基因组编辑对酿酒酵母DNA的损伤作用及修复响应
作者:
基金项目:

国家自然科学基金(31700077);天津市自然科学基金(16JCYBJC43100)


DNA lesions and repair response caused by genome editing in Saccharomyces cerevisiae
Author:
  • 摘要
  • | |
  • 访问统计
  • |
  • 参考文献 [34]
  • |
  • 相似文献 [20]
  • | | |
  • 文章评论
    摘要:

    [目的] 为了研究基因组编辑工具CRISPR/Cas9和CRISPR/Cpf1所产生的DNA双链断裂(DNA double strand break,DSB)对酿酒酵母DNA的损伤作用及修复响应情况,对比化学物质甲基磺酸甲酯(methyl methanesulfonate,MMS)对酿酒酵母基因组DNA的损伤和修复,阐明编辑细胞在细胞水平和转录水平上的变化。[方法] 起始细胞分为两种情况,包括未进行细胞周期同步化和被α-因子同步化细胞周期至G0/G1期。检测CRISPR/Cas9和CRISPR/Cpf1处理后编辑细胞的生长情况。利用流式细胞术检测编辑细胞的细胞周期延滞的情况。利用荧光定量PCR检测编辑细胞和MMS处理细胞后DNA损伤响应关键基因转录表达水平的变化情况。[结果] 起始细胞无论是未同步化还是同步化,其生长均受到基因组编辑抑制,细胞存活率降低,细胞周期被滞留在G2/M期,而MMS处理导致细胞周期S期的滞留。此外,随编辑时间的延长,突变率增加,细胞存活率降低。CRISPR/Cpf1编辑细胞的突变率和存活率均低于CRISPR/Cas9,由此可见,CRISPR/Cpf1对细胞的损伤强度高于CRISPR/Cas9。两种编辑均诱导酵母DNA损伤响应关键基因RNR3HUG1转录水平显著上调,并且CRISPR/Cpf1介导的上调幅度大于CRISPR/Cas9,但两者均低于MMS的处理。[结论] 本研究解析了CRISPR/Cas9和CRISPR/Cpf1介导的基因组编辑在细胞水平和转录水平上对DNA损伤作用及修复响应,初步揭示了酿酒酵母应对不同类型的DSB损伤时响应程度的差异,为提高基因组编辑工具的编辑能力和评估基因编辑安全性提供了重要依据。

    Abstract:

    [Objective] To investigate DNA lesions and repair response caused by the DNA double strand break (DSB) generated by the genome editing tools including CRISPR/Cas9 and CRISPR/Cpf1 in Saccharomyces cerevisiae, we used the damage and repair of S. cerevisiae genomic DNA caused by a chemical substance methyl methane sulfonate (MMS) as a comparison and elucidated the changes of edited cells at the cellular and transcriptional levels. [Methods] Initial cells were divided into two situations, including unsynchronized cell cycle and synchronized cell cycle to G0/G1 phase by α-factor. We measured the growth profiles of CRISPR/Cas9-and CRISPR/Cpf1-mediated edited cells. We employed flow cytometry to detect the arrested cell cycle of edited cells. We used Real-time PCR to quantify the transcriptional expression changes of key genes involved in DNA damage response in edited cells and MMS-treated cells. [Results] Growth of initial cells, which were either unsynchronized or synchronized cell cycle by α-factor, were inhibited by genome editing. Cell viabilities of edited cells decreased, and the cell cycles were arrested at the G2/M phase. Furthermore, along with the prolongation of editing time, mutation efficiency of edited cells increased while cell viabilities decreased. The mutation efficiency and viabilities of CRISPR/Cpf1 edited cells were lower than those of CRISPR/Cas9, and thus the damage induced by CRISPR/Cpf1 was stronger than that of CRISPR/Cas9. Both these two editing tools induced significantly up-regulated transcriptional expressions of RNR3 and HUG1, which are key genes involved in DNA damage response in yeast. Additionally, the extent of CRISPR/Cpf1-mediated up-regulation was higher than that of CRISPR/Cas9, but both were lower than MMS treatment. [Conclusion] This study analyzed DNA lesions and repair response caused by CRISPR/Cas9-and CRISPR/Cpf1-mediated genome editing at the cellular and transcriptional levels, and preliminarily revealed the divergent extents of S. cerevisiae in response to different DSBs, thus providing an important guidance for improving the editing capacity and estimating the safety of genome editing.

    参考文献
    [1] Komor AC, Badran AH, Liu DR. CRISPR-based technologies for the manipulation of eukaryotic genomes. Cell, 2017, 168(1/2):20-36.
    [2] Lemos BR, Kaplan AC, Bae JE, Ferrazzoli AE, Kuo J, Anand RP, Waterman DP, Haber JE. CRISPR/Cas9 cleavages in budding yeast reveal templated insertions and strand-specific insertion/deletion profiles. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2018, 115(9):E2040-E2047.
    [3] Zetsche B, Gootenberg JS, Abudayyeh OO, Slaymaker IM, Makarova KS, Essletzbichler P, Volz SE, Joung J, van der Oost J, Regev A, Koonin EV, Zhang F. Cpf1 is a single RNA-guided endonuclease of a class 2 CRISPR-Cas system. Cell, 2015, 163(3):759-771.
    [4] Jakočiūnas T, Jensen MK, Keasling JD. CRISPR/Cas9 advances engineering of microbial cell factories. Metabolic Engineering, 2016, 34:44-59.
    [5] Stovicek V, Holkenbrink C, Borodina I. CRISPR/Cas system for yeast genome engineering:advances and applications. FEMS Yeast Research, 2017, 17(5), doi:10.1093/femsyr/fox030.
    [6] Giersch RM, Finnigan GC. Yeast still a beast:diverse applications of CRISPR/Cas editing technology in S. cerevisiae. Yale Journal Biology and Medicine, 2017, 90(4):643-651.
    [7] Lian JZ, HamediRad M, Zhao HM. Advancing metabolic engineering of Saccharomyces cerevisiae using the CRISPR/Cas system. Biotechnology Journal, 2018, 13(9):e1700601.
    [8] Doench JG, Fusi N, Sullender M, Hegde M, Vaimberg EW, Donovan KF, Smith I, Tothova Z, Wilen C, Orchard R, Virgin HW, Listgarten J, Root DE. Optimized sgRNA design to maximize activity and minimize off-target effects of CRISPR-Cas9. Nature Biotechnology, 2016, 34(2):184-191.
    [9] Hubbard BP, Badran AH, Zuris JA, Guilinger JP, Davis KM, Chen LW, Tsai SQ, Sander JD, Joung JK, Liu DR. Continuous directed evolution of DNA-binding proteins to improve TALEN specificity. Nature Methods, 2015, 12(10):939-942.
    [10] Xu S, Cao SS, Zou BJ, Yue YY, Gu C, Chen X, Wang P, Dong XH, Xiang Z, Li K, Zhu MS, Zhao QS, Zhou GH. An alternative novel tool for DNA editing without target sequence limitation:the structure-guided nuclease. Genome Biology, 2016, 17(1):186.
    [11] Haapaniemi E, Botla S, Persson J, Schmierer B, Taipale J. CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing induces a p53-mediated DNA damage response. Nature Medicine, 2018, 24(7):927-930.
    [12] Ihry RJ, Worringer KA, Salick MR, FriasE, HoD, Theriault K, Kommineni S, Chen J, Sondey M, Ye C, Randhawa R, Kulkarni T, Yang Z, McAllister G, Russ C, Reece-Hoyes J, Forrester W, Hoffman GR, Dolmetsch R, Kaykas A. p53 inhibits CRISPR-Cas9 engineering in human pluripotent stem cells. Nature Medicine, 2018, 24(7):939-946.
    [13] McKinney JS, Sethi S, Tripp JD, Nguyen TN, Sanderson BA, Westmoreland JW, Resnick MA, Lewis LK. A multistep genomic screen identifies new genes required for repair of DNA double-strand breaks in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. BMC Genomics, 2013, 14:251.
    [14] Finn K, Lowndes NF, Grenon M. Eukaryotic DNA damage checkpoint activation in response to double-strand breaks. Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences, 2012, 69(9):1447-1473.
    [15] Zhu CW, Shi J. Research of morphogenesis checkpoint in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genomics and Applied Biology, 2016, 35(5):1177-1182. (in Chinese)祝嫦巍, 史钧. 酿酒酵母形态变化检验点的研究进展. 基因组学与应用生物学, 2016, 35(5):1177-1182.
    [16] Zhou CS, Elia AEH, Naylor ML, Dephoure N, Ballif BA, Goel G, Xu QK, Ng A, Chou DM, Xavier RJ, Gygi SP, Elledge SJ. Profiling DNA damage-induced phosphorylation in budding yeast reveals diverse signaling networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2016, 113(26):E3667-E3675.
    [17] 王震. 酿酒酵母基因组多样性突变工程及耐高温基因组变异研究. 中国科学院大学博士学位论文, 2019.
    [18] Christianson TW, Sikorski RS, Dante M, Shero JH, Hieter P. Multifunctional yeast high-copy-number shuttle vectors. Gene, 1992, 110(1):119-122.
    [19] Ryan OW, Skerker JM, Maurer MJ, Li X, Tsai JC, Poddar S, Lee ME, DeLoache W, Dueber JE, Arkin AP, Cate JHD. Selection of chromosomal DNA libraries using a multiplex CRISPR system. eLife, 2014, 3:e03703.
    [20] Zhang GQ, Lin YP, Qi XN, Li L, Wang QH, Ma YH. TALENs-assisted multiplex editing for accelerated genome evolution to improve yeast phenotypes. ACS Synthetic Biology, 2015, 4(10):1101-1111.
    [21] Frit P, Barboule N, Yuan Y, Gomez D, Calsou P. Alternative end-joining pathway(s):bricolage at DNA breaks. DNA Repair, 2014, 17:81-97.
    [22] Rosebrock AP. Synchronization and arrest of the budding yeast cell cycle using chemical and genetic methods. Cold Spring Harbor Protocols, 2017, 2017(1), doi:10.1101/pdb.prot088724.
    [23] Chen H, Donnianni RA, Handa N, Deng SK, Oh J, Timashev LA, Kowalczykowski SC, Symington LS. Sae2 promotes DNA damage resistance by removing the Mre11-Rad50-Xrs2 complex from DNA and attenuating Rad53 signaling. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2015, 112(15):E1880-E1887.
    [24] Fortuna M, Sousa MJ, Côrte-Real M, Leão C, Salvador A, Sansonetty F. Cell cycle analysis of yeasts. Current Protocols in Cytometry, 2000, 13(1):11.13.1-11.13.9.
    [25] Livak KJ, Schmittgen TD. Analysis of relative gene expression data using real-time quantitative PCR and the 2-ΔΔCt method. Methods, 2001, 25(4):402-408.
    [26] Huertas P, Cortés-Ledesma F, Sartori AA, Aguilera A, Jackson SP. CDK targets Sae2 to control DNA-end resection and homologous recombination. Nature, 2008, 455(7213):689-692.
    [27] Dotiwala F, Haase J, Arbel-Eden A, Bloom K, Haber JE. The yeast DNA damage checkpoint proteins control a cytoplasmic response to DNA damage. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2007, 104(27):11358-11363.
    [28] Delobel P, Tesnière C. A simple FCM method to avoid misinterpretation in Saccharomyces cerevisiae cell cycle assessment between G0 and sub-G1. PLoS ONE, 2014, 9(1):e84645.
    [29] Fu Y, Pastushok L, Xiao W. DNA damage-induced gene expression in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. FEMS Microbiology Reviews, 2008, 32(6):908-926.
    [30] Ainsworth WB, Hughes BT, Au WC, Sakelaris S, Kerscher O, Benton MG, Basrai MA. Cytoplasmic localization of Hug1p, a negative regulator of the MEC1 pathway, coincides with the compartmentalization of Rnr2p-Rnr4p. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, 2013, 439(4):443-448.
    [31] Yagle K, McEntee K. The DNA damage-inducible gene DIN1 of Saccharomyces cerevisiae encodes a regulatory subunit of ribonucleotide reductase and is identical to RNR3. Molecular and Cellular Biology, 1990, 10(10):5553-5557.
    [32] Minard LV. Chromatin regulation by histone chaperone Asf1. Doctor Dissertation of University of Alberta, 2010.
    [33] Lee MW, Kim BJ, Choi HK, Ryu MJ, Kim SB, Kang KM, Cho EJ, Youn HD, Huh WK, Kim ST. Global protein expression profiling of budding yeast in response to DNA damage. Yeast, 2007, 24(3):145-154.
    [34] Grenon M, Magill CP, Lowndes NF, Jackson SP. Double-strand breaks trigger MRX-and Mec1-dependent, but Tel1-independent, checkpoint activation. FEMS Yeast Research, 2006, 6(5):836-847.
    引证文献
    网友评论
    网友评论
    分享到微博
    发 布
引用本文

张首,王震,蔺玉萍,戎倩倩,王丽贤,齐显尼,刘浩,王钦宏. 基因组编辑对酿酒酵母DNA的损伤作用及修复响应[J]. 微生物学报, 2020, 60(7): 1384-1400

复制
分享
文章指标
  • 点击次数:930
  • 下载次数: 1706
  • HTML阅读次数: 2572
  • 引用次数: 0
历史
  • 收稿日期:2019-09-18
  • 最后修改日期:2019-12-03
  • 在线发布日期: 2020-07-01
文章二维码