Gene therapy holds tremendous potential in the treatment of inherited diseases. Unlike traditional medicines, which only treat the symptoms, gene therapy has the potential to cure the disease by addressing the root of the problem: genetic mutations. The discovery of CRISPR/Cas9 in 2012 paved the way for the development of those therapies. Improvement of this system led to the recent development of an outstanding technology called prime editing. This system can introduce targeted insertions, deletions, and all 12 possible base-to-base conversions in the human genome. Since the first publication on prime editing in 2019, groups all around the world have worked on this promising technology to develop a treatment for genetic diseases. Liver diseases are currently the most studied field for human gene therapy by prime editing. To date, prime editing has been attempted in preclinical studies for tyrosinemia type 1, alpha-1-antitrypsin deficiency, phenylketonuria, DGAT1-deficiency, bile salt export pump deficiency, liver cancer, and for a liver disease caused by a mutation in the DNMT1 gene. In this entry, we portyrosinemia type 1, alpha-1-antitrypsin deficiency, phenylketonuria, DGAT1-deficiency, bile salt export pump deficiency, liver cancer, and for a ayed where we are now on prime editing for human gene therapy for liver disease caused by as, and outlined the best strategies for correcting pathogenic mutation in the DNMT1s by prime genediting.
1. Introduction
Gene therapy offers enormous potential in the treatment of genetic diseases. Its potency lies in addressing the genetic root of the problem, unlike traditional medicines, which only treat the symptoms. By correcting the mutations, gene therapy has the potential to cure hereditary diseases. Sherkow et al.
[1] defined gene therapy as “the intentional, expected permanent, and specific alteration of the DNA sequence of the cellular genome, for a clinical purpose”. The first approved gene therapy occurred in 1990, when a foreign gene was inserted into a kid’s immune cells
[2]. Gene therapies first took the form of DNA insertion into the host genome
[3]. In the 2000s, tools allowing the introduction of modifications at specific target sites in the genome were developed, including zinc-finger nucleases (ZFNs)
[4] and transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALENs)
[5].
A milestone in the development of gene therapies was the discovery of CRISPR/Cas9 in 2012. This system involves a Cas9 nuclease that induces a double-strand DNA break at a precise place in the genome. The Cas9 is directed at the right sequence in the genome by a guide RNA. This guide is a single RNA strand complementary to an 18–24 nucleotides (nt) sequence in the genome
[6][7]. When the complex is fixed on the complementary DNA sequence and the Cas9 recognizes a protospacer adjacent motif (PAM), the complex is activated. This PAM sequence varies depending on the microorganism of origin of the Cas9. For example, the most widely used Cas9 is from
Streptococcus pyogenes (SpCas9) and recognizes the PAM 5′-NGG-3′
[8]. Once this small sequence is recognized, Cas9 will cut 3 nt upstream of the PAM
[9]. The cell will then repair its DNA by non-homologous end joining (NHEJ), microhomology-mediated end joining (MMEJ), or homology-directed repair (HDR). NHEJ is an imprecise mechanism where broken ends of DNA are joined together, which often leads to insertions or deletions of nucleotides
[10]. MMEJ is also an imprecise mechanism that can lead to undesired insertions, deletions, or even translocations
[11]. This mechanism works by aligning short homologous sequences that are between the broken ends
[12][13]. HDR repairs the damage using a homologous donor DNA, leading to a precise repair of the cut
[10].
The evolution and refinement of the CRISPR/Cas9 technology have driven the development of base editing. This system exists in three versions: cytosine base editors (CBEs)
[14], adenine base editors (ABEs)
[15], and C to G base editors (CGBEs)
[16]. CBE can install C > T and G > A mutations, while ABE can induce A > G and T > C mutations
[17], and CGBE can generate C-to-G transversions
[16][18]. Those editors change all the intended base pairs in a precise window (for example, CBE switches all C•G base pairs located in the window to T•A base pairs). Compared to CRISPR/Cas9, the advantages of this technology are that base editing does not require a double-strand break (the system uses a modified D10A Cas9) and does not need an exogenous DNA template, which leads to the reduction of unwanted indels. Base editing also leads to much more precise correction of the mutation by its ability to target a particular codon. However, those systems
[19] cannot be applied when the change of a base pair in the window (other than the desired one) would lead to a non-silent mutation.
In October 2019, David R. Liu’s group released an outstanding discovery called prime editing
[20]. This system can mediate targeted insertions, deletions, and all 12 possible base-to-base conversions. This mechanism makes DNA modifications with unprecedented precision and has substantial advantages over the traditional CRISPR/Cas9 and base editing systems (
Table 1). Derived from the CRISPR/Cas9 system, this new technology is composed of a Cas9 nuclease fused with a reverse transcriptase (RT) at its 3′ extremity and a prime editing guide RNA (pegRNA) (
Figure 1). The combination of Cas9 and RT forms the prime editor (PE). The pegRNA is composed of a spacer sequence, a primer binding site (PBS), a reverse transcriptase template (RTT), and a common region that binds to the Cas9 and the RT
[19]. First, the complex binds to the DNA, guided by the spacer sequence in the pegRNA. The Cas9 recognizes a PAM and cuts 3 nt upstream. However, instead of creating a double-stranded cut, the modified H840A Cas9 from the prime editing induces a single-stranded nick
[20]. Then, the PBS hybridizes to its complementary sequence located on the cut strand. Then, the RT will use the RTT as a template to transcribe the cut strand. At this point, one of the strands has a duplicated section, so the cell will have to remove one of the two sections to put back the DNA double-stranded again. The mismatch will be resolved by a 5′ flap or a 3′ flap. If a 3′ flap happens, the correction will be kept, but the editing will be lost if a 5′ flap occurs
[20].
To introduce any modifications, the desired correction needs to be introduced in the RTT sequence, since it serves as a template for the transcription. There are currently several versions of the prime editor, the most popular being PE2 and PE3. PE3 is similar to PE2 but has an additional guide RNA that will induce a nick on the strand not initially cut by Cas9. It will promote the replacement of the unedited strand by forcing the cell to use the edited strand as a template. This increases the chances of retaining the edit at the mismatch repair step. When a position is given, this one is defined according to the reference system based on the initial Cas9 cleavage site. Thus, nucleotides downstream of this site will have a positive position (e.g., +5 means five nucleotides after the cut site towards 3′), and nucleotides upstream of the cut site will have a negative position (e.g., −5 means five nucleotides before the cut site towards 5′).
Table 1. Comparison of advantages and disadvantages of CRISPR/Cas9, base editing, and prime editing systems.
|
CRISPR/Cas9 |
Base Editing |
Prime Editing |
% of |
| Editing |
Cells or Animal Models |
Length (nt) |
Edit |
| Position from the Nick |
Delivery Method |
Prime Editor Form |
Comments |
Reference |
Spacer |
PBS |
RTT |
Off-target effects |
Significant off-target effects |
Little or no off-target effects |
Little or no off-target effects |
Liver cancer |
CTNNB1 |
6 nt deletion |
I |
PE3 |
30 |
Liver organoid |
20 |
12 |
17 |
+1 |
Electroporation |
Plasmid |
|
Schene 2020 [24] |
|
|
Bile salt export pump deficiency |
|
|
ABCB11 |
|
D482G |
A > G |
20 |
20 |
|
+7 |
The PAM is also mutated (+5 G > A silent mutation) |
Flexibility |
|
|
|
DGAT1-deficiency |
DGAT1 |
S210del |
Del CCT |
C |
21 |
Patient-derived intestinal cells |
20 |
|
|
Programmability 1 |
Only if a DNA donor template is given |
Yes |
Yes |
Bile salt export pump deficiency |
ABCB11 |
R1153H |
G > A |
0 |
Patient-derived liver organoids |
|
|
|
|
Efficient in vivo delivery |
Currently possible |
Currently possible (but more difficult than CRISPR/Cas9 because of its larger size) |
Need to be improved (too big for conventional vehicles) |