Advertisement

Unexpected mutations were expected and unrelated to CRISPR-Cas9 activity

Letter to the Editor

Abstract

The scientific journal Nature Methods have just retracted a publication that reported numerous unexpected mutations after a CRISPR-Cas9 experiment based on collecting whole genome sequencing information from one control and two experimental genome edited mice. In the intervening 10 months since publication the data presented have been strongly contested and criticized by the scientific and biotech communities, through publications, open science channels and social networks. The criticism focused on the animal used as control, which was derived from the same mouse strain as the experimental individuals but from an unrelated sub-colony, hence control and experimental mice were genetically divergent. The most plausible explanation for the vast majority of the reported unexpected mutations were the expected underlying genetic polymorphisms that normally accumulate in two different colonies of the same mouse strain which occur as a result of spontaneous mutations and genetic drift. Therefore, the reported mutations were most likely not related to CRISPR-Cas9 activity.

Keywords

Off target mutations CRISPR Cas9 Safety Genome editing applications Safety Gene therapy 

Notes

Acknowledgements

LM’s laboratory is funded through the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (MINECO) [BIO2015-70978] and the Spanish Biomedical Research Networking Centre on Rare Diseases (CIBERER) from the National Institute of Heath Carlos III (Instituto de Salud Carlos III, ISCIII). A timeline of the events and publications around this case can be easily followed from the corresponding section at the CRISPR web page at CNB-CSIC (http://wwwuser.cnb.csic.es/~montoliu/CRISPR/). CBAW is funded by the Biotechnology and Biological Research Council (BBSRC) through ISP support to The Roslin Institute.

References

  1. Adams DJ, Doran AG, Lilue J, Keane TM (2015) The mouse genomes project: a repository of inbred laboratory mouse strain genomes. Mamm Genome 26:403–412.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00335-015-9579-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Begley S (2017) CRISPR stocks sank on news the gene editing tool can veer off target. But that’s hardly news. STAT 30 May 2017. https://www.statnews.com/2017/05/30/crispr-stocks-off-target/. Last accessed 6 Apr 2018
  3. Burgio G (2017) Should we be worried about CRISPR/Cas9 off target effects? Medium blog (https://medium.com) 3 June 2017. https://medium.com/@GaetanBurgio/should-we-be-worried-about-crispr-cas9-off-target-effects-57dafaf0bd53. Last accessed 6 Apr 2018
  4. Iyer V, Shen B, Zhang W, Hodgkins A, Keane T, Huang X, Skarnes WC (2015) Off-target mutations are rare in Cas9-modified mice. Nat Methods 12:479.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.3408 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Iyer V, Boroviak K, Thomas M, Doe B, Ryder E, Adams D (2018) No unexpected CRISPR-Cas9 off-target activity revealed by trio sequencing of gene-edited mice. bioRxiv.  https://doi.org/10.1101/263129 Google Scholar
  6. Kim ST, Park J, Kim D, Kim K, Bae S, Schlesner M, Kim JS (2018) Response to “Unexpected mutations after CRISPR-Cas9 editing in vivo”. Nat Methods.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.4554 Google Scholar
  7. Lareau CA, Clement K, Hsu JY, Pattanayak V, Joung JK, Aryee MJ, Pinello L (2018) Response to “Unexpected mutations after CRISPR-Cas9 editing in vivo”. Nat Methods.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.4541 Google Scholar
  8. Lescarbeau RM, Murray B, Barnes TM, Bermingham N (2018) Response to “Unexpected mutations after CRISPR-Cas9 editing in vivo”. Nat Methods.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.4553 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Nakajima K, Kazuno AA, Kelsoe J, Nakanishi M, Takumi T, Kato T (2016) Exome sequencing in the knockin mice generated using the CRISPR/Cas system. Sci Rep 6:34703.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep34703 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Nature Methods Editorial (2018) CRISPR off-targets: a reassessment. Nat Methods 15:229–230.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.4664 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Nutter LMJ, Heaney JD, Lloyd KCK, Murray SA, Seavitt JR, Skarnes WC, Teboul L, Brown SDM, Moore M (2018) Response to “Unexpected mutations after CRISPR-Cas9 editing in vivo”. Nat Methods.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.4559 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Schaefer KA, Wu WH, Colgan DF, Tsang SH, Bassuk AG, Mahajan VB (2017a) Unexpected mutations after CRISPR-Cas9 editing in vivo. Nat Methods 14:547–548.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.4293 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Schaefer KA, Wu WH, Darbro BW, Colgan DF, Tsang SH, Bassuk AG, Mahajan VB (2017b) Response to Editas and Intellia: unexpected mutations after CRISPR-Cas9 editing in vivo. bioRxiv.  https://doi.org/10.1101/154450 Google Scholar
  14. Schaefer KA, Wu WH, Darbro BW, Colgan DF, Tsang SH, Bassuk AG, Mahajan VB (2018) Corrigendum and follow-up: whole genome sequencing of multiple CRISPR-edited mouse lines suggests no excess mutations. bioRxiv.  https://doi.org/10.1101/154450 Google Scholar
  15. Seruggia D, Fernández A, Cantero M, Pelczar P, Montoliu L (2015) Functional validation of mouse tyrosinase non-coding regulatory DNA elements by CRISPR-Cas9-mediated mutagenesis. Nucleic Acids Res 43:4855–4867.  https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkv375 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Stevens JC, Banks GT, Festing MF, Fisher EM (2007) Quiet mutations in inbred strains of mice. Trends Mol Med 13:512–519CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Tan W, Proudfoot C, Lillico SG, Whitelaw CBA (2016) Gene targeting, genome editing: from Dolly to editors. Transgenic Res 25:273–287.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11248-016-9932-x CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Uchimura A, Higuchi M, Minakuchi Y, Ohno M, Toyoda A, Fujiyama A, Miura I, Wakana S, Nishino J, Yagi T (2015) Germline mutation rates and the long-term phenotypic effects of mutation accumulation in wild-type laboratory mice and mutator mice. Genome Res 25:1125–1134.  https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.186148.114 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Wilson CJ, Fennell T, Bothmer A, Maeder ML, Reyon D, Cotta-Ramusino C, Fernandez CA, Marco E, Barrera LA, Jayaram H, Albright CF, Cox GF, Church GM, Myer VE (2018) Response to “Unexpected mutations after CRISPR-Cas9 editing in vivo”. Nat Methods.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.4552 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Wu WH, Tsai YT, Justus S, Lee TT, Zhang L, Lin CS, Bassuk AG, Mahajan VB, Tsang SH (2016) CRISPR repair reveals causative mutation in a preclinical model of retinitis pigmentosa. Mol Ther 24:1388–1394.  https://doi.org/10.1038/mt.2016.107 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Zurita E, Chagoyen M, Cantero M, Alonso R, González-Neira A, López-Jiménez A, López-Moreno JA, Landel CP, Benítez J, Pazos F, Montoliu L (2011) Genetic polymorphisms among C57BL/6 mouse inbred strains. Transgenic Res 20:481–489.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11248-010-9403-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Centre for Biotechnology (CNB-CSIC)Biomedical Research Networking Centre Consortium on Rare Diseases (CIBERER-ISCIII)MadridSpain
  2. 2.The Roslin Institute and Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary StudiesUniversity of EdinburghMidlothianUK

Personalised recommendations