Review. Development, Applications, Benefits, Challenges and Limitations of the New Genome Engineering Technique. An Update Study

Crauciuc, Andrei; Tripon, Florin; Gheorghiu, Andreea; Nemes, Georgiana; Boglis, Alina; Banescu, Claudia

doi:10.1515/amma-2017-0007

Abstract

We assume that the CRISPR Cas9 theory must be delimited by applicability, because the consequences of long term DNA manipulation remain unknown. Moreover, the irreversibility of this procedure should instigate researchers to reserved opinions.

Usefulness as well as benefits of CRISPR Cas9 made it one of the most popular and used genome editing technique. But with its huge potential, ethical and safety concerns emerge. Therefore, before continuing research in this direction we should have a well organized system that is able to make that differentiation between research and reproduction. However we truly believe in the future of genetic engineering and with the CRISPR-Cas9 system we expect that the opportunity of treating now so called incurable diseases arises. Time is all we need.

References

1. Yang GK, Jooyen C, Srinivasan C. Hybrid restriction enzymes: Zinc finger fusions to Fok I cleavage domain. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1996;93:1156-1160.10.1073/pnas.93.3.1156400488577732
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
2. Carroll D, Charo RA. The societal opportunities and challenges of genome editing. Genome Biology. 2015;16(1):1-9.10.1186/s13059-015-0812-0463474026537374
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
3. Xue HY, Ji LJ, Gao AM, Liu P, He JD, Lu XJ. CRISPR-Cas9 for medical genetic screens: applications and future perspectives. J Med Genet. 2016;53:91-97.10.1136/jmedgenet-2015-10340926673779
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
4. Ishino Y, Shinagawa H, Makino K, Amemura M, Nakata A. Nucleotide sequence of the iap gene, responsible for alkaline phosphatase isozyme conversion in Escherichia coli, and identification of the gene product. J Bacteriol. 1987;169:5429-5433.10.1128/jb.169.12.5429-5433.19872139683316184
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
5. Makarova SK, Haft DH, Barrangou R. Evolution and classification of the CRISPR-Cas systems. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2011;9:467-477.10.1038/nrmicro2577338044421552286
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
6. Jinek M, Chylinski K, Fonfara I, Hauer M, Doudna JA, Charpentier E. A programmable dual-RNA-guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity. Science. 2012;337(6096):816-821.10.1126/science.1225829628614822745249
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
7. Lokody I. Correcting genetic defects with CRISPR-Cas9. Nat Rev Genet. 2014; 15:63.10.1038/nrg365624342922
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
8. Burgess JD. In vivo correction of genetic disease in adult mice. Nat Rev Genet. 2014; 15:291.10.1038/nrg3731
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
9. Burgess JD. Technology: A CRISPR genome-editing tool. Nat Rev Genet. 2013;14: 80-81.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
10. Blake W, Esther VD, Jelle BB, el al. RNA-guided complex from a bacterial immune system enhances target recognition through seed sequence interactions. PNAS. 2011;108(25): 10092-10097.10.1073/pnas.1102716108312184921536913
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
11. Josiane EG, Marie-E`ve D, Manuela V, et al. The CRISPR/Cas bacterial immune system cleaves bacteriophage and plasmid DNA. Nature. 2010;468: 67-72.10.1038/nature0952321048762
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
12. Davis AJ, Chen DJ. DNA double strand break repair via non-homologous end-joining. Transl Cancer Res. 2013;2(3):130-143.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
13. Ledford H. Alternative CRISPR system could improve genome editing. Nature. 2015; 526:17.10.1038/nature.2015.1843226432219
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
14. Bernd Z, Jonathan SG, Omar OA. Cpf1 Is a Single RNA-Guided Endonuclease of a Class 2 CRISPR-Cas System. Cell. 2015;163(3):759-771.10.1016/j.cell.2015.09.038463822026422227
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
15. Lander ES. The Heroes of CRISPR. Cell. 2016;164(1-2):18-28.10.1016/j.cell.2015.12.04126771483
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
16. CRISPR-Cpf1 May Outsnip CRISPR-Cas9. GEN News Highlights. http://www.genengnews.com/gen-news-highlights/crispr-cpf1-mayoutsnip-crispr-cas9/81251791/. [ accessed 26.Feb.2015].
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
17. Scientists discover new system for human genome editing with potential to increase power and precision of genome engineering. Broadinstitute News. https://www.broadinstitute.org/news/7272. [accessed 23.Feb.2016].
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
18. Yui S, Nakamura T, Sato T, et al. Functional engraftment of colon epithelium expanded in vitro from a single adult Lgr5+ stem cell. Nat Med. 2012;18, 618-623.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
19. Gerald S, Koo BK, Sasselli V. Functional Repair of CFTR by CRISPR/ Cas9 in Intestinal Stem Cell Organoids of Cystic Fibrosis Patients. Cell. 2013;13(6): 653-658.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
20. Patrick DH, Eric SL. Development and Applications of CRISPR-Cas9 for Genome Engineering. Cell. 2014;157(6): 1262-1278.10.1016/j.cell.2014.05.010434319824906146
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
21. U.S National Library of Medicine. Huntington disease. Genetic Home Reference. https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/huntington-disease. 3 May 2016. [accessed 10.04.2016].
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
22. U.S National Library of Medicine. HTT Huntington. Genetic Home Reference. https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/gene/HTT. 3 May 2016. [accessed 10.04.2016].
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
23. Bae S, Kweon J, Kim HS, Kim JS. Microhomology-based choice of Cas9 nuclease target sites. Nat Methods. 2014;11(7):705-706.10.1038/nmeth.301524972169
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
24. Li HL, Gee P, Ishida K, Hotta A. Efficient genomic correction methods in human iPS cells using CRISPR-Cas9 system. Methods. 2015;101:27-35.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
25. Rajat M, Kiran M. Expanding the genetic editing tool kit: ZNFs, TALENs and CRISPR-Cas 9. The Journal of Clinical Investigation. 2014;124(10):4154-4161.10.1172/JCI72992419104725271723
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
26. Sara R, Federica U, Melanie H,et al. CDKL5 ensures excitatory synapse stability by reinforcing NGL-1-PSD95 interaction in the postsynaptic compartment and is impaired in patient iPSC-derived neurons. Nat. Cell Biol. 2012;14: 911-923.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
27. Brennand KJ, Simone A, Jou J et al. Modelling schizophrenia using human induced pluripotent stem cells. Nature 2012;473: 221-225.10.1038/nature09915339296921490598
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
28. Kannan R, Ventura A. The CRISPR revolution and its impact on cancer research. Swiss Med Wkly. 2015;145:w14230.10.4414/smw.2015.14230551243226661454
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
29. Wen WS, Yuan ZM, Ma SJ, Xu J, Yuan DT. Crispr-cas9 systems: versatile cancer modelling platforms and promising therapeutic strategies. Int J Cancer. 2016;138:6;1328-1336.10.1002/ijc.2962626044706
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
30. Randall J, Sidi C, Yang Z, et al. CRISPR-Cas9 knockin mice for genome editing and cancer modeling. Cell 2014;159;440-455.10.1016/j.cell.2014.09.014426547525263330
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
31. Hu Z, Yu L, Zhu D, et al. Disruption of HPV16-E7 by CRISPR/Cas System Induces Apoptosis and Growth Inhibition in HPV16 Positive Human Cervical Cancer Cells. Biomed Res Int. 2014; Article ID:612823.10.1155/2014/612823412725225136604
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
32. Tang L, Jacson KS, Zhihong L, Edwin C, Francis JH, Zhenfeng D. Development and potential applications of CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing technology in sarcoma. Cancer Letters. 2016;373(1):109-118.10.1016/j.canlet.2016.01.030477267526806808
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
33. Wen WS, Yuan ZY, Ma SJ, Xu J, Yuan DT. CRISPR-Cas9 systems: versatile cancer modelling platforms and promising therapeutic strategies. Int J Cancer. 2016;138(6):1328-36.10.1002/ijc.2962626044706
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
34. Zhen S, Takahashi Y, Narita S, Yang YC, Li X. Targeted delivery of CRISPR/Cas9 to prostate cancer by modified gRNA using a flexible aptamer-cationic liposome.Oncotarget. 2016. DOI: 10.18632/ oncotarget.14072.10.18632/oncotarget.14072535473828030843
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
35. Kim E, Hurtz C, Koehrer S, et al. Ibrutinib inhibits pre-BCR+ B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia progression by targeting BTK and BLK. Blood. 2016. doi.org/10.1182/blood-2016-06-722900.10.1182/blood-2016-06-722900537473228031181
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
36. Huibin T, Joseph BS. CRISPR/Cas-mediated genome editing to treat EGFR-mutant lung cancer: a personalized molecular surgical therapy. EMBO. 2016;8(2):83-85.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
37. Xun LX, Leqiang S, Teng Y, et al. A CRISPR/Cas9 and Cre/Lox systembased express vaccine development strategy against reemerging Pseudorabies virus. Sci Rep. 2016; 6:19176.10.1038/srep19176472603626777545
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
38. Money of the genes: CRISPR attracts a lot of investors. News & Tips. 2016. http://allcompanies.website/2016/01/25/money-of-the-genescrispr-attracts-a-lot-of-investors/. [accesed 13.02.2016].
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
39. Wang G, Zhao N, Berkhout B, Das AT, et al. A Combinatorial CRISPRCas9 Attack on HIV-1 DNA Extinguishes All Infectious Provirus in Infected T Cell Cultures. Cell Rep. 2016;17(11):2819-2826.10.1016/j.celrep.2016.11.05727974196
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
40. Edward AP, Ryan BP, Benjamin JF, Jeffrey SG, Aijaz A, Robert GG. Future Therapy for Hepatitis B Virus: Role of Immunomodulators. Curr Hepatol Rep. 2016;15(4):237-244.10.1007/s11901-016-0315-9511229427917363
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
41. Zhengyan F, Botao Z, Wona D, et al. Efficient genome editing in plants using a CRISPR/Cas system. Cell Res. 2013; 23:1229-1232.10.1038/cr.2013.114379023523958582
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
42. Mercx S, Tollet J, Magy B, Navarre C, Boutry M. Gene Inactivation by CRISPR-Cas9 in Nicotiana tabacum BY-2 Suspension Cell. Front Plant Sci. 7:40. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2016.00040 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.00040. [accesed 01.02.2016].
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
43. Lombardo L, Coppola G, Zelasco S. New Technologies for Insect-Resistant and Herbicide-Tolerant Plants. Trends Biotechnol. 2016;34(1):49-57.10.1016/j.tibtech.2015.10.00626620971
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
44. Ain QU, Chung JY, Kim JH. Current and future delivery systems for engineered nucleases: ZFN, TALEN and RGEN. J Control Release. 2015;205:120-127.10.1016/j.jconrel.2014.12.03625553825
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
45. Bing S, Liz HM, Yi G, Ying P. The Rise of CRISPR/Cas for Genome Editing in Stem Cells. Stem Cells Int. 2016;Volume 2016:17 pages. Article ID 8140168: doi:10.1155/2016/8140168.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
46. Cho S W, Kim S, Kim Y, et al. Analysis of off-target effects of CRISPR/ Cas-derived RNA-guided endonucleases and nickases. Genome Res. 2014; 24:132-141.10.1101/gr.162339.113387585424253446
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
47. Tang L, Jacson KS, Zhihong L, Edwin C, Francis JH, Zhenfeng D. Development and potential applications of CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing technology in sarcoma. Cancer Lett. 2016;373(1):109-118.10.1016/j.canlet.2016.01.030477267526806808
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
48. Slaymaker IM, Gao L, Zetsche B, Scott DA, Yan WX, Zhang F. Rationally engineered Cas9 nucleases with improved specificity. Science. 2016;351(6268):84-88.10.1126/science.aad5227471494626628643
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
49. Julie S, Jonathan W, David G. Opposition mounts to genetic modification of human embryos. http://mobile.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSKBN0TK33F20151201. [accesed 10.02.2016].
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
50. Puping L, Yanwen X, Xiya Z et al. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing in human tripronuclear zygotes. Protein & Cell. 2015; 6(5):363-372.10.1007/s13238-015-0153-5441767425894090
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
51. Xue W, Chen S, Yin H, et al. CRISPR-mediated direct mutation of cancer genes in the mouse liver. Nature. 2014;514:380-384.10.1038/nature13589419993725119044
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
52. Platt RJ, Chen S, Zhou Y, et al. CRISPR-Cas9 knockin mice for genome editing and cancer modeling. Cell. 2014:159(2):440-450.10.1016/j.cell.2014.09.014426547525263330
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
53. Lu XJ, Qi X, Zheng DH, Ji LJ. Modeling cancer processes with CRISPRCas9. Trends Biotechnol. 2015;33:317-319.10.1016/j.tibtech.2015.03.00725908505
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
54. Katerine S, Michael B, Annelien B, et al. CRISPR germline engineering - the community speaks. Nature Biotechnology. 2015; 33:478-486.10.1038/nbt.322725965754
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
55. Ewen C. UK scientists gain licence to edit genes in human embryos. Nature. 2016;530,18-19.10.1038/nature.2016.1927026842037
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
56. Yanfang F, Jennifer AF, Cyd K. High frequency off-target mutagenesis induced by CRISPR-Cas nucleases in human cells. Nat Biotechnol. 2013;31(9):822-826.10.1038/nbt.2623377302323792628
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
57. Roni A. UNESCO panel of experts calls for ban on “editing” of human DNA to avoid unethical tampering with hereditary traits. UNESCO Media Service. 10 May 2016.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article

Review. Development, Applications, Benefits, Challenges and Limitations of the New Genome Engineering Technique. An Update Study

Abstract

Paradigm

My account