CRISPR–Cas9 genome editing induces a p53-mediated DNA damage response (original) (raw)

Nature Medicine volume 24, pages 927–930 (2018)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Here, we report that genome editing by CRISPR–Cas9 induces a p53-mediated DNA damage response and cell cycle arrest in immortalized human retinal pigment epithelial cells, leading to a selection against cells with a functional p53 pathway. Inhibition of p53 prevents the damage response and increases the rate of homologous recombination from a donor template. These results suggest that p53 inhibition may improve the efficiency of genome editing of untransformed cells and that p53 function should be monitored when developing cell-based therapies utilizing CRISPR–Cas9.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

$29.99 / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 print issues and online access

$209.00 per year

only $17.42 per issue

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Additional access options:

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hustedt, N. & Durocher, D. Nat. Cell Biol. 19, 1–9 (2016).
    Article PubMed CAS Google Scholar
  2. Hohmann, S. & Gozalbo, D. Mol. Gen. Genet. 211, 446–454 (1988).
    Article PubMed CAS Google Scholar
  3. Richardson, C. D., Ray, G. J., DeWitt, M. A., Curie, G. L. & Corn, J. E. Nat. Biotechnol. 34, 339–344 (2016).
    Article PubMed CAS Google Scholar
  4. DeWitt, M. A. et al. Sci. Transl. Med. 8, 360ra134 (2016).
    Article PubMed PubMed Central CAS Google Scholar
  5. Yin, H. et al. Nat. Biotechnol. 32, 551–553 (2014).
    Article PubMed PubMed Central CAS Google Scholar
  6. Dever, D. P. et al. Nature 539, 384–389 (2016).
    Article PubMed PubMed Central CAS Google Scholar
  7. Lee, K. et al. eLife 6, e25312 (2017).
  8. Maruyama, T. et al. Nat. Biotechnol. 33, 538–542 (2015).
    Article PubMed PubMed Central CAS Google Scholar
  9. Schmierer, B. et al. Mol. Syst. Biol. 13, 945 (2017).
    Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
  10. Luo, M. & Chen, Y. Int. J. Ophthalmol. 11, 150–159 (2018).
    PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
  11. Otto, T. & Sicinski, P. Nat. Rev. Cancer 17, 93–115 (2017).
    Article PubMed PubMed Central CAS Google Scholar
  12. Sokolova, M. et al. Cell Cycle 16, 189–199 (2017).
    Article PubMed CAS Google Scholar
  13. Doench, J. G. et al. Nat. Biotechnol. 34, 184–191 (2016).
    Article PubMed PubMed Central CAS Google Scholar
  14. Wang, J., Vasaikar, S., Shi, Z., Greer, M. & Zhang, B. Nucleic Acids Res. 45, W130–W137 (2017).
    Article PubMed PubMed Central CAS Google Scholar
  15. Canny, M. D. et al. Nat. Biotechnol. 36, 95–102 (2018).
    Article PubMed CAS Google Scholar
  16. Cuella-Martin, R. et al. Mol. Cell 64, 51–64 (2016).
    Article PubMed PubMed Central CAS Google Scholar
  17. Muerdter, F. et al. Nat. Methods 15, 141–149 (2018).
    Article PubMed CAS Google Scholar
  18. Li, W. et al. Genome Biol. 15, 554 (2014).
    Article PubMed PubMed Central CAS Google Scholar
  19. Wang, T. et al. Science 350, 1096–1101 (2015).
    Article PubMed PubMed Central CAS Google Scholar
  20. Tsai, S. Q. et al. Nat. Biotechnol. 33, 187–197 (2015).
    Article PubMed CAS Google Scholar

Download references

Acknowledgements

Part of this work was carried out at the High Throughput Genome Engineering Facility and the Swedish National Genomics Infrastructure funded by Science for Life Laboratory (Scilifelab). The Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation, Cancerfonden, Barncancerfonden and the Academy of Finland supported this work. We thank H. Han and Y. Bryceson for providing equipment, the Protein Science Facility at Karolinska Institutet, as well as I. Sur and T. Kivioja for their comments on the manuscript.

Author information

Author notes

  1. These authors contributed equally: Emma Haapaniemi, Sandeep Botla.
  2. These authors jointly supervised this work: Bernhard Schmierer, Jussi Taipale.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medical Biochemistry and Biophysics, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden
    Emma Haapaniemi, Sandeep Botla, Jenna Persson, Bernhard Schmierer & Jussi Taipale
  2. Genome-Scale Biology Program, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
    Emma Haapaniemi & Jussi Taipale
  3. Department of Biochemistry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Jussi Taipale

Authors

  1. Emma Haapaniemi
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  2. Sandeep Botla
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  3. Bernhard Schmierer
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  4. Jussi Taipale
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

E.H., B.S. and J.T. wrote the manuscript. S.B., B.S. and J.P. conducted the genome-wide knockout screens. E.H., B.S. and S.B. prepared the cell lines and performed the flow cytometry experiments. J.T. and B.S. supervised the study. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence toBernhard Schmierer or Jussi Taipale.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Haapaniemi, E., Botla, S., Persson, J. et al. CRISPR–Cas9 genome editing induces a p53-mediated DNA damage response.Nat Med 24, 927–930 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-018-0049-z

Download citation

This article is cited by