-60 margin-top-30"><div class="side-nav-head"><button class="fa fa-bars"></button><h4>Index</h4></div><ul class="list-group list-group-bordered list-group-noicon uppercase"><li class="list-group-item"><a href="https://2016.igem.org/Team:Valencia_UPV/Proof#Abstract_id"><span class="size-11 text-muted pull-right"></span>Abstract</a></li><li class="list-group-item"><a href="https://2016.igem.org/Team:Valencia_UPV/Proof#PlantgenomeeditingwithCRISPR/Cas9_id"><span class="size-11 text-muted pull-right"></span>Plant genome editing with CRISPR/Cas9</a></li><li class="list-group-item"><a href="https://2016.igem.org/Team:Valencia_UPV/Proof#Technicalrequirements_id"><span class="size-11 text-muted pull-right"></span>Technical requirements</a></li><li class="list-group-item"><a href="https://2016.igem.org/Team:Valencia_UPV/Proof#Oursolution_id"><span class="size-11 text-muted pull-right"></span>Our solution</a></li><li class="list-group-item"><a href="https://2016.igem.org/Team:Valencia_UPV/Proof#Superinfectionexclusion_id"><span class="size-11 text-muted pull-right"></span>Superinfection exclusion</a></li><li class="list-group-item"><a href="https://2016.igem.org/Team:Valencia_UPV/Proof#gRNAdelivery_id"><span class="size-11 text-muted pull-right"></span>gRNA delivery</a></li><li class="list-group-item"><a href="https://2016.igem.org/Team:Valencia_UPV/Proof#References:_id"><span class="size-11 text-muted pull-right"></span>References:</a></li></ul></div></div><div class="col-md-10 col-sm-9"><div class="blog-post-item" id="Abstract_id"><h3>Abstract</h3><p>The usage of autoreplicative vectors as vehicle for Cas9 delivery entails a set of benefits. Of all these advantages the most remarkable one is the possibility of removing any trace of foreign DNA sequences once the mutation has occurred. Unfortunately, autoreplicative vectors cannot store SpCas9 massive coding sequence. <br><br>Regarding the last point, we resolve to divide SpCas9 into two halves. This novel split-Cas9 strategy allows us to deliver CRISPR/Cas9 system inside plant cells through autoreplicative vectors. <br><br>The utilization of split-Cas9 strategy along with these autoreplicative vehicles emerges as a new and revolutionary plant breeding technique.<br><br></p></div><div class="blog-post-item" id="PlantgenomeeditingwithCRISPR/Cas9_id"><h3>Plant genome editing with CRISPR/Cas9</h3><p>CRISPR/Cas9 technology has emerged as a novel and revolutionary genome editing technique that surpass conventional and mutation plant breeding techniques in terms of versatility and easy RNA programming. Thus, allowing us to modify a specific trait from one crop in order to obtain a brand new variety of known genotype.<br><br>This targeted plant genome editing strategy has a great potential for crop improvement to meet the world’s growing demand for food and to provide sustainable productive agriculture system simultaneously (1).<br><br>Many genes from different plant species has been successfully modified since the first application of CRISPR/Cas9 was reported in plants (2, 3 and 4). Thus, sparking off a whole new way of understanding and carrying out crop improvement while offering a whole new world of possibilities when it comes to targeted plant genome editing (Fig. 1).<br><br></p><div style="text-align:center;"><img class="img-responsive" style="width:300px" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/f/fb/T--Valencia_UPV--BarrasCRISPR.png"><p class="imgFooterP" style="text-align: center;font-style: italic;">Fig. 1 Number of genes reported edited by CRISPR/Cas9 to date, by plant species (1).</p></div><p><br><br>The CRISPR/Cas9 system, as plant genome editing technology, is classified inside the New Plant Breeding Techniques (NPBTs). NPBTs are faster than traditional breeding methods and can produce a null segregant line that notably lacks the transgenic insert (5, 6, 7 and 8). The plants developed by NPBTs are identical to the classically bred plants since both carry with the desired mutation but not with any transgene.<br><br></p></div><div class="blog-post-item" id="Technicalrequirements_id"><h3>Technical requirements</h3><p>Plant genomic editing with CRISPR/Cas9 system is usually harnessed to obtain new allelic series by producing indels due to Non Homolougus End Joining (NHEJ) repair. In order to generate those mutations its two main components – a guide RNA and Cas9 endonuclease – must be delivered inside the cell.<br><br>The first and most employed delivery method for CRISPR/Cas9 in plants is <i>Agrobacterium</i>-based transformation, which introduces Cas9 and gRNA coding sequences directly into the plant genome (2, 3 and 4). Nevertheless, this delivery method has a major drawback since the introduction of new coding sequences implies the generation of transgenic plants, with all the social and legal issues that they entail. Although a segregant line without transgenes can be obtained the process is expensive and time-consuming. The generation of new plants requires a first step of transformation to introduce foreign DNA, and the subsequent steps of segregation and genotyping up to obtain a homozygous line (Fig. 2).<br><br></p><div style="text-align:center;"><img class="img-responsive" style="width:600px" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/6/61/T--Valencia_UPV--segregationCRISPR.png"><p class="imgFooterP" style="text-align: center;font-style: italic;">Fig. 2 The generation of transgene free genetically edited crops. Transgene free homozygous mutants with the desired mutation could be selected by selfing plants of the generation zero and segregating the transgene in the next generation (1).</p></div><p><br><br>In this context the viral delivery of genes arises as a new tool, faster and cheaper, for crop improvement. Moreover, its higher infection and expression ratios make this system the most suitable for CRISPR/Cas9 delivery (9, 10 and 11). On the other hand, it is possible to remove viral particles from the plant through thermal or chemical treatments in order to eliminate the foreign coding sequences. Unfortunately, these viral approaches are chiefly limited by the size of their nucleic acid cargo, especially with regard to spCas9 4.2 kb coding sequence.<br><br></p></div><div class="blog-post-item" id="Oursolution_id"><h3>Our solution</h3><p>Bearing in mind the aforementioned advantages and drawbacks of CRISPR/Cas9 system and the possible delivery methods, and aiming to maximize mutation efficiency, viral systems would be the perfect delivery strategy. <br><br>Moreover, the delivery of Cas9 and gRNA through viral systems will prevent new developed varieties from transgenic related legal and social issues. That is due to the possibility of treating modified plants in order to eliminate viral particles and therefore removing Cas9 and gRNA coding sequence from plant cells.<br><br>Following this strategy we are able to obtain new transgene-free modified crops. Unfortunately it is impossible to employ viral vectors as Cas9 delivery system due to the endonuclease’s massive coding sequence. In order to bypass this problem we followed a strategy developed by Truong et al. (12).<br>This approach is based on the division of SpCas9 endonuclease into two parts and the addition of an intein moiety to each half in order to allow the reconstitution of the protein. Thus, shortening the length of the coding sequences and making possible their introduction into viral vectors. The site between Lys637 and Thr638 was chosen as split-site as described by Truong et al. (12). The split-intein-Cas9 system was created by choosing the site between Lys637 and Thr638 as split-site, while fusing NpuDnaE N-intein to the C-terminus of SpCas9 and NpuDnaE N-terminus was fused to the N-terminus of the endonuclease (Fig. 3).<br></p><div style="text-align:center;"><img class="img-responsive" style="width:600px" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/8/8b/T--Valencia_UPV--Split-Cas9.jpg"><p class="imgFooterP" style="text-align: center;font-style: italic;">(Fig. 3) Schematic of split-intein-cas9 strategy.</p></div><p><br>Human codon optimized SpCas9 version was chosen since it has been reported to have the highest yield in <i>Nicotiana benthamiana</i> (13). Moreover, NpuDnaE inteins from Heidelberg 2014 team intein library were chosen (<a href=" http://parts.igem.org/wiki/index.php?title=Part:BBa_K1362400">Part:BBa_K1362400</a>, [Part:BBa_K1362401 path: http://parts.igem.org/wiki/index.php?title=Part:BBa_K1362401]). Therefore, we did not only test the feasibility of split-intein-Cas9 strategy but also check the activity of the inteins our chassis <i>Nicotiana benthamiana</i>.<br><a href=" https://2016.igem.org/Team:Valencia_UPV/Results">See Split-Cas9 results here</a><br></p></div><div class="blog-post-item" id="Superinfectionexclusion_id"><h3>Superinfection exclusion</h3><p>Once we resolved to insert SpCas9 in two different pieces inside two different vectors, the next challenge was to solve the superinfection exclusion problem. Superinfection exclusion is a phenomenon in which a preexisting viral infection prevents a secondary infection with the same or a closely related virus. The mechanisms that prevent the infection of a determined virus into a previously infected cell are only partially understood (14). As shown in Figure 4 when a leaf is coinfiltrated with two different <i>Agrobacterium</i> tumefasciens cultures carrying two different TMV vectors with two different fluorescent proteins (YFP and DsRed) a mosaic appeared. However, when a leaf is coinfiltrated with two different <i>Agrobacterium</i> tumefasciens cultures carrying a TMV vector and a PVX one with different fluorescent proteins all the cells expressed both proteins.<br><br></p><div style="text-align:center;"><img class="img-responsive" style="width:600px" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/b/b0/T--Valencia_UPV--Mosaicos.jpg"><p class="imgFooterP" style="text-align: center;font-style: italic;">(Fig. 4) A) Mosaic produced by the coinfection of the leaf with two different <i>Agrobacterium</i> tumesfasciens with two different TMV vectors carrying YFP and DsRED. B) YFP signal is shown in the whole leaf due to the coinfection with TMV viral system carrying GFP and PVX. C) The same leaf as in B) presenting also DsRed on its whole surface due to the absence of superinfection exlcusion.</p></div><p><br><br></p></div><div class="blog-post-item" id="gRNAdelivery_id"><h3>gRNA delivery</h3><p>Since CRISPR/Cas9 system is composed by two main elements, guide RNA delivery must be also considered. Bearing that in mind, we propposed two different solutions based on the strategy described by Gao et al. (15) Therefore, we propose to flank gRNA transcript by Hammerhead and Hepatitis Delta Virus self‐cleaving ribozymes (Fig. 5) and insert it along with one of the two halves of the Split-Cas9 into the same vector or using a third viral vector that does not show superinfection exclusion with the other two. <br><br></p><div style="text-align:center;"><img class="img-responsive" style="width:450px" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/3/38/T--Valencia_UPV--gRNAHDVHH.png"><p class="imgFooterP" style="text-align: center;font-style: italic;">(Fig. 5) Structure of the pre-gRNA containing a Hammerhead ribozyme at the 5’ end, and a HDV ribozyme at the 3’ end (15).</p></div><p><br><br></p></div><div class="blog-post-item" id="References:_id"><h3>References:</h3><p><br>1.Khatodia S, Bhatotia K, Passricha N, Khurana S, Tuteja N. The CRISPR/Cas Genome-Editing Tool: Application in Improvement of Crops. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2016;7.<br>2. Li J, Norville J, Aach J, McCormack M, Zhang D, Bush J et al. Multiplex and homologous recombination–mediated genome editing in Arabidopsis and <i>Nicotiana benthamiana</i> using guide RNA and Cas9. Nature Biotechnology. 2013;31(8):688-691.<br>3. Nekrasov V, Staskawicz B, Weigel D, Jones J, Kamoun S. Targeted mutagenesis in the model plant <i>Nicotiana benthamiana</i> using Cas9 RNA-guided endonuclease. Nature Biotechnology. 2013;31(8):691-693.<br>4. Shan Q, Wang Y, Li J, Zhang Y, Chen K, Liang Z et al. Targeted genome modification of crop plants using a CRISPR-Cas system. Nature Biotechnology. 2013;31(8):686-688.<br>5. Podevin N, Devos Y, Davies H, Nielsen K. Transgenic or not? No simple answer!. EMBO reports. 2012;13(12):1057-1061.<br>6. Araki MIshii T. Towards social acceptance of plant breeding by genome editing. Trends in Plant Science. 2015;20(3):145-149.<br>7. Schaart J, van de Wiel C, Lotz L, Smulders M. Opportunities for Products of New Plant Breeding Techniques. Trends in Plant Science. 2016;21(5):438-449.<br>8. Woo J, Kim J, Kwon S, Corvalán C, Cho S, Kim H et al. DNA-free genome editing in plants with preassembled CRISPR-Cas9 ribonucleoproteins. Nat Biotechnol. 2015;33(11):1162-1164.<br>9. Ali Z, Abul-faraj A, Piatek M, Mahfouz M. Activity and specificity of TRV-mediated gene editing in plants. Plant Signaling & Behavior. 2015;10(10):e1044191.<br>10. Baltes N, Hummel A, Konecna E, Cegan R, Bruns A, Bisaro D et al. Conferring resistance to geminiviruses with the CRISPR–Cas prokaryotic immune system. NPLANTS. 2015;1(10):15145.<br>11. Yin K, Han T, Liu G, Chen T, Wang Y, Yu A et al. A geminivirus-based guide RNA delivery system for CRISPR/Cas9 mediated plant genome editing. Sci Rep. 2015;5:14926.<br>12. Truong D, Kühner K, Kühn R, Werfel S, Engelhardt S, Wurst W et al. Development of an intein-mediated split–Cas9 system for gene therapy. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015;43(13):6450-6458.<br>13. Vazquez-Vilar M, Bernabé-Orts J, Fernandez-del-Carmen A, Ziarsolo P, Blanca J, Granell A et al. A modular toolbox for gRNA–Cas9 genome engineering in plants based on the GoldenBraid standard. Plant Methods. 2016;12(1).<br>14. Julve J, Gandía A, Fernández-del-Carmen A, Sarrion-Perdigones A, Castelijns B, Granell A et al. A coat-independent superinfection exclusion rapidly imposed in <i>Nicotiana benthamiana</i> cells by tobacco mosaic virus is not prevented by depletion of the movement protein. Plant Molecular Biology. 2013;81(6):553-564.<br>15. Gao YZhao Y. Self-processing of ribozyme-flanked RNAs into guide RNAsin vitro and in vivo for CRISPR-mediated genome editing. Journal of Integrative Plant Biology. 2014;56(4):343-349.<br><br></p></div></div></div></section>
 
+
</body>
 
+
 
+
<p>The plant breeder could use the gRNA provided by our software directly in his plant. However, lots of plant species take a long time to grow. For example, orange trees need at least 1-2 years to exceed the first growth stage, and 3-4 years to produce the first fruits. If the gRNA didn&rsquo;t work properly, the plant breeder would had lost a valuable time waiting to see a phenotypic improvement on his plant. It would take a long time just to know if the gRNA has worked or not. Due to that, it&rsquo;s necessary to previously check the gRNA proper functioning.</p>
+
 
+
 
+
 
+
<p><b>Why would not our gRNA work?</b></p>
+
 
+
<p>Our open-source database includes genes of interest, which can be selected by plant breeders according to their needs. It also directly provides the optimal gRNA which, afterwards, must be ordered to synthesize. The gRNA is obtained from gene consensus sequences acquired from big databases such as NCBI or Sol Genomic. However, the consensus sequence may match or not with the specific variety to improve. Insertions and deletions - Indels - and Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms - SNPs - occur spontaneously and randomly in the genome of different plant varieties. That means the gRNA obtained by our data processing software could not work optimally on the desired variety. This makes even more necessary to test the gRNA before using it in the specific variety. Furthermore, even if the gRNA matches perfectly with the target sequence, mutagenesis may not occur - or be less efficient - due to gRNA secondary structure problems.</p>
+
 
+
 
+
 
+
<p><b><u>gRNA testing methods</b></u></p>
+
 
+
<p>The current methods used to test the efficiency of CRISPR/Cas9 -and therefore that can be used to test the gRNA- are digestion with restriction enzymes or digestion with T7 endonuclease and subsequent sequencing. However, these methods are not suitable if we want to make accessible and easy the testing of the gRNA. </p>
+
 
+
 
+
 
+
 
+
 
+
<ul><li><b>Digestion with restriction enzymes</b>: when choosing the target within the gene, it is mandatory to choose a target including a restriction site where the Cas9 will make the DSB. Therefore, in order to check if the Cas9 produced the mutation, a digestion is performed with the restriction enzyme, and an electrophoresis gel is carried out. If the Cas9 cuts, the restriction site will be lost and the enzyme will not cut. Therefore, in the electrophoresis gel, a band with higher molecular weight should be observed. If mutation did not occur, two bands should be observed, since the enzyme can recognize the site and cut. </li>
+
 
+
<ul><li><b>Problem</b>: the range of possible targets is reduced, because they must contain a restriction site exactly in the place where the Cas9 cuts. Additionally, when you find a target with a restriction site you might not have the needed enzyme. Buying it may imply a high cost, not affordable for everyone. </li>
+
 
+
</ul></ul>
+
 
+
<ul><li><b>Digestion with T7 endonuclease</b>: this strategy is similar to the restriction enzymes one, yet it uses the T7 endonuclease. This endonuclease cuts where it finds heterodimers. When Cas9 cuts, due to the non-homologous  end joining DNA repair mechanism - NHEJ -, plant cells introduce indels. After a PCR amplification of the region, heterodimers can be obtained from a denaturation and reannealing step. When they are annealed, they might bind with a strand which is not exactly complementary, producing heterodimers that T7 can cut. Therefore, in an electrophoresis gel, a high molecular weight band will be observed if there is not a cut, while, two shorter bands will appear if T7 endonuclease cuts and so, Cas9 is well working.</li>
+
 
+
<ul><li><b>Problem</b>: the T7 endonuclease is outrageously expensive. Buying it may imply even a higher cost, not affordable for everyone. </li>
+
 
+
</ul></ul>
+
 
+
 
+
 
+
<p>In order to provide an efficient solution to the drawbacks explained above, we have engineered a gRNA Testing System. In this strategy, we use <i>Nicotiana benthamiana</i> due to its fast growth and all the benefits provided by a model plant. Our methodology is based in the GoldenBraid Assembly System, that allows us to get a modular and standard system, two of the mainstays of Synthetic Biology field. </p>
+
 
+
 
+
 
+
<p><b><u>Our device</b></u></p>
+
 
+
<p>The fragment of genome that we are going to target in our plant is inserted in the Testing System following the concept of modularity. Based on <i><i>Agrobacterium</i> tumefaciens</i> infection and using a reporter gene in our device, we will be able to know how efficient the provided/designed gRNA is. </p>
+
 
+
<p>First of all, plant breeders have to carry out a genomic DNA extraction of the plant they want to modify. Next, they need to amplify the region they are going to target. The targets needed to this amplification are provided by our Data Processing Software. The amplified target sequence is introduced in <i>N. benthamiana</i> as part of the device with the luciferase reporter. </p>
+
 
+
 
+
 
+
<p>This device is introduced in the plant along with the corresponding gRNA and Cas9 construction. If the gRNA works on the desired variety, we will be able to detect it easily with a luciferase assay.</p>
+
 
+
<p>Our system is designed to allow the detection of luminescence. Thus, a luciferase assay is used to study gene expression rates, since it is fast and the analysis of each sample only requires a few minutes. Moreover, it is extremely sensitive and the results are very accurate, allowing us to obtain quantitative results. Originally the system is OFF since luciferase genetic sequence is not in the correct frame. <b>When Cas9 cuts,  indels  appear, system turns ON, so luciferase gene is in the correct frame and it will be correctly translated.</b> In that case, the plant breeder could check the genome editing in a simple way. Cells are assayed for the presence of the reporter by directly measuring the enzymatic activity of the reporter protein on luciferin substrate. </p>
+
 
+
 
+
 
+
<p><b><u>Parts of the device</b></u></p>
+
 
+
<p>P35s : 5&rsquo; region : TARGET : Linker (+2) : LUC : Tnos</p>
+
 
+
 
+
 
+
<ul><li><b>P35s</b>: It is a strong constitutive promoter derived from cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV). It is widely used in plants to improve the level of the expression of foreign genes effectively in all tissues. </li>
+
 
+
</ul>
+
 
+
<ul><li><b>5&rsquo; region</b>: 5&rsquo; region from the <i>N. benthamiana</i> polyubiquitin sequence (Accession number: Nbv5.1tr6241949) is used due to its high expression rate in every plant tissue. It can help our gene to express itself and ensures that the construction is expressed. It contains BsmbI and BsaI recognition sites with AATG in 3&rsquo; as overhang that allows us to ligate with the amplified target.</li>
+
 
+
</ul>
+
 
+
<ul><li><b>Target</b>: Plant breeders will obtain the selected gene from their original plant by PCR amplification with the primers provided by our Data Processing Software. These primers are designed in order to obtain amplicons with the overhangs needed to insert the target in our device, corresponding to GoldenBraid grammar (prefix: AATG, suffix: TTCG). It&rsquo;s mandatory to make sure that this region doesn&rsquo;t contain any stop codon in frame +1, but neither in frame +2, so when an indel happens the reading frame will not be disrupted. The software finds the optimal target with its corresponding gRNA.</li>
+
 
+
</ul>
+
 
+
<ul><li><b>Linker SAGTI (Ser-Ala-Gly-Thr-Ile)</b>: it is a flexible peptide linker between the target and the luciferase, so it allows the luciferase to acquire the correct structure, avoiding interaction with the target. Thus, luciferase assay will be carried out in a successfully way. As it can be seen in the figure 1, the first part of the device is in ORF +1 whereas the luciferase is in ORF +2. The device is designed so that there is an extra nucleotide before the linker sequence to change the reading frame. If this nucleotide were after the linker sequence, when Cas9 cut, the reading frame of the linker would change, and the amino acids translated would not be the correct ones. Figure 1 shows how it will be translated after the indels.</li>
+
 
+
</ul>
+
 
+
 
+
 
+
<p>Figure 1. Device after endonuclease Cas9 cut and indels production. a) The extra nucleotide is located before the linker, so  when indels change the frame, the linker and the luciferase are in the correct ORF. b) The extra nucleotide is located after the linker. Thus linker&rsquo;s frame will be different from luciferase&rsquo;s one after indel occurs.</p>
+
 
+
<p>Luciferase: It is widely used as a reporter enzyme. At the beginning, luciferase gene is out of the reading frame due to the presence of an extra nucleotide. After CRISPR/Cas9 acts indels occur. These insertions and deletions of nucleotides produce a frameshift and change luciferase&rsquo;s frame in the right frame +1, so it will be correctly translated. In the experimental design, the first methionine has been removed just to prevent the unintended translation of the luciferase. Therefore appearance of false positives will be avoided.  </p>
+
 
+
 
+
 
+
<ul><li><b>Tnos</b>: Nopaline synthase terminator of the nopaline synthase gene of <i><i>Agrobacterium</i> tumefaciens</i>. It is used for gene transfection. </li>
+
 
+
</ul>
+
 
+
<p>The plant breeder will be provided with a pUPD2 vector with P35s:5&rsquo;region, another pUPD2 with linker:luciferase, and a pUPD2 ready to insert the target directly obtained from their plant variety. Using GoldenBraid assembly, the breeder will insert the target within the pUPD2. Afterwards, in a GoldenGate ligation reaction, all the parts of our device can be assembled, obtaining the complete gRNA testing system construction. Afterwards <i>A. tumefaciens</i> will be transformed with the obtained plasmid and it will be used to agroinfiltrate <i>N. benthamiana</i> leaves. Four days post infiltration, the breeder will be able to perform the luciferase assay. </p>
+
 
+
 
+
 
+
 
+
 
+
<p><b><u>Bibliography</b></u></p>
+
 
+
 
+
 
+
<ul><li>Biolabs, N.(2016).Measuring Targeting Efficiency with the T7 Endonuclease I Assay | NEB. (online) Neb.com. Available at: https://www.neb.com/applications/cloning-and-synthetic-biology/genome-editing/measuring-targeting-efficiency-with-the-t7-endonuclease-i-assay (Accessed 27 Jul. 2016).</li>
+
 
+
</ul>
+
 
+
<ul><li>Pauli, S., Rothnie, H., Chen, G., He, X. and Hohn, T. (2004). The Cauliflower Mosaic Virus 35S Promoter Extends into the Transcribed Region. Journal of Virology, 78(22), pp.12120-12128.</li>
+
 
+
</ul>
+
 
+
<ul><li>Guilley, H., Dudley, R., Jonard, G., Balàzs, E. and Richards, K. (1982). Transcription of cauliflower mosaic virus DNA: detection of promoter sequences, and characterization of transcripts. Cell, 30(3), pp.763-773.</li>
+
 
+
</ul>
+
 
+
<ul><li>Sefapps02.qut.edu.au. (2016). Benthamiana Atlas. (online) Available at: http://sefapps02.qut.edu.au/atlas/tREXXX2new.php?TrID=Nbv5.1tr6241949 (Accessed 27 Jul. 2016).</li>
+
 
+
</ul>
+
 
+
<ul><li>Chen, X., Zaro, J. and Shen, W. (2013). Fusion protein linkers: Property, design and functionality. Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews, 65(10), pp.1357-1369.</li>
+
 
+
</ul>
+
 
+
<ul><li>Holden, M., Levine, M., Scholdberg, T., Haynes, R. and Jenkins, G. (2009). The use of 35S and Tnos expression elements in the measurement of genetically engineered plant materials. Anal Bioanal Chem, 396(6), pp.2175-2187.</li>
+
 
+
 
+
 
+
    </p>
+
  </div>
+
  </body>
+
 
</html>
 
</html>
 +
{{:Team:Valencia_UPV/Templates:footerUPV}}

Latest revision as of 11:53, 19 October 2016

Abstract

The usage of autoreplicative vectors as vehicle for Cas9 delivery entails a set of benefits. Of all these advantages the most remarkable one is the possibility of removing any trace of foreign DNA sequences once the mutation has occurred. Unfortunately, autoreplicative vectors cannot store SpCas9 massive coding sequence.

Regarding the last point, we resolve to divide SpCas9 into two halves. This novel split-Cas9 strategy allows us to deliver CRISPR/Cas9 system inside plant cells through autoreplicative vectors.

The utilization of split-Cas9 strategy along with these autoreplicative vehicles emerges as a new and revolutionary plant breeding technique.

Plant genome editing with CRISPR/Cas9

CRISPR/Cas9 technology has emerged as a novel and revolutionary genome editing technique that surpass conventional and mutation plant breeding techniques in terms of versatility and easy RNA programming. Thus, allowing us to modify a specific trait from one crop in order to obtain a brand new variety of known genotype.

This targeted plant genome editing strategy has a great potential for crop improvement to meet the world’s growing demand for food and to provide sustainable productive agriculture system simultaneously (1).

Many genes from different plant species has been successfully modified since the first application of CRISPR/Cas9 was reported in plants (2, 3 and 4). Thus, sparking off a whole new way of understanding and carrying out crop improvement while offering a whole new world of possibilities when it comes to targeted plant genome editing (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1 Number of genes reported edited by CRISPR/Cas9 to date, by plant species (1).



The CRISPR/Cas9 system, as plant genome editing technology, is classified inside the New Plant Breeding Techniques (NPBTs). NPBTs are faster than traditional breeding methods and can produce a null segregant line that notably lacks the transgenic insert (5, 6, 7 and 8). The plants developed by NPBTs are identical to the classically bred plants since both carry with the desired mutation but not with any transgene.

Technical requirements

Plant genomic editing with CRISPR/Cas9 system is usually harnessed to obtain new allelic series by producing indels due to Non Homolougus End Joining (NHEJ) repair. In order to generate those mutations its two main components – a guide RNA and Cas9 endonuclease – must be delivered inside the cell.

The first and most employed delivery method for CRISPR/Cas9 in plants is Agrobacterium-based transformation, which introduces Cas9 and gRNA coding sequences directly into the plant genome (2, 3 and 4). Nevertheless, this delivery method has a major drawback since the introduction of new coding sequences implies the generation of transgenic plants, with all the social and legal issues that they entail. Although a segregant line without transgenes can be obtained the process is expensive and time-consuming. The generation of new plants requires a first step of transformation to introduce foreign DNA, and the subsequent steps of segregation and genotyping up to obtain a homozygous line (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2 The generation of transgene free genetically edited crops. Transgene free homozygous mutants with the desired mutation could be selected by selfing plants of the generation zero and segregating the transgene in the next generation (1).



In this context the viral delivery of genes arises as a new tool, faster and cheaper, for crop improvement. Moreover, its higher infection and expression ratios make this system the most suitable for CRISPR/Cas9 delivery (9, 10 and 11). On the other hand, it is possible to remove viral particles from the plant through thermal or chemical treatments in order to eliminate the foreign coding sequences. Unfortunately, these viral approaches are chiefly limited by the size of their nucleic acid cargo, especially with regard to spCas9 4.2 kb coding sequence.

Our solution

Bearing in mind the aforementioned advantages and drawbacks of CRISPR/Cas9 system and the possible delivery methods, and aiming to maximize mutation efficiency, viral systems would be the perfect delivery strategy.

Moreover, the delivery of Cas9 and gRNA through viral systems will prevent new developed varieties from transgenic related legal and social issues. That is due to the possibility of treating modified plants in order to eliminate viral particles and therefore removing Cas9 and gRNA coding sequence from plant cells.

Following this strategy we are able to obtain new transgene-free modified crops. Unfortunately it is impossible to employ viral vectors as Cas9 delivery system due to the endonuclease’s massive coding sequence. In order to bypass this problem we followed a strategy developed by Truong et al. (12).
This approach is based on the division of SpCas9 endonuclease into two parts and the addition of an intein moiety to each half in order to allow the reconstitution of the protein. Thus, shortening the length of the coding sequences and making possible their introduction into viral vectors. The site between Lys637 and Thr638 was chosen as split-site as described by Truong et al. (12). The split-intein-Cas9 system was created by choosing the site between Lys637 and Thr638 as split-site, while fusing NpuDnaE N-intein to the C-terminus of SpCas9 and NpuDnaE N-terminus was fused to the N-terminus of the endonuclease (Fig. 3).

(Fig. 3) Schematic of split-intein-cas9 strategy.


Human codon optimized SpCas9 version was chosen since it has been reported to have the highest yield in Nicotiana benthamiana (13). Moreover, NpuDnaE inteins from Heidelberg 2014 team intein library were chosen (Part:BBa_K1362400, [Part:BBa_K1362401 path: http://parts.igem.org/wiki/index.php?title=Part:BBa_K1362401]). Therefore, we did not only test the feasibility of split-intein-Cas9 strategy but also check the activity of the inteins our chassis Nicotiana benthamiana.
See Split-Cas9 results here

Superinfection exclusion

Once we resolved to insert SpCas9 in two different pieces inside two different vectors, the next challenge was to solve the superinfection exclusion problem. Superinfection exclusion is a phenomenon in which a preexisting viral infection prevents a secondary infection with the same or a closely related virus. The mechanisms that prevent the infection of a determined virus into a previously infected cell are only partially understood (14). As shown in Figure 4 when a leaf is coinfiltrated with two different Agrobacterium tumefasciens cultures carrying two different TMV vectors with two different fluorescent proteins (YFP and DsRed) a mosaic appeared. However, when a leaf is coinfiltrated with two different Agrobacterium tumefasciens cultures carrying a TMV vector and a PVX one with different fluorescent proteins all the cells expressed both proteins.

(Fig. 4) A) Mosaic produced by the coinfection of the leaf with two different Agrobacterium tumesfasciens with two different TMV vectors carrying YFP and DsRED. B) YFP signal is shown in the whole leaf due to the coinfection with TMV viral system carrying GFP and PVX. C) The same leaf as in B) presenting also DsRed on its whole surface due to the absence of superinfection exlcusion.



gRNA delivery

Since CRISPR/Cas9 system is composed by two main elements, guide RNA delivery must be also considered. Bearing that in mind, we propposed two different solutions based on the strategy described by Gao et al. (15) Therefore, we propose to flank gRNA transcript by Hammerhead and Hepatitis Delta Virus self‐cleaving ribozymes (Fig. 5) and insert it along with one of the two halves of the Split-Cas9 into the same vector or using a third viral vector that does not show superinfection exclusion with the other two.

(Fig. 5) Structure of the pre-gRNA containing a Hammerhead ribozyme at the 5’ end, and a HDV ribozyme at the 3’ end (15).



References:


1.Khatodia S, Bhatotia K, Passricha N, Khurana S, Tuteja N. The CRISPR/Cas Genome-Editing Tool: Application in Improvement of Crops. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2016;7.
2. Li J, Norville J, Aach J, McCormack M, Zhang D, Bush J et al. Multiplex and homologous recombination–mediated genome editing in Arabidopsis and Nicotiana benthamiana using guide RNA and Cas9. Nature Biotechnology. 2013;31(8):688-691.
3. Nekrasov V, Staskawicz B, Weigel D, Jones J, Kamoun S. Targeted mutagenesis in the model plant Nicotiana benthamiana using Cas9 RNA-guided endonuclease. Nature Biotechnology. 2013;31(8):691-693.
4. Shan Q, Wang Y, Li J, Zhang Y, Chen K, Liang Z et al. Targeted genome modification of crop plants using a CRISPR-Cas system. Nature Biotechnology. 2013;31(8):686-688.
5. Podevin N, Devos Y, Davies H, Nielsen K. Transgenic or not? No simple answer!. EMBO reports. 2012;13(12):1057-1061.
6. Araki MIshii T. Towards social acceptance of plant breeding by genome editing. Trends in Plant Science. 2015;20(3):145-149.
7. Schaart J, van de Wiel C, Lotz L, Smulders M. Opportunities for Products of New Plant Breeding Techniques. Trends in Plant Science. 2016;21(5):438-449.
8. Woo J, Kim J, Kwon S, Corvalán C, Cho S, Kim H et al. DNA-free genome editing in plants with preassembled CRISPR-Cas9 ribonucleoproteins. Nat Biotechnol. 2015;33(11):1162-1164.
9. Ali Z, Abul-faraj A, Piatek M, Mahfouz M. Activity and specificity of TRV-mediated gene editing in plants. Plant Signaling & Behavior. 2015;10(10):e1044191.
10. Baltes N, Hummel A, Konecna E, Cegan R, Bruns A, Bisaro D et al. Conferring resistance to geminiviruses with the CRISPR–Cas prokaryotic immune system. NPLANTS. 2015;1(10):15145.
11. Yin K, Han T, Liu G, Chen T, Wang Y, Yu A et al. A geminivirus-based guide RNA delivery system for CRISPR/Cas9 mediated plant genome editing. Sci Rep. 2015;5:14926.
12. Truong D, Kühner K, Kühn R, Werfel S, Engelhardt S, Wurst W et al. Development of an intein-mediated split–Cas9 system for gene therapy. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015;43(13):6450-6458.
13. Vazquez-Vilar M, Bernabé-Orts J, Fernandez-del-Carmen A, Ziarsolo P, Blanca J, Granell A et al. A modular toolbox for gRNA–Cas9 genome engineering in plants based on the GoldenBraid standard. Plant Methods. 2016;12(1).
14. Julve J, Gandía A, Fernández-del-Carmen A, Sarrion-Perdigones A, Castelijns B, Granell A et al. A coat-independent superinfection exclusion rapidly imposed in Nicotiana benthamiana cells by tobacco mosaic virus is not prevented by depletion of the movement protein. Plant Molecular Biology. 2013;81(6):553-564.
15. Gao YZhao Y. Self-processing of ribozyme-flanked RNAs into guide RNAsin vitro and in vivo for CRISPR-mediated genome editing. Journal of Integrative Plant Biology. 2014;56(4):343-349.

Sponsors