Advertisement

Genome-Wide Profiling of DNA Double-Strand Breaks by the BLESS and BLISS Methods

  • Reza Mirzazadeh
  • Tomasz Kallas
  • Magda BienkoEmail author
  • Nicola CrosettoEmail author
Protocol
First Online:
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 1672)

Abstract

DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) are major DNA lesions that are constantly formed during physiological processes such as DNA replication, transcription, and recombination, or as a result of exogenous agents such as ionizing radiation, radiomimetic drugs, and genome editing nucleases. Unrepaired DSBs threaten genomic stability by leading to the formation of potentially oncogenic rearrangements such as translocations. In past few years, several methods based on next-generation sequencing (NGS) have been developed to study the genome-wide distribution of DSBs or their conversion to translocation events. We developed Breaks Labeling, Enrichment on Streptavidin, and Sequencing (BLESS), which was the first method for direct labeling of DSBs in situ followed by their genome-wide mapping at nucleotide resolution (Crosetto et al., Nat Methods 10:361–365, 2013). Recently, we have further expanded the quantitative nature, applicability, and scalability of BLESS by developing Breaks Labeling In Situ and Sequencing (BLISS) (Yan et al., Nat Commun 8:15058, 2017). Here, we first present an overview of existing methods for genome-wide localization of DSBs, and then focus on the BLESS and BLISS methods, discussing different assay design options depending on the sample type and application.

Key words

DNA double-strand breaks Genome instability Next-generation sequencing Genome editing BLESS BLISS 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.
    Jackson SP, Bartek J (2009) The DNA-damage response in human biology and disease. Nature 461:1071–1078Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    van Gent DC, Hoeijmakers JH, Kanaar R (2001) Chromosomal stability and the DNA double-strandedbreak connection. Nat Rev Genet 2:196–206Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    McKinnon PJ, Caldecott KW (2007) DNA strand break repair and human genetic disease. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 8:37–55Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Porteus MH, Carroll D (2005) Gene targeting using zinc finger nucleases. Nat Biotechnol 23:967–973Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Joung JK, Sander JD (2013) TALENs: a widely applicable technology for targeted genome editing. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 14:49–55Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hsu PD, Lander ES, Zhang F (2014) Development and applications of CRISPR-Cas9 for genome engineering. Cell 157:1262–1278Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zetsche B, Gootenberg JS, Abudayyeh OO et al (2015) Cpf1 is a single RNA-guided endonuclease of a class 2 CRISPR-Cas system. Cell 163:759–771Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tsai SQ, Keith Joung J (2016) Defining and improving the genome-wide specificities of CRISPR-Cas9nucleases. Nat Rev Genet 17:300–312Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Szilard RK, Jacques P-E, Laramée L et al (2010) Systematic identification of fragile sites via genome-wide location analysis of gamma-H2AX. Nat Struct Mol Biol 17:299–305Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Iacovoni JS, Caron P, Lassadi I et al (2010) High-resolution profiling of gammaH2AX around DNA double strand breaks in the mammalian genome. EMBO J 29:1446–1457Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Madabhushi R, Gao F, Pfenning AR et al (2015) Activity-induced DNA breaks govern the expression of neuronal early-response genes. Cell 161:1592–1605Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Crosetto N, Mitra A, Silva MJ et al (2013) Nucleotide-resolution DNA double-strand break mapping by next-generation sequencing. Nat Methods 10:361–365Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ran FA, Cong L, Yan WX et al (2015) In vivo genome editing using Staphylococcus aureus Cas9. Nature 520:186–191Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Slaymaker IM, Gao L, Zetsche B et al (2016) Rationally engineered Cas9 nucleases with improved specificity. Science 351:84–88Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lensing SV, Marsico G, Hänsel-Hertsch R et al (2016) DSBCapture: in situ capture and sequencing of DNA breaks. Nat Methods 13:855–857Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Canela A, Sridharan S, Sciascia N et al (2016) DNA breaks and end resection measured genome-wide by end sequencing. Mol Cell 63:898–911Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yan WX, Mirzazadeh R, Garnerone S et al (2017) BLISS is a versatile and quantitative method for genome-wide profiling of DNA double-strand breaks. Nat Commun 8:15058Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kim D, Bae S, Park J et al (2015) Digenome-seq: genome-wide profiling of CRISPR-Cas9 off-targeteffects in human cells. Nat Methods 12:237–243. 1 p following 243Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kim D, Kim J, Hur JK et al (2016) Genome-wide analysis reveals specificities of Cpf1 endonucleases in human cells. Nat Biotechnol 34:863–868Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tsai SQ, Zheng Z, Nguyen NT et al (2015) GUIDE-seq enables genome-wide profiling of off-targetcleavage by CRISPR-Cas nucleases. Nat Biotechnol 33:187–197Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kleinstiver BP, Tsai SQ, Prew MS et al (2016) Genome-wide specificities of CRISPR-Cas Cpf1 nucleases in human cells. Nat Biotechnol 34:869–874Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wang X, Wang Y, Wu X et al (2015) Unbiased detection of off-target cleavage by CRISPR-Cas9 and TALENs using integrase-defective lentiviral vectors. Nat Biotechnol 33:175–178Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Frock RL, Hu J, Meyers RM et al (2015) Genome-wide detection of DNA double-stranded breaks induced by engineered nucleases. Nat Biotechnol 33:179–186Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wei P-C, Chang AN, Kao J et al (2016) Long neural genes harbor recurrent DNA break clusters in neural stem/progenitor cells. Cell 164:644–655Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kivioja T, Vähärautio A, Karlsson K et al (2012) Counting absolute numbers of molecules using unique molecular identifiers. Nat Methods 9:72–74Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Baslan T, Kendall J, Rodgers L et al (2012) Genome-wide copy number analysis of single cells. Nat Protoc 7:1024–1041Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Naumova N, Imakaev M, Fudenberg G et al (2013) Organization of the mitotic chromosome. Science 342:948–953Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Dunnett CW (1955) A multiple comparison procedure for comparing several treatments with a control. J Am Stat Assoc 50:1096–1121Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zhang Y, Liu T, Meyer CA et al (2008) Model-based analysis of ChIP-Seq (MACS). Genome Biol 9:R137Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Heinz S, Benner C, Spann N et al (2010) Simple combinations of lineage-determining transcription factors prime cis-regulatory elements required for macrophage and B cell identities. Mol Cell 38:576–589Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zang C, Schones DE, Zeng C et al (2009) A clustering approach for identification of enriched domains from histone modification ChIP-Seq data. Bioinformatics 25:1952–1958Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media LLC 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Science for Life Laboratory, Department of Medical Biochemistry and BiophysicsKarolinska InstitutetStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations

Cite protocol