A subscription to JoVE is required to view this content. Sign in or start your free trial.
Method Article
Recent advances in the ability to genetically manipulate somatic cell lines hold great potential for basic and applied research. Here, we present two approaches for CRISPR/Cas9 generated knockout production and screening in mammalian cell lines, with and without the use of selectable markers.
The CRISPR/Cas9 genome engineering system has revolutionized biology by allowing for precise genome editing with little effort. Guided by a single guide RNA (sgRNA) that confers specificity, the Cas9 protein cleaves both DNA strands at the targeted locus. The DNA break can trigger either non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) or homology directed repair (HDR). NHEJ can introduce small deletions or insertions which lead to frame-shift mutations, while HDR allows for larger and more precise perturbations. Here, we present protocols for generating knockout cell lines by coupling established CRISPR/Cas9 methods with two options for downstream selection/screening. The NHEJ approach uses a single sgRNA cut site and selection-independent screening, where protein production is assessed by dot immunoblot in a high-throughput manner. The HDR approach uses two sgRNA cut sites that span the gene of interest. Together with a provided HDR template, this method can achieve deletion of tens of kb, aided by the inserted selectable resistance marker. The appropriate applications and advantages of each method are discussed.
Stable genetic alterations provide an advantage over transient methods of cellular perturbation, which can be variable in their efficiency and duration. Genomic editing has become increasingly common in recent years due to the development of target specific nucleases, such as zinc-finger nucleases1,2,3,4,5, transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALENs)6,7,8,9 and RNA-guided nucleases derived from the clustered, regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) system10.
The CRISPR/Cas9 editing machinery is adapted from an immune system that bacteria and archaea use to defend against viral infections11,12,13. In this process, short, 20-30 nt fragments of invading viral sequence are incorporated into a genomic locus as "spacers" flanked by repeating units14,15. Subsequent transcription and RNA processing generates small CRISPR-associated RNAs16 (crRNAs) that, together with a trans-activating crRNA17 (tracrRNA), assemble with the effector Cas9 endonuclease. The crRNAs thus provide specificity to Cas9 targeting, guiding the complex to cleave complementary viral DNA sequences and preventing further infections18,19. Any "protospacer" sequence in the targeted DNA can serve as the source of the crRNA, as long as it is directly 5' to a short protospacer adjacent motif (PAM), NGG in the case of S. pyogenes Cas920. The absence of the PAM sequence near the spacer in the host's CRISPR locus distinguishes between self and non-self, preventing targeting of the host. Because of its universality and flexibility, this biological system has been powerfully adapted for genomic editing, such that nearly any PAM-adjacent DNA site can be targeted. In this version, a further modification fused the crRNA and tracrRNA into a single guide RNA (sgRNA) component that is loaded into the Cas9 protein21.
Upon expression of Cas9 and an sgRNA in eukaryotic cells, the Cas9 protein cleaves both DNA strands at the targeted locus. In the absence of a suitable region of homologous sequence, the cell fixes this break via non-homologous end joining (NHEJ)22,23,24, which typically introduces small deletions or, rarely, insertions. When targeting an open reading frame, the repair likely leads to a translational frameshift that produces a non-functional protein product. In contrast, when provided with an exogenous template with large regions of homology, the cell may fix the double-strand break by homology directed repair25,26. This route allows for larger precise deletions, replacements or insertions in the genome, coupled with the introduction of excisable selection markers27.
Here, we present protocols for generating knockout cell lines by either of these two CRISPR/Cas9 methods (Figure 1A). The NHEJ approach uses a single sgRNA cut site and selection-independent screening, and thus requires little upfront preparation. When using this method, guide RNAs complementary to exons near the 5' end of the transcript, which are most likely to produce a knockout, must be designed. Since the modifications to the genome in this case are small, screening for knockout clones is based on dot blots, where the protein product is assessed in a high-throughput manner. We use the generation of ELAV-like 1 protein (ELAVL1) knockout lines as an example. The second approach relies on homology directed repair (HDR) and uses two sgRNA cut sites that span the gene or region of interest, allowing for deletions of tens of kb. A plasmid with two regions of homology that flank the cleavage sites provides a replacement template (Figure 1B), introducing a selectable resistance marker that increases efficiency of knockout generation. This method can also be adapted to introduce gene modifications with properly designed homology arms. In this case, the integration of a new DNA fragment allows for PCR based screening (Figure 1C). Here, we use the generation of Pumilio RNA binding family member 2 (PUM2) knockout lines as an example.
1. Identification of Homology Regions Around the Desired Deletion
NOTE: Only necessary if using selection-based editing.
2. Generation of Cas9-sgRNA Expression Plasmids
3. Generation of Homology-directed Repair Template Plasmids
NOTE: Only necessary if using selection-based editing. The homology-directed repair template plasmid consists of a drug resistance cassette flanked by two regions that are complementary to the genome just outside the two sgRNA target sites (Figure 1B).
Right homology arm PCR product | 0.06 pmol (30-40ng) |
Left homology arm PCR product | 0.06 pmol (30-40ng) |
pGolden-Neo plasmid (100 ng/µL) | 1 µL |
pUC19-BsaI plasmid (100 ng/µL) | 1 µL |
2x T7 DNA ligase buffer | 5 µL |
BsaI (10 U/µL) | 0.75 µL |
T7 DNA ligase (3000 U/µL) | 0.25 µL |
Water | up to 10 µL |
Dilute colony template | 1.25 µL |
10x Taq reaction buffer | 1.25 µL |
20mM dNTPs | 0.25 µL |
10 µM Forward primer | 0.25 µL |
10 µM Reverse primer | 0.25 µL |
Taq Polymerase | 0.25 µL |
Water | 9 µL |
4. Transfection of CRISPR Components into Cultured Cells
5. Drug Selection
6. Isolation of Clonal Populations
7. Screening Candidates
Cell lysate | 0.5 µL |
10x KOD buffer | 1.25 µL |
25mM MgSO4 | 0.75 µL |
2 mM dNTPs | 1.25 µL |
10 µM Forward primer | 0.375 µL |
10 µM Reverse primer | 0.375 µL |
KOD polymerase | 0.25 µL |
Water | 7.75 µL |
8. Verify the Genomic Mutation by Sequencing
For the generation of ELAVL1 knockout lines, a robust antibody was available, so editing using single sgRNAs (Figure 1A, left) was performed, followed by dot immunoblot. Three sgRNAs were transfected independently to compare efficiencies and to rule out off target effects in the resulting clones. After collecting and blotting cell lysates from clonal populations onto two nitrocellulose membranes, the blots were probed for both ELAVL1 and PUM2 (as a normalizat...
The CRISPR/Cas9 system has allowed for efficient generation of stable genomic modifications, which provide a more consistent alternative to other transient manipulation methods. Here, we have presented two methods for rapid identification of CRISPR/Cas9 gene knockouts in mammalian cell lines. Both methods require little cellular material, so testing can be done in early stages of clonal culture, saving time and reagents. To increase the efficiency of both methods, we recommend testing multiple sgRNAs, as efficiencies var...
The authors declare that they have no competing financial interests.
The authors would like to acknowledge Gissell Sanchez, Megan Lee, and Jason Estep for experimental assistance, and Weifeng Gu and Xuemei Chen for sharing reagents.
Name | Company | Catalog Number | Comments |
Competent E. coli cells | |||
plasmid prep kit | |||
pSpCas9(BB) plasmid | Addgene | 42230 | Ran et al. 2013, cloning sgRNAs |
BbsI enzyme | ThermoFisher | FD1014 | Ran et al. 2013, cloning sgRNAs |
T7 DNA ligase | NEB | M0318L | Ran et al. 2013, cloning sgRNAs |
Tango Buffer | ThermoFisher | BY5 | Ran et al. 2013, cloning sgRNAs |
PlasmidSafe exonuclease | Epicentre | E3105K | Ran et al. 2013, cloning sgRNAs |
Q5 hot start high fidelity polymerase | NEB | M0494A | HA amplification |
pUC19-BsaI | Modified pUC19 plasmid, mutated existing BsaI site and inserted two outward facing BsaI sites after BamHI/EcoRI digestion | ||
pGolden-Neo | Addgene | 51422 | Resistance cassette |
pGolden-Hygro | Addgene | 51423 | Resistance cassette |
BsaI enzyme | NEB | R3535S | Homology arm contruction |
T7 DNA ligase | NEB | M0318L | |
PlasmidSafe exonuclease | Epicentre | E3105K | |
Toothpicks | bacterial PCR | ||
Taq polymerase | bacterial colony PCR | ||
HEK293 human cells | |||
DMEM | Corning | 10-013-CV | |
FBS | Corning | MT35010CV | |
Penicillin-Strep (opt.) | Gibco | 15140-122 | |
6 well plates | BioLite | 12556004 | |
TransIT-LTI Transfection Reagent | Mirus | MIR2300 | for lipofection only |
Opti-MEM | ThermoFisher | 31985062 | for lipofection only |
G418 (Neomycin) | Sigma Aldrich | A1720-5G | |
Hygromycin | Sigma Aldrich | H3274-250MG | |
96 well plates | ThermoFisher | 12556008 | |
Passive Lysis Buffer, 5x | Promega | ||
1x SDS loading buffer | recipe decribed in protocol | ||
Nitrocellulose Membrane | Bio-Rad | 162-0115 | |
TBST | recipe decribed in protocol | ||
Dehydrated milk | |||
SuperSignal West Dura Extended Duration Substrate | ThermoFisher | 34075 | for HRP-conjugated secondary antibodies |
Extracta DNA prep for PCR | Quantabio | 95091-025 | |
KOD polymerase | Novagen | 71316 |
Request permission to reuse the text or figures of this JoVE article
Request PermissionThis article has been published
Video Coming Soon
Copyright © 2025 MyJoVE Corporation. All rights reserved