4.7 Article

Efficient, footprint-free human iPSC genome editing by consolidation of Cas9/CRISPR and piggyBac technologies

Journal

NATURE PROTOCOLS
Volume 12, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/nprot.2016.152

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Progenitor Cell Biology Consortium Jump Start award
  2. Barth Syndrome Foundation
  3. NIH Centers of Excellence in Genomic Sciences grant [P50 HG005550]
  4. [T32HL007572]
  5. [U01 HL100401]
  6. [R01 HL128694]
  7. NATIONAL HEART, LUNG, AND BLOOD INSTITUTE [T32HL007572, U01HL100401, R01HL128694] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  8. NATIONAL HUMAN GENOME RESEARCH INSTITUTE [RM1HG008525, P50HG005550] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  9. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF GENERAL MEDICAL SCIENCES [T32GM007753] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Genome editing of human induced pluripotent stem cells (hiPSCs) offers unprecedented opportunities for in vitro disease modeling and personalized cell replacement therapy. The introduction of Cas9-directed genome editing has expanded adoption of this approach. However, marker-free genome editing using standard protocols remains inefficient, yielding desired targeted alleles at a rate of similar to 1-5%. We developed a protocol based on a doxycycline-inducible Cas9 transgene carried on a piggyBac transposon to enable robust and highly efficient Cas9-directed genome editing, so that a parental line can be expeditiously engineered to harbor many separate mutations. Treatment with doxycycline and transfection with guide RNA (gRNA), donor DNA and piggyBac transposase resulted in efficient, targeted genome editing and concurrent scarless transgene excision. Using this approach, in 7 weeks it is possible to efficiently obtain genome-edited clones with minimal off-target mutagenesis and with indel mutation frequencies of 40-50% and homology-directed repair (HDR) frequencies of 10-20%.

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