4.5 Article

Highly efficient neuronal gene knockout in vivo by CRISPR-Cas9 via neonatal intracerebroventricular injection of AAV in mice

期刊

GENE THERAPY
卷 28, 期 10-11, 页码 646-658

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41434-021-00224-2

关键词

-

资金

  1. Biogen Inc.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

CRISPR-Cas systems have been utilized as a powerful tool for generating genetic models to study the central nervous system, achieving successful targeted gene disruption in neurons. By optimizing key parameters and RNA design, high efficiency gene knockout rates have been achieved, contributing valuable insights for both fundamental and preclinical research.
CRISPR-Cas systems have emerged as a powerful tool to generate genetic models for studying normal and diseased central nervous system (CNS). Targeted gene disruption at specific loci has been demonstrated successfully in non-dividing neurons. Despite its simplicity, high specificity and low cost, the efficiency of CRISPR-mediated knockout in vivo can be substantially impacted by many parameters. Here, we used CRISPR-Cas9 to disrupt the neuronal-specific gene, NeuN, and optimized key parameters to achieve effective gene knockout broadly in the CNS in postnatal mice. Three cell lines and two primary neuron cultures were used to validate the disruption of NeuN by single-guide RNAs (sgRNA) harboring distinct spacers and scaffold sequences. This triage identified an optimal sgRNA design with the highest NeuN disruption in in vitro and in vivo systems. To enhance CRISPR efficiency, AAV-PHP.B, a vector with superior neuronal transduction, was used to deliver this sgRNA in Cas9 mice via neonatal intracerebroventricular (ICV) injection. This approach resulted in 99.4% biallelic indels rate in the transduced cells, leading to greater than 70% reduction of total NeuN proteins in the cortex, hippocampus and spinal cord. This work contributes to the optimization of CRISPR-mediated knockout and will be beneficial for fundamental and preclinical research.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据