4.7 Article

Highly Efficient and Marker-free Genome Editing of Human Pluripotent Stem Cells by CRISPR-Cas9 RNP and AAV6 Donor-Mediated Homologous Recombination

Journal

CELL STEM CELL
Volume 24, Issue 5, Pages 821-+

Publisher

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.stem.2019.04.001

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NRSA (NIH National Research Services Award) institutional predoctoral training (T32) grant
  2. institutional NIH postdoctoral T32 hematology training grant
  3. Danish Council for Independent Research, Medical Sciences [DFF-1333-00106B, DFF-1331-00735B]
  4. Amon Carter Foundation
  5. Taube Program in Neurodegenerative Research
  6. Children's Health Research Institute at Stanford
  7. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG)
  8. Laurie Kraus Lacob Translational Scholar Fund

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Genome editing of human pluripotent stem cells (hPSCs) provides powerful opportunities for in vitro disease modeling, drug discovery, and personalized stem cell-based therapeutics. Currently, only small edits can be engineered with high frequency, while larger modifications suffer from low efficiency and a resultant need for selection markers. Here, we describemarker-free genome editing in hPSCs using Cas9 ribonucleoproteins (RNPs) in combination with AAV6-mediated DNA repair template delivery. We report highly efficient and bi-allelic integration frequencies across multiple loci and hPSC lines, achieving mono-allelic editing frequencies of up to 94% at the HBB locus. Using this method, we show robust bi-allelic correction of homozygous sickle cell mutations in a patient-derived induced PSC (iPSC) line. Thus, this strategy shows significant utility for generating hPSCs with large gene integrations and/or single-nucleotide changes at high frequency and without the need for introducing selection genes, enhancing the applicability of hPSC editing for research and translational uses.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available