Skip to main content
bioRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search
Contradictory Results

Template plasmid integration in germline genome-edited cattle

View ORCID ProfileAlexis L. Norris, View ORCID ProfileStella S. Lee, Kevin J. Greenlees, Daniel A. Tadesse, Mayumi F. Miller, Heather Lombardi
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/715482
Alexis L. Norris
1Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, MD 20855
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Alexis L. Norris
Stella S. Lee
1Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, MD 20855
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Stella S. Lee
Kevin J. Greenlees
1Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, MD 20855
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Daniel A. Tadesse
1Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, MD 20855
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mayumi F. Miller
1Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, MD 20855
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Heather Lombardi
1Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, MD 20855
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: Heather.Lombardi@fda.hhs.gov
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Supplementary material
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

We analyzed publicly available whole genome sequencing data from cattle which were germline genome-edited to introduce polledness. Our analysis discovered the unintended heterozygous integration of the plasmid and a second copy of the repair template sequence, at the target site. Our finding underscores the importance of employing screening methods suited to reliably detect the unintended integration of plasmids and multiple template copies.

Article

As genome editing technology evolves, so does our understanding of the unintended alterations it produces, both in form and frequency. Several sequencing-based methods have been developed to screen for off-target errors (GUIDE-Seq1, SITE-Seq2, CIRCLE-Seq3, DISCOVER-Seq4), and long-read sequencing of the target site can be used to detect on-target errors. Each screening approach carries assumptions and biases that may allow alterations of unexpected types to go undetected. Recent examples of previously unexpected alterations are complex genomic rearrangements at or near the target site in mammalian genome editing experiments5, 6. The complex rearrangements included insertions, deletions, inversions, and translocations that were difficult to detect by standard PCR and DNA sequencing methods.

In this study, we analyzed the target site of publicly-available whole genome sequencing data7 from genome-edited calves to confirm the intended edit and to screen for potentially undetected on-target errors (Supplementary Methods). The calves were genome-edited7, using transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALENs) and a repair template for homology-directed repair (HDR)8, to introduce the Celtic polled allele (Pc), a variant that produces the hornlessness (polled) trait in cattle. The Pc variant, common in some cattle breeds9, is a 212-bp duplication in place of a 10-bp sequence in an intergenic region on chromosome 1 (chr1:2,429,000-2,429,500; bosTau9). The variant follows an autosomal dominant inheritance, but the mechanism underlying the association with polled trait is unknown.

Given that the repair template plasmid was delivered in the pCR2.1-TOPO plasmid (Fig. 1a), we included the plasmid backbone sequence in our comparison of the sequencing reads with the bovine reference genome. In our analysis, we discovered the presence of the full-length plasmid backbone in both genome-edited calves (Supplemental Fig. 1). While one allele contained the intended edit, identical to the naturally-occurring Pc variant (Fig. 1b), close inspection revealed integration of the plasmid and a second copy of the repair template sequence at the target site in the other allele in both calves (Fig. 1c). The plasmid-containing allele (denoted Pc*) was found to have been inserted continuous with the template ends, producing a duplication of the template and two novel bovine-plasmid junctions (Supplemental Fig. 2). No off-target insertions of the plasmid or the template were detected.

Fig. 1:
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Fig. 1: Template plasmid integration at the target site of genome-edited calves.

Genomic structure of the template plasmid (a), unedited parental cell lines (b), and the genome-edited calves (c). (a) The repair template, containing the Pc sequence and flanking homology arms, is inserted in the pCR2.1 plasmid in an antisense orientation at the TOPO cloning site. (b) The unedited parental cell lines are homozygous for HORNED. (a) The genome-edited calves are heterozygous: one chromosome contains the intended edit (Pc), while the other chromosome harbors template plasmid integration, in addition to the intended edit.

Previously, the template plasmid integration was not detected7. Probable reasons include: the plasmid backbone was not included in the sequence alignment, elevated noise at the target locus, limited signal of the sequencing data, and PCR conditions insensitive to detect the integrations. The noise was elevated due to the complex sequence context that obscured the integration: (1) the Pc variant itself is a duplication of the reference sequence (HORNED allele) in place of a 10-bp sequence, and (2) the target locus is highly repetitive, potentially masking rearrangements. The signal is limited by the sequencing depth of 20 reads for each DNA base, on average. In an ideal scenario, heterozygosity would result in 10 reads identifying the plasmid insertion but given that the plasmid DNA sequence is not in the reference genome, the plasmid reads would remain unmapped. The template plasmid integration was not detected by PCR genotyping7 due to the following: (1) the expected PCR amplicons, correctly sized for the Pc variant (212-bp duplication in place of a 10-bp sequence), were produced, (2) the primers were not designed to amplify the plasmid, (3) the amplicons produced by the template plasmid integration were prohibitively large, and (4) the qualitative nature of the assay was insensitive to the increased number of template copies (Supplementary Methods, Supplemental Fig. 3, and Supplemental Table 1).

Next, we performed a literature search of template plasmid integration at the target site in genome editing experiments, to determine the prevalence of this class of unintended alterations. We found that while there are reports, the template plasmid integration is often not a major finding, and thus we suspect that the integration errors are under reported or overlooked. Template plasmid integration events are known to occur with zinc finger nucleases (ZFNs) at both the target and off-target sites10, 11. Using HEK-293 cells, Olsen, et al.10 showed that transfection of plasmid alone resulted in plasmid integration at a rate of 28×10−5 per cell; the addition of one ZFN increased the frequency to 55×10−5 per cell and two ZFNs further increased the frequency to 99×10−5 per cell. Work by Dickinson et al.12, using CRISPR/Cas9 with a template plasmid in C. elegans, reported the integration of a second copy of the template at the target site. Additional publications using CRISPR/Cas9 with double stranded DNA (dsDNA) repair templates showed that the dsDNA templates can form multimers that integrate into the target site in fish13 and mice14.

Our discovery highlights a potential blind spot in standard genome editing screening methods. In light of our finding, we propose modifications to current screening methods to enable detection of plasmid integration and integration of multiple template copies. The alignment of sequencing data should include both the reference genome and plasmid sequences. PCR genotyping should incorporate plasmid-specific primers. Methods to detect increased copies of the template and unintended integration of the template plasmid include long-range PCR conditions, quantitative PCR (e.g., digital droplet PCR), Southern blot, and long-read sequencing (e.g., Nanopore, PacBio). The application of suitable screening methods will provide a more precise measure of the prevalence of template plasmid integration events and drive improvements to genome editing, to the benefit of the field.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge Recombinetics, Inc. for generating the animals and sharing the sequencing data through NCBI SRA. We appreciate Drs. Alison Van Eenennaam, C. Titus Brown, and Tamer Mansour for helpful discussions concerning our discovery of the template plasmid integration. We thank Drs. Mike Mikhailov and Fu-Jyh Luo for technical expertise, as well as Drs. Harlan Howard, Andrew Fidler, and Kelly Underwood for veterinary expertise.

Footnotes

  • Competing Financial Interests: The authors declare no competing financial interests.

  • https://trace.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Traces/sra/?study=SRP072240

References

  1. 1.↵
    Tsai, S.Q. et al. GUIDE-seq enables genome-wide profiling of off-target cleavage by CRISPR-Cas nucleases. Nat Biotechnol 33, 187–197 (2015).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    Cameron, P. et al. Mapping the genomic landscape of CRISPR-Cas9 cleavage. Nat Methods 14, 600–606 (2017).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    Tsai, S.Q. et al. CIRCLE-seq: a highly sensitive in vitro screen for genome-wide CRISPR-Cas9 nuclease off-targets. Nat Methods 14, 607–614 (2017).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    Wienert, B. et al. Unbiased detection of CRISPR off-targets in vivo using DISCOVER-Seq. Science 364, 286–289 (2019).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    Shin, H.Y. et al. CRISPR/Cas9 targeting events cause complex deletions and insertions at 17 sites in the mouse genome. Nat Commun 8, 15464 (2017).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    Kosicki, M., Tomberg, K. & Bradley, A. Repair of double-strand breaks induced by CRISPR-Cas9 leads to large deletions and complex rearrangements. Nat Biotechnol 36, 765–771 (2018).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    Carlson, D.F. et al. Production of hornless dairy cattle from genome-edited cell lines. Nat Biotechnol 34, 479–481 (2016).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    Tan, W. et al. Efficient nonmeiotic allele introgression in livestock using custom endonucleases. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 110, 16526–16531 (2013).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    Medugorac, I. et al. Bovine polledness--an autosomal dominant trait with allelic heterogeneity. PLoS One 7, e39477 (2012).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    Olsen, P.A., Gelazauskaite, M., Randol, M. & Krauss, S. Analysis of illegitimate genomic integration mediated by zinc-finger nucleases: implications for specificity of targeted gene correction. BMC Mol Biol 11, 35 (2010).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    Radecke, S., Radecke, F., Cathomen, T. & Schwarz, K. Zinc-finger nuclease-induced gene repair with oligodeoxynucleotides: wanted and unwanted target locus modifications. Mol Ther 18, 743–753 (2010).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  12. 12.↵
    Dickinson, D.J., Ward, J.D., Reiner, D.J. & Goldstein, B. Engineering the Caenorhabditis elegans genome using Cas9-triggered homologous recombination. Nat Methods 10, 1028–1034 (2013).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  13. 13.↵
    Gutierrez-Triana, J.A. et al. Efficient single-copy HDR by 5’ modified long dsDNA donors. Elife 7 (2018).
  14. 14.↵
    Skryabin, B.V., Gubar, L., Seeger, B., Kaiser, H., Stegemann, A., Roth, J., Meuth, S. G., Pavenstädt, H., Sherwood, J., Pap, T., Wedlich-Söldner, R., Sunderkötter, C., Schwartz, Y.B., Brosius, J., Rozhdestvensky, T. S. Pervasive head-to-tail insertions of DNA templates mask desired CRISPR/Cas9-mediated genome editing events. Preprint at: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/570739v1 (2019).
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted July 28, 2019.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about bioRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Template plasmid integration in germline genome-edited cattle
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from bioRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the bioRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Template plasmid integration in germline genome-edited cattle
Alexis L. Norris, Stella S. Lee, Kevin J. Greenlees, Daniel A. Tadesse, Mayumi F. Miller, Heather Lombardi
bioRxiv 715482; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/715482
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Template plasmid integration in germline genome-edited cattle
Alexis L. Norris, Stella S. Lee, Kevin J. Greenlees, Daniel A. Tadesse, Mayumi F. Miller, Heather Lombardi
bioRxiv 715482; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/715482

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Genomics
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Animal Behavior and Cognition (4845)
  • Biochemistry (10777)
  • Bioengineering (8034)
  • Bioinformatics (27256)
  • Biophysics (13964)
  • Cancer Biology (11111)
  • Cell Biology (16026)
  • Clinical Trials (138)
  • Developmental Biology (8772)
  • Ecology (13269)
  • Epidemiology (2067)
  • Evolutionary Biology (17342)
  • Genetics (11679)
  • Genomics (15904)
  • Immunology (11013)
  • Microbiology (26044)
  • Molecular Biology (10627)
  • Neuroscience (56464)
  • Paleontology (417)
  • Pathology (1729)
  • Pharmacology and Toxicology (2999)
  • Physiology (4539)
  • Plant Biology (9614)
  • Scientific Communication and Education (1613)
  • Synthetic Biology (2683)
  • Systems Biology (6968)
  • Zoology (1508)