4.7 Article

A Cell-Based Optimised Approach for Rapid and Efficient Gene Editing of Human Pluripotent Stem Cells

Journal

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms241210266

Keywords

stem cells; gene editing; TALEN; CRISPR-Cas9; ?F508; W1282X; cystic fibrosis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introducing or correcting disease-causing mutations in human pluripotent stem cells followed by tissue-specific differentiation provides sustainable models of multiorgan diseases. However, low editing efficiency and the need for specialised equipment make hPSC genome editing challenging. In this study, a combination of methods including cell cycle synchronisation, single-stranded oligodeoxyribonucleotides, manual clonal isolation, and rapid screening improved the generation of correctly modified hPSCs with up to 10% efficiency within 3-6 weeks.
Introducing or correcting disease-causing mutations through genome editing in human pluripotent stem cells (hPSCs) followed by tissue-specific differentiation provide sustainable models of multiorgan diseases, such as cystic fibrosis (CF). However, low editing efficiency resulting in extended cell culture periods and the use of specialised equipment for fluorescence activated cell sorting (FACS) make hPSC genome editing still challenging. We aimed to investigate whether a combination of cell cycle synchronisation, single-stranded oligodeoxyribonucleotides, transient selection, manual clonal isolation, and rapid screening can improve the generation of correctly modified hPSCs. Here, we introduced the most common CF mutation, ?F508, into the CFTR gene, using TALENs into hPSCs, and corrected the W1282X mutation using CRISPR-Cas9, in human-induced PSCs. This relatively simple method achieved up to 10% efficiency without the need for FACS, generating heterozygous and homozygous gene edited hPSCs within 3-6 weeks in order to understand genetic determinants of disease and precision medicine.

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