Precise A·T to G·C Base Editing in the Rice Genome.
Kai Hua,Xiaoping Tao,Fengtong Yuan,Dong Wang,Jian-Kang Zhu
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molp.2018.02.007
IF: 27.5
2018-01-01
Molecular Plant
Abstract:Precise modification of eukaryotic genomes has been accomplished mainly through homology-directed repair (HDR) of DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) (Hess et al., 2017Hess G.T. Tycko J. Yao D. Bassik M.C. Methods and applications of CRISPR-mediated base editing in eukaryotic genomes.Mol. Cell. 2017; 68: 26-43Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (156) Google Scholar). However, the inherent low efficiency of homologous recombination and poor availability of exogenous donor DNA as repair templates strongly impede the use of HDR for precise genome editing in many species (Komor et al., 2017aKomor A.C. Badran A.H. Liu D.R. Editing the genome without double-stranded DNA breaks.ACS Chem. Biol. 2017; (Advance Access published September 28, 2017)https://doi.org/10.1021/acschembio.7b00710Crossref PubMed Scopus (67) Google Scholar). To complement the HDR method and circumvent some of its limitations, the recently developed base editing approach has enabled irreversible conversion of cytidine (C) to thymidine (T) (or guanine [G] to adenine [A]) at target loci without requiring DSB formation and HDR (Komor et al., 2016Komor A.C. Kim Y.B. Packer M.S. Zuris J.A. Liu D.R. Programmable editing of a target base in genomic DNA without double-stranded DNA cleavage.Nature. 2016; 533: 420-424Crossref PubMed Scopus (2385) Google Scholar, Nishida et al., 2016Nishida K. Arazoe T. Yachie N. Banno S. Kakimoto M. Tabata M. Mochizuki M. Miyabe A. Araki M. Hara K.Y. et al.Targeted nucleotide editing using hybrid prokaryotic and vertebrate adaptive immune systems.Science. 2016; 353 (pii: aaf8729)Crossref Scopus (63) Google Scholar). The most efficient base editor, BE3, consists of the cytidine deaminase APOBEC1 fused with a Cas9 nickase (nCas9(D10A)) and the uracil glycosylase inhibitor UGI that manipulates the DNA repair pathway (Komor et al., 2016Komor A.C. Kim Y.B. Packer M.S. Zuris J.A. Liu D.R. Programmable editing of a target base in genomic DNA without double-stranded DNA cleavage.Nature. 2016; 533: 420-424Crossref PubMed Scopus (2385) Google Scholar). BE3 efficiently converts C·G to T·A in a programmable manner in a wide range of species including plants (Hess et al., 2017Hess G.T. Tycko J. Yao D. Bassik M.C. Methods and applications of CRISPR-mediated base editing in eukaryotic genomes.Mol. Cell. 2017; 68: 26-43Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (156) Google Scholar, Li et al., 2017Li J. Sun Y. Du J. Zhao Y. Xia L. Generation of targeted point mutations in rice by a modified CRISPR/Cas9 system.Mol. Plant. 2017; 10: 526-529Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (198) Google Scholar, Lu and Zhu, 2017Lu Y. Zhu J.K. Precise editing of a target base in the rice genome using a modified CRISPR/Cas9 system.Mol. Plant. 2017; 10: 523-525Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (270) Google Scholar). This technology was improved significantly through engineering the cytidine deaminase and adding the bacteriophage Mu protein (Kim et al., 2017Kim Y.B. Komor A.C. Levy J.M. Packer M.S. Zhao K.T. Liu D.R. Increasing the genome-targeting scope and precision of base editing with engineered Cas9-cytidine deaminase fusions.Nat. Biotechnol. 2017; 35: 371-376Crossref PubMed Scopus (456) Google Scholar, Komor et al., 2017bKomor A.C. Zhao K.T. Packer M.S. Gaudelli N.M. Waterbury A.L. Koblan L.W. Kim Y.B. Badran A.H. Liu D.R. Improved base excision repair inhibition and bacteriophage Mu Gam protein yields C: G-to-T: a base editors with higher efficiency and product purity.Sci. Adv. 2017; 3: eaao4774Crossref PubMed Scopus (392) Google Scholar). Despite the high efficiency and precision of the cytidine deaminase-mediated C–T conversion, additional base editing tools are needed for increasing the versatility of the base editing technology. Recently, a new addition to the genomic base editing toolbox was developed by David R. Liu and his colleagues (Gaudelli et al., 2017Gaudelli N.M. Komor A.C. Rees H.A. Packer M.S. Badran A.H. Bryson D.I. Liu D.R. Programmable base editing of A·T to G·C in genomic DNA without DNA cleavage.Nature. 2017; 551: 464-471Crossref PubMed Scopus (1772) Google Scholar). Through seven rounds of extensive protein evolution based on bacterial tRNA adenine deaminase TadA, they produced a highly efficient adenine base editor, ABE7-10, which can use DNA as a substrate to convert A·T to G·C in a programmable manner. ABE7-10 works efficiently at multiple target sites in mammalian cells (Gaudelli et al., 2017Gaudelli N.M. Komor A.C. Rees H.A. Packer M.S. Badran A.H. Bryson D.I. Liu D.R. Programmable base editing of A·T to G·C in genomic DNA without DNA cleavage.Nature. 2017; 551: 464-471Crossref PubMed Scopus (1772) Google Scholar). However, it is unknown whether this laboratory-evolved protein functions in plants. In this study, we report the adoption of ABE7-10 to generate targeted A·T to G·C mutations in rice plants. We synthesized wild-type ecTadA and its mutant form ecTadA*7.10 and linked them together using a 32-amino-acid linker as reported by Gaudelli et al., 2017Gaudelli N.M. Komor A.C. Rees H.A. Packer M.S. Badran A.H. Bryson D.I. Liu D.R. Programmable base editing of A·T to G·C in genomic DNA without DNA cleavage.Nature. 2017; 551: 464-471Crossref PubMed Scopus (1772) Google Scholar. This recombinant protein was fused to the N terminus of the SpCas9(D10A) nickase with the same linker. A strong VirD2 nuclear localization signal was added to the C terminus of the SpCas9(D10A) nickase to form the plant ABE-P1 (adenine base editor plant version 1). Thereafter, ABE-P1 was cloned into a binary vector under the control of a maize ubiquitin promoter, and the binary vector also included a single guide RNA (sgRNA) driven by a rice U6 promoter, leading to the vector pRABEsp-OsU6 (Figure 1A). To test the editing effect of ABE-P1 in rice, we selected IPA1 (OsSPL14), a gene important for ideal plant architecture in rice, as a target (Figure 1B). Previous work showed that a point mutation in the OsmiR156 binding site of OsSPL14 perturbs OsmiR156-mediated cleavage of OsSPL14 transcripts, resulting in rice plants with an ideal architecture and enhanced grain yield (Jiao et al., 2010Jiao Y. Wang Y. Xue D. Wang J. Yan M. Liu G. Dong G. Zeng D. Lu Z. Zhu X. et al.Regulation of OsSPL14 by OsmiR156 defines ideal plant architecture in rice.Nat. Genet. 2010; 42: 541-544Crossref PubMed Scopus (945) Google Scholar). We designed an sgRNA (sgRNA1) that targets the OsmiR156 binding sequence in OsSPL14 (Figure 1B). This vector was introduced into the rice variety Nipponbare through Agrobacterium-mediated transformation, generating 23 independent transgenic lines. We amplified the target region by PCR and subjected the PCR products to Sanger sequencing. Based on our sequencing results, 6 out the 23 lines showed expected T–C substitutions at the target region, achieving an editing efficiency of 26% (6/23) (Figure 1H). Among these six lines, two lines (SG1-11 and SG1-21) harbored a T–C substitution at position 5 of the protospacer (scoring the protospacer adjacent motif [PAM] as positions 21–23), and two lines (SG1-10 and SG1-15) had T–C substitutions at positions 5 and 7, while the remaining two lines (SG1-7 and SG1-23) had T–C substitutions at positions 5 and 10 (Figure 1C and Supplemental Table 1). It seemed that the base editing window of ABE-P1 in rice is broader than ABE7-10 in mammalian cells, which has a four-nucleotide base editing window, from positions 4–7 of the protospacer sequence. We found that two lines (SG1-7 and SG1-23) were evenly edited at positions 5 and 10 in the protospacer sequence (Figure 1C and Supplemental Table 1). To confirm the Sanger sequencing results, we selected lines SG1-7 and SG1-15 for TA cloning. Twenty clones from each line were randomly selected for sequencing. Interestingly, we found that 11 clones from line SG1-7 harbored a T–C substitution at position 5 and nine clones had a T–C substitution at position 10 in the protospacer, suggesting that this line was a biallele (Supplemental Figure 1). For line SG1-15, only 15% (3/20) of the clones had T–C substitutions at positions 5 and 7 in the protospacer, indicating that this line was chimeric (Supplemental Figure 1). To evaluate the specificity of ABE7-10 in rice, we predicted potential off-target sites of sgRNA1 using the online tool CRISPR-GE (Xie et al., 2017Xie X. Ma X. Zhu Q. Zeng D. Li G. Liu Y.-G. CRISPR-GE: a convenient software toolkit for CRISPR-based genome editing.Mol. Plant. 2017; 10: 1246-1249Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (175) Google Scholar). Sequencing of the nine predicted potential off-target sites with mismatches to sgRNA1 ranging from one to five did not find any base editing events (Supplemental Table 2). This result indicated that the adenine base editing is highly specific in rice. To further test our adenine base editing system in rice, we targeted the SLR1 gene that encodes a DELLA protein, which acts as a repressor in the gibberellic acid (GA) signaling pathway (Ikeda et al., 2001Ikeda A. Ueguchi-Tanaka M. Sonoda Y. Kitano H. Koshioka M. Futsuhara Y. Matsuoka M. Yamaguchi J. slender rice, a constitutive gibberellin response mutant, is caused by a null mutation of the SLR1 gene, an ortholog of the height-regulating gene GAI/RGA/RHT/D8.Plant Cell. 2001; 13: 999-1010Crossref PubMed Scopus (587) Google Scholar). Previous studies showed that gain-of-function mutations in the DELLA and TVHYNP domains of SLR1 could block its GA-dependent degradation, making the plant dwarf (Asano et al., 2009Asano K. Hirano K. Ueguchi-Tanaka M. Angeles-Shim R.B. Komura T. Satoh H. Kitano H. Matsuoka M. Ashikari M. Isolation and characterization of dominant dwarf mutants, Slr1-d, in rice.Mol. Genet. Genomics. 2009; 281: 223-231Crossref PubMed Scopus (87) Google Scholar). We designed the second sgRNA (sgRNA2) targeting the TVHYNP domain of SLR1. T–C base editing at position 6 in the protospacer would cause a V92A substitution in the TVHYNP motif (Figure 1D). From the 40 transgenic lines we obtained, five had an expected T–C substitution at position 6 in the protospacer (Figure 1E and 1H; Supplemental Table 1). There was only one editable T in the base editing window, and we did not find any other mutations in the target locus. To test whether our system can simultaneously edit two or more sites in the rice genome, we designed the third sgRNA (sgRNAs3) that targets the OsmiR156 binding sites of OsSPL16 and OsSPL18 simultaneously (Supplemental Figure 2). In addition, one off-target site with 100% match to sgRNA3 was found in the intron of the LOC_Os02g24720 gene (Supplemental Figure 2). Therefore, sgRNA3 can simultaneously target three sites in the rice genome. We genotyped these three target sites in 21 transgenic lines. Four lines showed T–C substitutions in the target regions in OsSPL16 and/or OsSPL18. However, only one line harbored a T–C substitution in LOC_Os02g24720 (Figure 1H and Supplemental Figure 2). Interestingly, two lines (SG3-11 and SG3-12) were simultaneously edited at OsSPL16 and OsSPL18, demonstrating that our system can be multiplexed in rice (Supplemental Figure 2). In contrast to sgRNA1, only the T at position 7 within the base editing window was predominantly edited, although there were many Ts in the protospacer sequence (Supplemental Table 1). Efficient editing using the pRABEsp-OsU6 vector requires an NGG PAM sequence immediately downstream of the protospacer. This requirement limits the number of sites that can be edited by pRABEsp-OsU6 in the rice genome. To expand the scope of genomic targets of adenine base editing, we replaced the SpCas9(D10A) nickase and its sgRNA scaffold in the pRABEsp-OsU6 vector with the SaCas9(D10A) nickase and an sgRNA scaffold matching SaCas9. The resulting ABE-P2 in the pRABEsa-OsU6sa vector can recognize a different PAM sequence, NNGRRT (Figure 1A). To test the efficacy of pRABEsa-OsU6sa, we designed the fourth sgRNA (sgRNA4) that simultaneously targets the OsmiR156 binding sites of OsSPL14 and OsSPL17 (Figure 1F). Notably, although the PAM sequences are different, the protospacer sequence recognized by sgRNA4 overlaps with that of sgRNA1 in OsSPL14 (Figure 1F and 1B). From 31 transgenic rice lines that were genotyped, we found that 14 lines harbored T–C substitutions in the target site in OsSPL14 and 19 lines had T–C substitutions in the target site in OsSPL17. Thus the base editing efficiencies of pRABEsa-OsU6sa at the OsSPL14 and OsSPL17 target sites were 45.2% and 61.3%, respectively, which are higher than those of pRABEsp-OsU6 with sgRNA1 (Figure 1H). Importantly, 13 lines (41.9%) were simultaneously edited at both target sites (Supplemental Table 3). Furthermore, the base editing window of ABE-P2 was broader than that of ABE-P1, perhaps due to greater strand exposure to the adenine deaminase during R-loop complex formation induced by SaCas9(D10A). Even Ts at positions 12 and 14 (scoring the PAM as positions 22–27) were edited with high frequency at both target sites (Supplemental Table 3). To evaluate the off-target editing of pRABEsa-OsU6sa, we amplified and sequenced potential off-target sites with mismatches to sgRNA4 ranging from two to five. We did not find any forms of mutations at these sites, indicating that pRABEsa-OsU6sa is also highly specific in rice (Supplemental Table 4). Besides sgRNA4, we designed another sgRNA (sgRNA5) for pRABEsa-OsU6sa that simultaneously targets the OsmiR156 binding sites of OsSPL16 and OsSPL18 (Supplemental Figure 3). The editing efficiency of sgRNA5 was lower than that of sgRNA4. Only 17% (8/47) of the transgenic rice lines harbored T–C substitutions at the target site in OsSPL16 and 23.4% (11/47) of the lines were edited at the target site in OsSPL18 (Supplemental Figure 3). It is noteworthy that 14.6% (6/47) of the lines were edited at both sites, confirming that pRABEsa-OsU6sa can also be used for multiplex adenine base editing in rice (Supplemental Table 3). In summary, we have successfully developed adenine base editors in rice, which greatly broaden the genome engineering toolkit for plants. The adenine base editors described here can efficiently and specifically convert target A·T to G·C in a programmable manner. Importantly, we did not find any indels or other base transition or transversion mutations in the target sites or potential off-target sites in our study. These characteristics make adenine base editing outperform of the cytidine deaminase-mediated C–T editing and HDR-mediated sequence substitution. Moreover, we demonstrated that our adenine base editors can be used for multiplex base editing with high efficiency. Thus, multiple genes controlling different agronomic traits can be edited simultaneously in the future. Taken together, the adenine base editors described here together with other genome engineering tools will help advance precision molecular breeding of crops. This research was supported by the Chinese Academy of Sciences.