Genome mutation after the introduction of the gene editing by electroporation of Cas9 protein (GEEP) system into bovine putative zygotes

  • Zhao Namula
  • Manita Wittayarat
  • Maki Hirata
  • Takayuki Hirano
  • Nhien Thi Nguyen
  • Quynh Anh Le
  • Mokhamad Fahrudin
  • Fuminori TaniharaEmail author
  • Takeshige Otoi


The present study was designed to investigate the effects of voltage strength on embryonic developmental rate and mutation efficiency in bovine putative zygotes during electroporation with the CRISPR/Cas9 system to target the MSTN gene at different time points after insemination. Results showed that there was no significant interaction between electroporation time and voltage strength on the embryonic cleavage and blastocyst formation rates. However, increasing the voltage strength to 20 V/mm to electroporate the zygotes at 10 h after the start of insemination yielded significantly lower blastocyst formation rates (P < 0.05) than those of the 10-V/mm electroporated zygotes. Mutation efficiency was then assessed in individual blastocysts by DNA sequence analysis of the target sites in the MSTN gene. A positive correlation between mutation rate and voltage strength was observed. The mutation efficiency in mutant blastocysts was significantly higher in the zygotes electroporated with 20 V/mm at 10 h after the start of insemination (P < 0.05) than in the zygotes electroporated at 15 h, irrespective of the voltage strength. We also noted that a certain number of blastocysts from zygotes that were electroporated with more than 15 V/mm at 10 h (4.8–16.7%) and 20 V/mm at 15 h (4.8%) were biallelic mutants. Our results suggest that the voltage strength during electroporation as well as electroporation time certainly have effects on the embryonic developmental rate and mutation efficiency in bovine putative zygotes.


Bovine CRISPR/Cas9 Electroporation In vitro fertilization MSTN gene 



We thank the staff of the Meat Inspection Office of Tokushima Prefecture for supplying the bovine ovaries.

Funding information

This study was supported in part by the JSPS KAKENHI grant numbers JP17H03938, JP17K19325, and JP18K12062. We acknowledge Tokushima University for their financial support of the Research Clusters program of Tokushima University (No. 1701001).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.


  1. Abud HE, Lock P, Heath JK (2004) Efficient gene transfer into the epithelial cell layer of embryonic mouse intestine using low-voltage electroporation. Gastroenterology 126:1779–1787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson EM, Haupt A, Schiel JA, Chou E, Machado HB, Strezoska Z, Lenger S, McClelland S, Birmingham A, Vermeulen A, Smith A (2015) Systematic analysis of CRISPR-Cas9 mismatch tolerance reveals low levels of off-target activity. J Biotechnol 211:56–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Booth PJ, Tan S, Reipurth R, Holm P, Callesen H (2001) Simplification of bovine somatic cell nuclear transfer by application of a zona-free manipulation technique. Cloning & Stem Cells 3:139–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bosch P, Hodges CA, Stice SL (2004) Generation of transgenic livestock by somatic cell nuclear transfer. Biotecnol Apl 21:128–136Google Scholar
  5. Boverhof DR, Chamberlain MP, Elcombe CR, Gonzalez FJ, Heflich RH, Hernandez LG, Jacobs AC, Jacobson-Kram D, Luijten M, Maggi A (2011) Transgenic animal models in toxicology: historical perspectives and future outlook. Toxicol Sci 121:207–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brinkman EK, Chen T, Amendola M, van Steensel B (2014) Easy quantitative assessment of genome editing by sequence trace decomposition. Nucleic Acids Res 42:e168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brophy B, Smolenski G, Wheeler T, Wells D, L’Huillier P, Laible G (2003) Cloned transgenic cattle produce milk with higher levels of β-casein and κ-casein. Nat Biotechnol 21:157–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Comizzoli P, Marquant-Le Guienne B, Heyman Y, Renard J (2000) Onset of the first S-phase is determined by a paternal effect during the G1-phase in bovine zygotes. Biol Reprod 62:1677–1684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Deng S, Kongpan L, Wang F, Ning L, Liu G, Zhao Y, Lian Z (2014) One-step generation of myostatin gene knockout sheep via the CRISPR/Cas9 systemGoogle Scholar
  10. Golberg A, Rubinsky B (2010) A statistical model for multidimensional irreversible electroporation cell death in tissue. Biomed Eng Online 9:13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grobet L, Martin LJR, Poncelet D, Pirottin D, Brouwers B, Riquet J, Schoeberlein A, Dunner S, Ménissier F, Massabanda J (1997) A deletion in the bovine myostatin gene causes the double–muscled phenotype in cattle. Nat Genet 17:71–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Harrison RL, Byrne BJ, Tung L (1998) Electroporation-mediated gene transfer in cardiac tissue. FEBS Lett 435:1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Heiser WC (2000) Optimizing electroporation conditions for the transformation of mammalian cells. Transcription factor protocols. Springer, pp. 117–134Google Scholar
  14. Hirata M, Tanihara F, Wittayarat M, Hirano T, Nguyen NT, Le QA, Namula Z, Nii M, Otoi T (2019) Genome mutation after introduction of the gene editing by electroporation of Cas9 protein (GEEP) system in matured oocytes and putative zygotes. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Anim:1–6Google Scholar
  15. Hodges CA, Stice SL (2003) Generation of bovine transgenics using somatic cell nuclear transfer. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 1:81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ikeda M, Matsuyama S, Akagi S, Ohkoshi K, Nakamura S, Minabe S, Kimura K, Hosoe M (2017) Correction of a disease mutation using CRISPR/Cas9-assisted genome editing in Japanese Black cattle. Sci Rep 7:17827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Isobe T, Ikebata Y, Onitsuka T, Do LT, Sato Y, Taniguchi M, Otoi T (2013) Cryopreservation for bovine embryos in serum-free freezing medium containing silk protein sericin. Cryobiology 67:184–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jordan ET, Collins M, Terefe J, Ugozzoli L, Rubio T (2008) Optimizing electroporation conditions in primary and other difficult-to-transfect cells. J Biomol Tech: JBT 19:328Google Scholar
  19. Kambadur R, Sharma M, Smith TP, Bass JJ (1997) Mutations in myostatin (GDF8) in double-muscled Belgian Blue and Piedmontese cattle. Genome Res 7:910–915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Luo J, Song Z, Yu S, Cui D, Wang B, Ding F, Li S, Dai Y, Li N (2014) Efficient generation of myostatin (MSTN) biallelic mutations in cattle using zinc finger nucleases. PLoS One 9:e95225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McPherron AC, Lee S-J (1997) Double muscling in cattle due to mutations in the myostatin gene. Proc Natl Acad Sci 94:12457–12461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mori M, Otoi T, Suzuki T (2002) Correlation between the cell number and diameter in bovine embryos produced in vitro. Reprod Domest Anim 37:181–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Niemann H, Kues WA (2003) Application of transgenesis in livestock for agriculture and biomedicine. Anim Reprod Sci 79:291–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nishio K, Tanihara F, Nguyen TV, Kunihara T, Nii M, Hirata M, Takemoto T, Otoi T (2018) Effects of voltage strength during electroporation on the development and quality of in vitro-produced porcine embryos. Reprod Domest Anim 53:313–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pherron A, Lawler A, Lee S (1997) Regulation of skeletal muscle mass in mice by a new TGF-β superfamily member. Nature 387:83–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Putri RI, Syamsiana IN (2010) Design of high voltage pulse generator for pasteurization by pulse electric field (PEF). Int J Comput Elect Eng 2:916CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ruan J, Xu J, Chen-Tsai RY, Li K (2017) Genome editing in livestock: are we ready for a revolution in animal breeding industry? Transgenic Res 26:715–726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sosa MAG, De Gasperi R, Elder GA (2010) Animal transgenesis: an overview. Brain Struct Funct 214:91–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sun Z, Wang M, Han S, Ma S, Zou Z, Ding F, Li X, Li L, Tang B, Wang H (2018) Production of hypoallergenic milk from DNA-free beta-lactoglobulin (BLG) gene knockout cow using zinc-finger nucleases mRNA. Sci Rep 8:15430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tanihara F, Takemoto T, Kitagawa E, Rao S, Do LTK, Onishi A, Yamashita Y, Kosugi C, Suzuki H, Sembon S (2016) Somatic cell reprogramming-free generation of genetically modified pigs. Sci Adv 2:e1600803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. van Echten-Arends J, Mastenbroek S, Sikkema-Raddatz B, Korevaar JC, Heineman MJ, van der Veen F, Repping S (2011) Chromosomal mosaicism in human preimplantation embryos: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update 17:620–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vilarino M, Rashid ST, Suchy FP, McNabb BR, Van Der Meulen T, Fine EJ, Ahsan S, Mursaliyev N, Sebastiano V, Diab SS (2017) CRISPR/Cas9 microinjection in oocytes disables pancreas development in sheep. Sci Rep 7:17472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wang K, Ouyang H, Xie Z, Yao C, Guo N, Li M, Jiao H, Pang D (2015a) Efficient generation of myostatin mutations in pigs using the CRISPR/Cas9 system. Sci Rep 5:16623Google Scholar
  34. Wang T, Wei JJ, Sabatini DM, Lander ES (2014) Genetic screens in human cells using the CRISPR-Cas9 system. Science 343:80–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wang W, Zhang Y, Wang H (2017) Generating mouse models using zygote electroporation of nucleases (ZEN) technology with high efficiency and throughput. Zygotic Genome Activation: Methods and Protocols:219–230Google Scholar
  36. Wang X, Yu H, Lei A, Zhou J, Zeng W, Zhu H, Dong Z, Niu Y, Shi B, Cai B (2015b) Generation of gene-modified goats targeting MSTN and FGF5 via zygote injection of CRISPR/Cas9 system. Sci Rep 5:13878Google Scholar
  37. Wei J, Gaynor P, Cole S, Brophy B, Oback B, Laible G (2018) Developing the laboratory conditions for bovine zygote-mediated genome editing by electroporation. Proceedings of the World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, 111118,Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society for In Vitro Biology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Veterinary ScienceGuangdong Ocean UniversityZhanjiangChina
  2. 2.Faculty of Veterinary SciencePrince of Songkla UniversitySongkhlaThailand
  3. 3.Laboratory of Animal Reproduction, Faculty of Bioscience and BioindustryTokushima UniversityTokushimaJapan
  4. 4.Faculty of Veterinary ScienceBogor Agricultural UniversityBogorIndonesia

Personalised recommendations