Advertisement

Generation of Large Fragment Knock-In Mouse Models by Microinjecting into 2-Cell Stage Embryos

  • Bin GuEmail author
  • Marina Gertsenstein
  • Eszter Posfai
Protocol
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 2066)

Abstract

Large fragment knock-in mouse models such as reporters and conditional mutant mice are important models for biological research. Here we describe 2-cell (2C)-homologous recombination (HR)-CRISPR, a highly efficient method to generate large fragment knock-in mouse models by CRISPR-based genome engineering. Using this method, knock-in founders can be generated routinely in a time frame of about two months with high germline transmission efficiency. 2C-HR-CRISPR will significantly promote the advancement of basic and translational research using genetic mouse models.

Key words

CRISPR-Cas9 2-Cell stage Knock-in Homologous recombination 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by CIHR (FDN-143334) and Genome Canada and Ontario Genomics (OGI-099). The authors wish to thank Dr. Janet Rossant for her guidance and support during the development of 2C-HR-CRISPR and critical discussion and comments.

References

  1. 1.
    Yang H, Wang H, Jaenisch R (2014) Generating genetically modified mice using CRISPR/Cas-mediated genome engineering. Nat Protoc 9:1956–1968.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2014.134CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wang H et al (2013) One-step generation of mice carrying mutations in multiple genes by CRISPR/Cas-mediated genome engineering. Cell 153:910–918.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2013.04.025CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yang H et al (2013) One-step generation of mice carrying reporter and conditional alleles by CRISPR/Cas-mediated genome engineering. Cell 154:1370–1379.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2013.08.022CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Modzelewski AJ et al (2018) Efficient mouse genome engineering by CRISPR-EZ technology. Nat Protoc 13:1253–1274.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2018.012CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Qin W et al (2015) Efficient CRISPR/Cas9-mediated genome editing in mice by zygote electroporation of nuclease. Genetics 200:423–430.  https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.115.176594CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cohen J (2016) ‘Any idiot can do it.’ Genome editor CRISPR could put mutant mice in everyone’s reach. Science.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aal0334
  7. 7.
    Quadros RM et al (2017) Easi-CRISPR: a robust method for one-step generation of mice carrying conditional and insertion alleles using long ssDNA donors and CRISPR ribonucleoproteins. Genome Biol 18:92.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-017-1220-4CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yao X et al (2018) Tild-CRISPR allows for efficient and precise gene knockin in mouse and human cells. Dev Cell 45:526–536. e525.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.devcel.2018.04.021CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nakade S et al (2014) Microhomology-mediated end-joining-dependent integration of donor DNA in cells and animals using TALENs and CRISPR/Cas9. Nat Commun 5:5560.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms6560CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gu B, Posfai E, Rossant J (2018) Efficient generation of targeted large insertions by microinjection into two-cell-stage mouse embryos. Nat Biotechnol.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.4166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ma M et al (2017) Efficient generation of mice carrying homozygous double-floxp alleles using the Cas9-Avidin/biotin-donor DNA system. Cell Res 27:578–581.  https://doi.org/10.1038/cr.2017.29CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ran FA et al (2013) Genome engineering using the CRISPR-Cas9 system. Nat Protoc 8:2281–2308.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2013.143CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Behringer R, Gertsenstein M, Nagy K, Nagy A (2014) Manipulating the mouse embryo: a laboratory manual, 4th edn. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring HarborGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Balakier H, Pedersen RA (1982) Allocation of cells to inner cell mass and trophectoderm lineages in preimplantation mouse embryos. Dev Biol 90:352–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lawson KA, Pedersen RA (1987) Cell fate, morphogenetic movement and population kinetics of embryonic endoderm at the time of germ layer formation in the mouse. Development 101:627–652PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wianny F, Zernicka-Goetz M (2000) Specific interference with gene function by double-stranded RNA in early mouse development. Nat Cell Biol 2:70–75.  https://doi.org/10.1038/35000016CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chazaud C, Yamanaka Y, Pawson T, Rossant J (2006) Early lineage segregation between epiblast and primitive endoderm in mouse blastocysts through the Grb2-MAPK pathway. Dev Cell 10:615–624.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.devcel.2006.02.020CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Swann K, Campbell K, Yu Y, Saunders C, Lai FA (2009) Use of luciferase chimaera to monitor PLCzeta expression in mouse eggs. Methods Mol Biol 518:17–29.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-59745-202-1_2CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Posfai E et al (2017) Position- and hippo signaling-dependent plasticity during lineage segregation in the early mouse embryo. Elife 6.  https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.22906
  20. 20.
    Gertsenstein M, Nutter LMJ (2018) Engineering point putant and epitope-tagged alleles in mice using Cas9 RNA-guided nuclease. Curr Protoc Mouse Biol 8:28–53.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cpmo.40CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Program in Developmental and Stem Cell BiologyHospital for Sick ChildrenTorontoCanada
  2. 2.The Centre for Phenogenomics (TCP)TorontoCanada
  3. 3.Department of Molecular BiologyPrinceton UniversityPrincetonUSA

Personalised recommendations