* These authors contributed equally
The present protocol describes zygote microinjection of CRISPR-Cas9 and donor DNA to efficiently produce gene cassette knock-in and floxed mice.
CRISPR-Cas technology has enabled the rapid and effortless generation of genetically modified mice. Specifically, mice and point mutant mice are readily produced by electroporation of CRISPR factors (and single-stranded oligo DNA donors) into the zygote. In contrast, gene cassette (>1 kb) knock-in and floxed mice are mainly generated by microinjection of CRISPR factors and double-stranded DNA donors into zygotes. Genome editing technologies have also increased the flexibility of genetically modified mice production. It is now possible to introduce the intended mutations in the target genomic regions in a number of beneficial inbred mouse strains. Our team has produced over 200 gene cassette knock-in mouse lines, and over 110 floxed mouse lines by zygote microinjection of CRISPR-Cas9 following requests from several countries, including Japan. Some of these genome editing used BALB/c, C3H/HeJ, and C57BL/6N inbred strains, however most used C57BL/6J. Unlike the electroporation method, genome editing by zygote microinjection in various inbred strains of mice is not that easy. However, gene cassette knock-in and floxed mice on single inbred genetic backgrounds are as critical as genetic humanized, fluorescent reporter, and conditional knockout mouse models. Therefore, this article presents the protocol for the zygote microinjection of CRISPR factors and double-stranded DNA donors in C57BL/6J mice for generating gene cassette knock-in and floxed mice. This article exclusively focuses on nuclear injection rather than cytoplasmic injection. In addition to zygote microinjection, we outline the timeline for the production process and peripheral techniques such as induction of superovulation and embryo transfer.
Knock-in mice, in which the intended exogenous genes are introduced at the target loci, are widely used in many in vivo studies as gene humanized mice, fluorescent reporter mice, and Cre driver mice1,2. When knock-in mutations are induced by genome editing in mouse zygotes, single-stranded DNA (single-stranded oligo DNA donors, ssODN) or double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) is used as donor DNA2,3. ssODN is mainly used to knock-in relatively short gene fragments of less than 200 bp4. It is possible to knock-in fragments longer than 1 kb DNA using long ssODNs (lsODN)5,6, however their preparation is time-consuming. When dsDNA donors are used, gene cassette (>1 kb) knock-in mice can be generated without laborious donor DNA preparation7.
The principal advantage of using ssODNs is that electroporation8 can generate knock-in mice. However, dsDNA donors must be introduced directly into the nucleus by zygote microinjection. Simultaneous knock-in at two sites is required to create floxed mice, in which each loxP sequence is knocked-in upstream and downstream of the target gene. There are two ways to generate floxed mice by genome editing in mouse zygotes-using two independent ssODNs, each carrying a single loxP site, or using a single dsDNA (or lsDNA) with a floxed sequence; the former is very inefficient9,10,11. Genome editing using dsDNA donors is the simplest approach to produce gene cassette knock-in and floxed mice if the environment is conducive to zygote microinjection.
Initially, mixtures of Cas9 mRNA and sgRNA or DNA vectors encoding sgRNA and Cas9 are used for genome editing in mouse zygotes12,13. Since high-quality and stable Cas9 proteins are now available at a low cost, the introduction of crRNA-tracrRNA-Cas9 ribonucleoprotein (RNP) into mouse zygotes14 has become popular. Recently, knock-in mice have been generated with high efficiency by introducing the crRNA-tracrRNA-Cas9 RNP and donor DNA into both pronuclei of mouse zygotes in a cell cycle phase where knock-in is most likely to occur15. Therefore, the present protocol describes techniques for producing various types of knock-in mice by this method.
There are many useful inbred strains of laboratory mice16. Genetic modification within the inbred background can disregard the influence of genetic background on the phenotype. This article describes a method for inducing gene cassette knock-in and floxed mutations in the zygote of the most commonly used inbred mouse line, the C57BL/6J17. Further, the timeline for the generation of genetically modified mice and the peripheral techniques used are also discussed, including the induction of superovulation and embryo transfer.
All animal experiments were conducted humanely with approval from the Institutional Animal Experiment Committee of the University of Tsukuba, according to the Regulations for Animal Experiments of the University of Tsukuba and the Fundamental Guidelines for Proper Conduct of Animal Experiments and Related Activities in Academic Research Institutions under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan. C57BL/6J mice of both sexes, 10-25 weeks old, were used as the zygote donor. ICR mice (older than 10 weeks) were used as the recipient mice. The mice were obtained from commercial sources (see Table of Materials).
1. Confirmation of crRNA cleavage activity in a cell-free system
2. Preparation of the mixture of crRNA, tracrRNA, Cas9 protein, and donor DNA for zygote microinjection
3. Obtaining mice zygotes by natural mating
4. Preparation of the microinjection needle
5. Zygote microinjection
6. Embryo transfer into the oviduct
7. Animal recovery
The production outcomes of gene cassette knock-in and floxed mice using this protocol are shown in Table 1 and Table 2. The target genes were not stated because each genome-edited mouse line is currently being used in an independent, unpublished project. Instead, the target chromosomal regions were described.
The genotyping analyses were performed using a previously reported method18. In this genotyping method, mice in which the donor DNA is inserted into unintended chromosomal sites are not counted as positive individuals, even if the desired genome editing is induced. Hence, the production efficiency of the founder mice that are truly useful for actual purposes was shown, rather than the efficiency of the genome editing itself.
The median production efficiency of 13 independent gene cassette knock-in mice was 20.8%, with a maximum of 39.5% and a minimum of 7.9% (Table 1). This efficiency was considered to be sufficiently practical. Any lethal embryonic genes were not targeted during the gene cassette knock-in. The median birth rate under this non-lethal gene targeting condition was 34.0% (maximum 43.3% and minimum 15.9%). Since this is comparable to the birth rate in embryo transfer without genetic manipulation, we considered that the toxicity of the introduced genome editing elements and the physical damage of zygote microinjection was unlikely to affect embryonic development.
The median production efficiency of the 10 independent floxed mice was 7.7%, with a maximum of 20.7% and a minimum of 2.1% (Table 2). Although the functions of several target genes were unknown, the median birth rate was 30.2%, with a maximum of 43.8% and a minimum of 17.3%. This rate was comparable to that of gene cassette knock-in mice, suggesting that the micro-injection operation has a negligible effect on the embryonic development of floxed mice.
Figure 1: Timeline of zygote microinjection. White and dark color shows the light and dark cycle, respectively. The mice were maintained under a 14 h light/10 h dark cycle. PMSG: pregnant mare's serum gonadotropin; hCG: human chorionic gonadotropin Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 2: Preparation of culture dishes. (A) Culture dish for the zygotes before the injection. Place two drops of M16 medium (20-25 µL for each) in a 35 mm plastic Petri dish. (B) Culture dish for the zygotes after the injection. Place 10 drops (10-20 µL for each drop) of M16 in a 35 mm plastic Petri dish. Drops are covered with mineral oil (3 mL). Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Targeted Chromosomal Region | Number of | Knock-in insertion length (kb) | Homology arm length (kb) | ||||||
Embryos | Newborns | Examined (weanings) | Knock-in W/O rTG | rTGc | |||||
injected | transferred | 5' arm | 3' arm | ||||||
2qE2 | 349 | 331 | 114 (34.4%)a | 114 | 9 (7.9%)b | 5 (4.4%)d | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
2qE2 | 231 | 215 | 78 (36.3%)a | 74 | 15 (20.3%)b | 23 (31.1%)d | 2.2 | 1.0 | 1.1 |
5qG2 | 288 | 262 | 90 (34.4%)a | 81 | 19 (23.5%)b | 18 (22.2%)d | 1.6 | 2.0 | 2.0 |
6qB1 | 278 | 259 | 58 (22.4%)a | 46 | 11 (23.9%)b | 11 (23.9%)d | 4.2 | 1.2 | 1.0 |
6qE3 [ROSA26] | 295 | 277 | 97 (35.0%)a | 23 | 2 (8.7%)b | 4 (17.4%)d | 6.5 | 1.1 | 3.0 |
6qE3 [ROSA26] | 246 | 219 | 87 (39.7%)a | 83 | 22 (26.5%)b | 18 (21.7%)d | 5.8 | 1.1 | 3.0 |
7qF5 | 279 | 268 | 116 (43.3%)a | 114 | 45 (39.5%)b | 44 (38.6%)d | 1.4 | 3.1 | 1.0 |
11qB4 | 405 | 353 | 56 (15.9%)a | 47 | 8 (17.0%)b | 12 (25.5%)d | 1.7 | 1.0 | 0.8 |
11qD | 310 | 294 | 100 (34.4%)a | 98 | 15 (15.3%)b | 76 (77.6%)d | 1.0 | 1.8 | 2.4 |
12qE | 368 | 320 | 86 (26.9%)a | 84 | 12 (14.3%)b | 19 (22.6%)d | 3.4 | 1.1 | 1.3 |
12qF1 | 315 | 265 | 76 (28.7%)a | 72 | 17 (23.6%)b | 28 (38.9%)d | 1.0 | 1.1 | 1.1 |
14qE5 | 256 | 215 | 48 (22.3%)a | 48 | 11 (22.9%)b | 21 (43.8%)d | 3.1 | 1.0 | 0.9 |
14qE5 | 287 | 285 | 85 (29.8%)a | 72 | 15 (20.8%)b | 19 (26.4%)d | 2.6 | 1.0 | 0.9 |
Table 1: Knock-in mice production by micro-injection. The table shows the birth rate and the efficiency of producing mice that carry the intended knock-in allele without (W/O) random integration (rTG) of the donor DNA. It was possible to obtain mice with the intended knock-in allele in all projects. a: Number of Newborns/Number of transferred embryos; b: Number of knock-in alleles carried mice/number of examined mice; c: it is not certain if there is an intended allele; d: Number of rTG allele carried mice/number of examined mice; rTG: random integration of donor vector. W/O: without.
Targeted Chromosomal Region | Number of | floxed length (kb) | Homology arm length (kb) | |||||
Embryos | Newborns | Examined (weanings) | floxed W/O rTG | |||||
injected | transferred | 5' arm | 3' arm | |||||
3qC | 325 | 313 | 93 (29.7%)a | 87 | 9 (10.3%)b | 1.3 | 1.2 | 1.1 |
4qB1 | 210 | 200 | 36 (18.0%)a | 29 | 6 (20.7%)b | 1.6 | 1.2 | 0.9 |
4qC4 | 272 | 256 | 112 (43.8%)a | 100 | 5 (5.0%)b | 2.4 | 1.0 | 1.4 |
5qF | 143 | 137 | 40 (29.2%)a | 40 | 6 (15.0%)b | 1.8 | 1.0 | 1.1 |
5qF | 255 | 227 | 80 (35.2%)a | 76 | 2 (2.6%)b | 1.3 | 1.1 | 0.9 |
9qE3.1 | 289 | 261 | 80 (30.7%)a | 77 | 9 (11.7%)b | 1.2 | 1.2 | 1.2 |
10qB3 | 284 | 269 | 88 (32.7%)a | 78 | 3 (3.8%)b | 1.3 | 1.1 | 0.9 |
10qC1 | 243 | 231 | 40 (17.3%)a | 38 | 4 (10.5%)b | 2.1 | 1.0 | 1.3 |
14qE5 | 390 | 372 | 139 (37.4%)a | 135 | 5 (3.7%)b | 1.1 | 0.8 | 0.9 |
17qA3.3 | 383 | 374 | 99 (26.5%)a | 95 | 2 (2.1%)b | 2.1 | 0.6 | 0.8 |
Table 2: Floxed mice production by micro-injection. The table shows the birth rate and the efficiency of producing mice that carry the intended flox allele without (W/O) random integration (rTG) of the donor DNA. It was possible to obtain mice with the intended flox allele in all projects. a: Number of newborns/number of transferred embryos; b: number of flox allele carried mice/number of examined mice. rTG: random integration of or donor vector; W/O: without.
In the present study, fresh (not frozen-thawed) C57BL/6J mouse zygotes, obtained from natural mating, were used for genome editing mouse production. By injecting crRNA-tracrRNA-Cas9 and donor DNA (RNPD) into both pronuclei of these zygotes in a cell cycle phase where knock-in is most likely to occur, gene cassette knock-in and floxed mice were generated with a high birth rate and sufficient genome editing efficiency. The current study strengthens the extensibility of the SPRINT-CRISPR method15, where it ensures sufficient knock-in efficiency even in the C57BL/6J genetic background, and can be applied to the production of floxed mice.
Electroporation is a highly generalized method of producing genome-edited mice because of the low cost of the experimental devices and the ease of learning the technique8. Furthermore, the i-GONAD method19, in which genome editing is done with preimplantation embryos existing in the oviduct, does not require a recipient mouse. Compared to these methods, the present method presented here is costly and time-consuming when preparing and maintaining an experimental environment in terms of both hardware and software. However, once the experimental facilities are set up, complex gene cassette knock-in and floxed mice can be produced with only commercially available CRISPR elements (crRNA, tracrRNA, and Cas9 protein) and a simple, small amount of circular plasmid vector to be used as donor DNA. This means that many complex genome-edited mouse lines can be produced without the need for time-consuming (or relatively expensive) lsODN5,6 or adeno-associated virus vectors20 to prepare.
Unlike the original SPRINT-CRISPR method15, fresh (frozen-thawed) zygotes were used. When obtaining fresh zygotes by natural mating, the technical errors can be ignored that may occur during in vitro fertilization or freezing and thawing. Also, the embryo manipulation process can be completed in approximately half a day (Figure 1) following the current approach. On the other hand, some limitations of the present method include the requirement of many male mice, the loose control of the fertilization timing, and the limited ability to completely predict the number of zygotes for microinjection. Compared to the original SPRINT-CRISPR method, this method may have a higher birth rate (Table 1). Despite this, it cannot be concluded that the present method is better in terms of birth rate because of the differences in the experiment conductors, target genes, genetic backgrounds, and timing of embryo confirmation.
As shown in Table 1, a large number of mice in most of the gene cassette knock-in projects had random integration alleles. Random integration must be eliminated because it can lead to unintended disruption of endogenous genes and ectopic expression of transgenes. The challenge for the future is to find experimental conditions that reduce the number of random integration events while maintaining sufficient knock-in efficiency.
Almost all mouse zygote genome editing using genome editing effectors that result in DNA double-strand breaks is likely to induce unintended mutations at on-target sites9,21. The results of these unintended on-target mutations are not described here because we are not in a situation in which the next generation of mice can be managed in order to present clear evidence of them. The best way to rule out the concern of confusion caused by unintended on-target mutagenesis is to obtain the next generation of mice by mating founders with wild-type mice rather than intercrossing founders. In principle, the N1 mice resulting from this cross are wild-type (WT) on one side of the allele, so if the intended knock-in (KI) allele is detected, they are WT/KI heterozygous. Therefore, the on-target mutagenesis is not a critical problem in the laboratory mouse, which has a relatively fast life cycle and is a prolific animal. However, further improvement will be necessary when this technology is applied to relatively large mammals.
It has been confirmed that this technology can produce gene cassette knock-in mice in inbred strains other than C57BL/6J, but a sufficient number of projects are not secured, and the data are highly variable. For this reason, this information is not included in the present study. It is believed that further studies on this subject will be necessary to advance mouse genetics and disease model research.
This work was supported by Scientific Research (B) (19H03142: to SM), Scientific Research (A) (20H00444: to FS), Scientific Research (A) (21H04838: to SM), and Scientific Research on Innovative Areas "Platform of Advanced Animal Model Support" (16H06276: to ST) from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or manuscript preparation. We are grateful to Ryoichi Mori for his helpful discussion about genome-editing design.
Name | Company | Catalog Number | Comments |
Atipamezole Hydrochloride | ZENOAQ | - | |
Autoclip Wound Clip | BD | 427631 | |
Autoclip Wound Clip Applier | BD | 427630 | |
Butorphanol | Meiji Seika Pharma | - | |
C57BL/6J mice | Jackson Laboratory Japan | - | older than 10 weeks old |
Calibrated Pipet, 100ul | Drummond Scientific Company | 2-000-100 | for collecting zygote and embryo transfer |
Cas9 | Thermo Fisher Scientific | A36499 | |
Cas9 Nuclease Reaction Buffer | NEB | B7203 | |
CellTram 4r oil | Eppendorf | 5196000030 | |
CRISPOR | http://crispor.tefor.net/ | web tool for genome editing experiments with the CRISPR-Cas9 system | |
crRNA | IDT | - | |
Gel/PCR Extraction Kit | FastGene | FG-91302 | |
hCG | ASKA Animal Health | - | |
Hyaluronidase | Merck Sigma-Aldrich | H3884 | |
ICR mice | Jackson Laboratory Japan | - | older than 10 weeks old, weight 28 G or more |
Inverted microscope | Leica | ||
KOnezumi | https://www.md.tsukuba.ac.jp/LabAnimalResCNT/KOanimals/konezumi.html | a web application for automating gene disruption strategies to generate knockout mice | |
M16 medium | Merck Sigma-Aldrich | M7292 | |
M2 medium | Merck Sigma-Aldrich | M7167 | |
Medetomidine | ZENOAQ | - | |
Micro shears | Natsume Seisakusho | MB-54-1 | |
Microforge | Narishige | MF-900 | for fire polishing of holding pipette and bending the microinjection needle |
Micromanipulator units | Narishige | ||
Micropipette puller | Sutter Instrument | P-1000 | programmable pipette puller |
Midazolam | Maruishi Pharmaceutical | - | |
MILLEX-GV 0.22 µm filter | Merck Millipore | SLGV033R | |
Mineral oil | Nacalai | 26114-75 | for zygote culture and injection chamber |
Petri dish (35mm, untreated) | Iwaki | 1000-035 | for zygote culture |
PIEZO micromanipulator | PRIME TECH | PMM-150 | |
Plasmid Mini Kit | FastGene | FG-90502 | mini prep spin column kit |
PMM Operation Liquid | PRIME TECH | KIT-A | operation liquid for microinjection |
PMSG | ASKA Animal Health | - | |
Polyvinylpyrrolidone | Merck Sigma-Aldrich | P5288 | |
RNase | QIAGEN | 19101 | |
RNase Free Water | IDT | - | tracrRNA Accessory Reagents |
Serrefine clamp | Natsume Seisakusho | C-18 | |
Sodium dodecyl sulfate | SIGMA | 151-21-3 | |
Suture needle with thread | Natsume Seisakusho | C11-60B2 | |
Thin wall borosilicate glass without filament | Sutter Instrument | B100-75-10 | for microinjection needle and holding pipette |
tracrRNA | IDT | - |
Explore More Articles
This article has been published
Video Coming Soon
ABOUT JoVE
Copyright © 2024 MyJoVE Corporation. All rights reserved