Chemically-inducible CRISPR/Cas9 circuits for ultra-high dynamic range gene perturbation

1. Vakulskas, C. A. & Behlke, M. A. Evaluation and reduction of CRISPR off-target cleavage events. Nucleic Acid Ther. 29, 167–174 (2019).

   Google Scholar 

2. Shin, J. et al. Disabling Cas9 by an anti-CRISPR DNA mimic. Sci. Adv. 3, e1701620 (2017).

   Google Scholar 

3. Dow, L. E. et al. Inducible in vivo genome editing with CRISPR-Cas9. Nat. Biotechnol. 33, 390–394 (2015).

   Google Scholar 

4. van den Berg, J. et al. A limited number of double-strand DNA breaks is sufficient to delay cell cycle progression. Nucleic Acids Res. 46, 10132–10144 (2018).

   Google Scholar 

5. Lundin, A. et al. Development of an ObLiGaRe Doxycycline Inducible Cas9 system for pre-clinical cancer drug discovery. Nat. Commun. 11, 4903 (2020).

   Google Scholar 

6. Park, S. B. et al. A dual conditional CRISPR-Cas9 system to activate gene editing and reduce off-target effects in human stem cells. Mol. Ther. Nucleic Acids 28, 656–669 (2022).

   Google Scholar 

7. Noviello, G., Gjaltema, R. A. F. & Schulz, E. G. CasTuner is a degron and CRISPR/Cas-based toolkit for analog tuning of endogenous gene expression. Nat. Commun. 14, 3225 (2023).

   Google Scholar 

8. Senturk, S. et al. Rapid and tunable method to temporally control gene editing based on conditional Cas9 stabilization. Nat. Commun. 8, 14370 (2017).

   Google Scholar 

9. Kleinjan, D. A., Wardrope, C., Nga Sou, S. & Rosser, S. J. Drug-tunable multidimensional synthetic gene control using inducible degron-tagged dCas9 effectors. Nat. Commun. 8, 1191 (2017).

   Google Scholar 

10. Zetsche, B., Volz, S. E. & Zhang, F. A split-Cas9 architecture for inducible genome editing and transcription modulation. Nat. Biotechnol. 33, 139–142 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

11. Davis, K. M., Pattanayak, V., Thompson, D. B., Zuris, J. A. & Liu, D. R. Small molecule-triggered Cas9 protein with improved genome-editing specificity. Nat. Chem. Biol. 11, 316–318 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

12. Lu, J. et al. Multimode drug inducible CRISPR/Cas9 devices for transcriptional activation and genome editing. Nucleic Acids Res. 46, e25 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

13. Liu, K. I. et al. A chemical-inducible CRISPR-Cas9 system for rapid control of genome editing. Nat. Chem. Biol. 12, 980–987 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

14. Sun, N. et al. Development of drug-inducible CRISPR-Cas9 systems for large-scale functional screening. BMC Genomics 20, 225 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

15. Aubrey, B. J. et al. An inducible lentiviral guide RNA platform enables the identification of tumor-essential genes and tumor-promoting mutations in vivo. Cell Rep. 10, 1422–1432 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

16. Liu, Z. et al. Systematic comparison of 2A peptides for cloning multi-genes in a polycistronic vector. Sci. Rep. 7, 2193 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

17. Banaszynski, L. A., Chen, L.-C., Maynard-Smith, L. A., Ooi, A. G. L. & Wandless, T. J. A Rapid, reversible, and tunable method to regulate protein function in living cells using synthetic small molecules. Cell 126, 995–1004 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

18. Iwamoto, M., Björklund, T., Lundberg, C., Kirik, D. & Wandless, T. J. A general chemical method to regulate protein stability in the mammalian central nervous system. Chem. Biol. 17, 981–988 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

19. Nakamura, M. et al. Anti-CRISPR-mediated control of gene editing and synthetic circuits in eukaryotic cells. Nat. Commun. 10, 194 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

20. Kraus, C. & Sontheimer, E. J. Applications of anti-CRISPR proteins in genome editing and biotechnology. J. Mol. Biol. 435, 168120 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

21. Davidson, A. R. et al. Anti-CRISPRs: Protein inhibitors of CRISPR-Cas systems. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 89, 309–332 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

22. Yang, H. & Patel, D. J. Inhibition mechanism of an anti-CRISPR suppressor AcrIIA4 targeting SpyCas9. Mol. Cell 67, 117–127.e5 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

23. Nabet, B. et al. The dTAG system for immediate and target-specific protein degradation. Nat. Chem. Biol. 14, 431–441 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

24. Nabet, B. et al. Rapid and direct control of target protein levels with VHL-recruiting dTAG molecules. Nat. Commun. 11, 4687 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

25. Bonger, K. M., Chen, L.-C., Liu, C. W. & Wandless, T. J. Small-molecule displacement of a cryptic degron causes conditional protein degradation. Nat. Chem. Biol. 7, 531–537 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

26. Monteys, A. M. et al. Regulated control of gene therapies by drug-induced splicing. Nature 596, 291–295 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

27. Pantazis, C. B. et al. A reference human induced pluripotent stem cell line for large-scale collaborative studies. Cell Stem Cell 29, 1685–1702.e22 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

28. Dobner, J. et al. Mitochondrial DNA integrity and metabolome profile are preserved in the human induced pluripotent stem cell reference line KOLF2.1J. Stem Cell Rep. 19, 343–350 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

29. Kim, E. & Hart, T. Improved analysis of CRISPR fitness screens and reduced off-target effects with the BAGEL2 gene essentiality classifier. Genome Med 13, 2 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

30. Takai, N., Hamanaka, R., Yoshimatsu, J. & Miyakawa, I. Polo-like kinases (Plks) and cancer. Oncogene 24, 287–291 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

31. Gutteridge, R. E. A., Ndiaye, M. A., Liu, X. & Ahmad, N. Plk1 inhibitors in cancer therapy: from laboratory to clinics. Mol. Cancer Ther. 15, 1427–1435 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

32. Esposito, R. et al. Hacking the cancer genome: Profiling therapeutically actionable long non-coding RNAs using CRISPR-Cas9 screening. Cancer Cell 35, 545–557 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

33. Diao, Y. et al. A tiling-deletion-based genetic screen for cis-regulatory element identification in mammalian cells. Nat. Methods 14, 629–635 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

34. Deniz, Ö et al. Endogenous retroviruses are a source of enhancers with oncogenic potential in acute myeloid leukaemia. Nat. Commun. 11, 3506 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

35. Vitiello, M. & Poliseno, L. CRISPR/Cas technologies applied to pseudogenes. Methods Mol. Biol. 2324, 265–284 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

36. Xiao, M.-S. et al. Genome-scale exon perturbation screens uncover exons critical for cell fitness. Mol. Cell 84, 2553–2572.e19 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

37. Klein, R. H. & Knoepfler, P. S. Knockout tales: the versatile roles of histone H3.3 in development and disease. Epigenetics Chromatin 16, 38 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

38. Wells, D. & Kedes, L. Structure of a human histone cDNA: evidence that basally expressed histone genes have intervening sequences and encode polyadenylylated mRNAs. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 82, 2834–2838 (1985).

    Google Scholar 

39. Wells, D., Hoffman, D. & Kedes, L. Unusual structure, evolutionary conservation of non-coding sequences and numerous pseudogenes characterize the human H3.3 histone multigene family. Nucleic Acids Res. 15, 2871–2889 (1987).

    Google Scholar 

40. Moullan, N. et al. Tetracyclines disturb mitochondrial function across eukaryotic models: a call for caution in biomedical research. Cell Rep. 10, 1681–1691 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

41. Chatzispyrou, I. A., Held, N. M., Mouchiroud, L., Auwerx, J. & Houtkooper, R. H. Tetracycline antibiotics impair mitochondrial function and its experimental use confounds research. Cancer Res. 75, 4446–4449 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

42. Teixeira, A. P. & Fussenegger, M. Synthetic gene circuits for regulation of next-generation cell-based therapeutics. Adv. Sci. (Weinh.) 11, e2309088 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

43. Jusiak, B., Cleto, S., Perez-Piñera, P. & Lu, T. K. Engineering synthetic gene circuits in living cells with CRISPR technology. Trends Biotechnol. 34, 535–547 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

44. Singh, V. Recent advances and opportunities in synthetic logic gates engineering in living cells. Syst. Synth. Biol. 8, 271–282 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

45. Maji, B. et al. Multidimensional chemical control of CRISPR–Cas9. Nat. Chem. Biol. 13, 9–11 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

46. Khajanchi, N. & Saha, K. Controlling CRISPR with small molecule regulation for somatic cell genome editing. Mol. Ther. 30, 17–31 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

47. Qin, J. Y. et al. Systematic comparison of constitutive promoters and the doxycycline-inducible promoter. PLoS ONE 5, e10611 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

48. Norrman, K. et al. Quantitative comparison of constitutive promoters in human ES cells. PLoS ONE 5, e12413 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

49. Mizuguchi, H., Xu, Z., Ishii-Watabe, A., Uchida, E. & Hayakawa, T. IRES-dependent second gene expression is significantly lower than cap-dependent first gene expression in a bicistronic vector. Mol. Ther. 1, 376–382 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

50. Doench, J. G. Am I ready for CRISPR? A user’s guide to genetic screens. Nat. Rev. Genet. 19, 67–80 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

51. Gilbert, L. A. et al. CRISPR-mediated modular RNA-guided regulation of transcription in eukaryotes. Cell 154, 442–451 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

52. Qi, L. S. et al. Repurposing CRISPR as an RNA-guided platform for sequence-specific control of gene expression. Cell 152, 1173–1183 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

53. Replogle, J. M. et al. Maximizing CRISPRi efficacy and accessibility with dual-sgRNA libraries and optimal effectors. Elife 11, e81856 (2022).

54. Alerasool, N., Segal, D., Lee, H. & Taipale, M. An efficient KRAB domain for CRISPRi applications in human cells. Nat. Methods 17, 1093–1096 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

55. Edenhofer, F. C. et al. Generation and characterization of inducible KRAB-dCas9 iPSCs from primates for cross-species CRISPRi. iScience 27, 110090 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

56. Han, J. L., Heinson, Y. W., Chua, C. J., Liu, W. & Entcheva, E. CRISPRi gene modulation and all-optical electrophysiology in post-differentiated human iPSC-cardiomyocytes. bioRxivorg (2023) https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.05.07.539756.

57. Nguyen, D. P. et al. Ligand-binding domains of nuclear receptors facilitate tight control of split CRISPR activity. Nat. Commun. 7, 12009 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

58. Das, A. T., Tenenbaum, L. & Berkhout, B. Tet-on systems for doxycycline-inducible gene expression. Curr. Gene Ther. 16, 156–167 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

59. Kis, Z., Pereira, H. S., Homma, T., Pedrigi, R. M. & Krams, R. Mammalian synthetic biology: emerging medical applications. J. R. Soc. Interface 12, 20141000 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

60. De Boeck, J. & Verfaillie, C. Doxycycline inducible overexpression systems: how to induce your gene of interest without inducing misinterpretations. Mol. Biol. Cell 32, 1517–1522 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

61. Chi, Y. et al. A compact, versatile drug-induced splicing switch system with minimal background expression. Cell Rep. Methods 4, 100842 (2024).

62. Ishigami, Y. et al. Specificity, synergy, and mechanisms of splice-modifying drugs. Nat. Commun. 15, 1880 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

63. Ding, L. et al. DNA methylation-independent long-term epigenetic silencing with dCRISPR/Cas9 fusion proteins. Life Sci. Alliance 5, e202101321 (2022).

64. Wang, J. Y. & Doudna, J. A. CRISPR technology: a decade of genome editing is only the beginning. Science 379, eadd8643 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

65. Mercer, J. A. M. et al. Continuous evolution of compact protein degradation tags regulated by selective molecular glues. Science 383, eadk4422 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

66. Wu, T. et al. Targeted protein degradation as a powerful research tool in basic biology and drug target discovery. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 27, 605–614 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

67. Madderson, O., Teixeira, A. P. & Fussenegger, M. Emerging mammalian gene switches for controlling implantable cell therapies. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 64, 98–105 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

68. Mathur, M., Xiang, J. S. & Smolke, C. D. Mammalian synthetic biology for studying the cell. J. Cell Biol. 216, 73–82 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

69. Stieger, K., Belbellaa, B., Le Guiner, C., Moullier, P. & Rolling, F. In vivo gene regulation using tetracycline-regulatable systems. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 61, 527–541 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

70. Keller, C. G. et al. An orally available, brain penetrant, small molecule lowers huntingtin levels by enhancing pseudoexon inclusion. Nat. Commun. 13, 1150 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

71. Auffenberg, E. et al. Remote and reversible inhibition of neurons and circuits by small molecule induced potassium channel stabilization. Sci. Rep. 6, 19293 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

72. Banaszynski, L. A., Sellmyer, M. A., Contag, C. H., Wandless, T. J. & Thorne, S. H. Chemical control of protein stability and function in living mice. Nat. Med. 14, 1123–1127 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

73. Richman, S. A. et al. Ligand-induced degradation of a CAR permits reversible remote control of CAR T cell activity in vitro and in vivo. Mol. Ther. 28, 1600–1613 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

74. Abuhashem, A. & Hadjantonakis, A.-K. Generation of knock-in degron tags for endogenous proteins in mice using the dTAG system. STAR Protoc. 3, 101660 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

75. Balducci, C. et al. Doxycycline counteracts neuroinflammation restoring memory in Alzheimer’s disease mouse models. Neurobiol. Aging 70, 128–139 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

76. Schertzer, M. D. et al. A piggyBac-based toolkit for inducible genome editing in mammalian cells. RNA 25, 1047–1058 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

77. Hazelbaker, D. Z. et al. A multiplexed gRNA piggyBac transposon system facilitates efficient induction of CRISPRi and CRISPRa in human pluripotent stem cells. Sci. Rep. 10, 635 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

78. Blears, D. et al. Redundant pathways for removal of defective RNA polymerase II complexes at a promoter-proximal pause checkpoint. Mol. Cell 84, 4790–4807.e11 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

79. Weber, E. W. et al. Transient rest restores functionality in exhausted CAR-T cells through epigenetic remodeling. Science 372, eaba1786 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

80. Vasimuddin, M., Misra, S., Li, H. & Aluru, S. Efficient architecture-aware acceleration of BWA-MEM for multicore systems. In 2019 IEEE International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium (IPDPS) 314–324 (IEEE, 2019).

Download references