4.7 Article

Activities and specificities of CRISPR/Cas9 and Cas12a nucleases for targeted mutagenesis in maize

期刊

PLANT BIOTECHNOLOGY JOURNAL
卷 17, 期 2, 页码 362-372

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/pbi.12982

关键词

Cas12a (Cpf1); CIRCLE-seq; CRISPR/Cas; genome editing; off-target; Zea mays

资金

  1. Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grant from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture [2016-06247]
  2. University of Maryland
  3. Natural Sciences and Engineering Council of Canada (NSERC) Banting Postdoctoral Fellowship
  4. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [K99CA218870]
  5. Desmond and Ann Heathwood MGH Research Scholar Award

向作者/读者索取更多资源

CRISPR/Cas9 and Cas12a (Cpf1) nucleases are two of the most powerful genome editing tools in plants. In this work, we compared their activities by targeting maize glossy2 gene coding region that has overlapping sequences recognized by both nucleases. We introduced constructs carrying SpCas9-guide RNA (gRNA) and LbCas12a-CRISPR RNA (crRNA) into maize inbred B104 embryos using Agrobacterium-mediated transformation. On-target mutation analysis showed that 90%-100% of the Cas9-edited T0 plants carried indel mutations and 63%-77% of them were homozygous or biallelic mutants. In contrast, 0%-60% of Cas12a-edited T0 plants had on-target mutations. We then conducted CIRCLE-seq analysis to identify genome-wide potential off-target sites for Cas9. A total of 18 and 67 potential off-targets were identified for the two gRNAs, respectively, with an average of five mismatches compared to the target sites. Sequencing analysis of a selected subset of the off-target sites revealed no detectable level of mutations in the T1 plants, which constitutively express Cas9 nuclease and gRNAs. In conclusion, our results suggest that the CRISPR/Cas9 system used in this study is highly efficient and specific for genome editing in maize, while CRISPR/Cas12a needs further optimization for improved editing efficiency.

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

4.7
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