Tips, Tricks, and Potential Pitfalls of CRISPR Genome Editing in Saccharomyces cerevisiae.

The versatility of clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeat (CRISPR)-associated (Cas) genome editing makes it a popular tool for many research and biotechnology applications. Recent advancements in genome editing in eukaryotic organisms, like fungi, allow for precise manipulation of genetic information and fine-tuned control of gene expression. Here, we provide an overview of CRISPR genome editing technologies in yeast, with a particular focus on Saccharomyces cerevisiae. We describe the tools and methods that have been previously developed for genome editing in Saccharomyces cerevisiae and discuss tips and experimental tricks for promoting efficient, marker-free genome editing in this model organism. These include sgRNA design and expression, multiplexing genome editing, optimizing Cas9 expression, allele-specific editing in diploid cells, and understanding the impact of chromatin on genome editing. Finally, we summarize recent studies describing the potential pitfalls of using CRISPR genome targeting in yeast, including the induction of background mutations.

High-resolution mapping demonstrates inhibition of DNA excision repair by transcription factors.

DNA base damage arises frequently in living cells and needs to be removed by base excision repair (BER) to prevent mutagenesis and genome instability. Both the formation and repair of base damage occur in chromatin and are conceivably affected by DNA-binding proteins such as transcription factors (TFs). However, to what extent TF binding affects base damage distribution and BER in cells is unclear. Here, we used a genome-wide damage mapping method, N-methylpurine-sequencing (NMP-seq), and characterized alkylation damage distribution and BER at TF binding sites in yeast cells treated with the alkylating agent methyl methanesulfonate (MMS). Our data show that alkylation damage formation was mainly suppressed at the binding sites of yeast TFs ARS binding factor 1 (Abf1) and rDNA enhancer binding protein 1 (Reb1), but individual hotspots with elevated damage levels were also found. Additionally, Abf1 and Reb1 binding strongly inhibits BER in vivo and in vitro, causing slow repair both within the core motif and its adjacent DNA. Repair of ultraviolet (UV) damage by nucleotide excision repair (NER) was also inhibited by TF binding. Interestingly, TF binding inhibits a larger DNA region for NER relative to BER. The observed effects are caused by the TF-DNA interaction, because damage formation and BER can be restored by depletion of Abf1 or Reb1 protein from the nucleus. Thus, our data reveal that TF binding significantly modulates alkylation base damage formation and inhibits repair by the BER pathway. The interplay between base damage formation and BER may play an important role in affecting mutation frequency in gene regulatory regions.

dCas9 binding inhibits the initiation of base excision repair in vitro.

Cas9 targets DNA during genome editing by forming an RNA:DNA heteroduplex (R-loop) between the Cas9-bound guide RNA and the targeted DNA strand. We have recently demonstrated that R-loop formation by catalytically inactive Cas9 (dCas9) is inherently mutagenic, in part, by promoting spontaneous cytosine deamination within the non-targeted single-stranded DNA of the dCas9-induced R-loop. However, the extent to which dCas9 binding and R-loop formation affect the subsequent repair of uracil lesions or other damaged DNA bases is unclear. Here, we show that DNA binding by dCas9 inhibits initiation of base excision repair (BER) for uracil lesions in vitro. Our data indicate that cleavage of uracil lesions by Uracil-DNA glycosylase (UDG) is generally inhibited at dCas9-bound DNA, in both the dCas9:sgRNA-bound target strand (TS) or the single-stranded non-target strand (NT). However, cleavage of a uracil lesion within the base editor window of the NT strand was less inhibited than at other locations, indicating that this site is more permissive to UDG activity. Furthermore, our data suggest that dCas9 binding to PAM sites can inhibit UDG activity. However, this non-specific inhibition can be relieved with the addition of an sgRNA lacking sequence complementarity to the DNA substrate. Moreover, we show that dCas9 binding also inhibits human single-strand selective monofunctional uracil-DNA glycosylase (SMUG1). Structural analysis of a Cas9-bound target site subsequently suggests a molecular mechanism for BER inhibition. Taken together, our results imply that dCas9 (or Cas9) binding may promote background mutagenesis by inhibiting the removal of DNA base lesions by BER.