» Articles » PMID: 38200865

Optimising Electroporation Condition for CRISPR/Cas-Mediated Knockout in Zona-Intact Buffalo Zygotes

Overview
Journal Animals (Basel)
Date 2024 Jan 11
PMID 38200865
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Somatic cell nuclear transfer or cytoplasm microinjection has widely been used to produce genome-edited farm animals; however, these methods have several drawbacks which reduce their efficiency. In the present study, we describe an easy adaptable approach for the introduction of mutations using CRISPR-Cas9 electroporation of zygote (CRISPR-EP) in buffalo. The goal of the study was to determine the optimal conditions for an experimental method in which the CRISPR/Cas9 system is introduced into in vitro-produced buffalo zygotes by electroporation. Electroporation was performed using different combinations of voltage, pulse and time, and we observed that the electroporation in buffalo zygote at 20 V/mm, 5 pulses, 3 msec at 10 h post insemination (hpi) resulted in increased membrane permeability and higher knockout efficiency without altering embryonic developmental potential. Using the above parameters, we targeted buffalo POU5F1 gene as a proof of concept and found no variations in embryonic developmental competence at cleavage or blastocyst formation rate between control, POU5F1-KO, and electroporated control (EC) embryos. To elucidate the effect of POU5F1-KO on other pluripotent genes, we determined the relative expression of SOX2, NANOG, and GATA2 in the control (POU5F1 intact) and POU5F1-KO-confirmed blastocyst. POU5F1-KO significantly ( ≤ 0.05) altered the expression of SOX2, NANOG, and GATA2 in blastocyst stage embryos. In conclusion, we standardized an easy and straightforward protocol CRISPR-EP method that could be served as a useful method for studying the functional genomics of buffalo embryos.

Citing Articles

Comparison Between Electroporation at Different Voltage Levels and Microinjection to Generate Porcine Embryos with Multiple Xenoantigen Knock-Outs.

Fernandez J, Petersen B, Hassel P, Lucas Hahn A, Kielau P, Geibel J Int J Mol Sci. 2024; 25(22).

PMID: 39595965 PMC: 11593736. DOI: 10.3390/ijms252211894.


Gene editing in livestock: innovations and applications.

Rodriguez-Villamil P, Beaton B, Krisher R Anim Reprod. 2024; 21(3):e20240054.

PMID: 39372257 PMC: 11452096. DOI: 10.1590/1984-3143-AR2024-0054.


CRISPR-mediated editing of β-lactoglobulin (BLG) gene in buffalo.

Tara A, Singh P, Gautam D, Tripathi G, Uppal C, Malhotra S Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):14822.

PMID: 38937564 PMC: 11211398. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-65359-9.

References
1.
Modzelewski A, Chen S, Willis B, Lloyd K, Wood J, He L . Efficient mouse genome engineering by CRISPR-EZ technology. Nat Protoc. 2018; 13(6):1253-1274. PMC: 6296855. DOI: 10.1038/nprot.2018.012. View

2.
Haeussler M, Schonig K, Eckert H, Eschstruth A, Mianne J, Renaud J . Evaluation of off-target and on-target scoring algorithms and integration into the guide RNA selection tool CRISPOR. Genome Biol. 2016; 17(1):148. PMC: 4934014. DOI: 10.1186/s13059-016-1012-2. View

3.
Yang X, Smith S, Tian X, Lewin H, Renard J, Wakayama T . Nuclear reprogramming of cloned embryos and its implications for therapeutic cloning. Nat Genet. 2007; 39(3):295-302. DOI: 10.1038/ng1973. View

4.
Wu Y, Guo Z, Liu Y, Tang B, Wang Y, Yang L . Oct4 and the small molecule inhibitor, SC1, regulates Tet2 expression in mouse embryonic stem cells. Mol Biol Rep. 2012; 40(4):2897-906. DOI: 10.1007/s11033-012-2305-5. View

5.
Dua S, Bansal S, Gautam D, Jose B, Singh P, Singh M . Production of Gene-Edited Embryos of Buffalo Using the CRISPR/Cas9 System and SCNT. Cell Reprogram. 2023; 25(3):121-127. DOI: 10.1089/cell.2023.0003. View