A time-resolved, multi-symbol molecular recorder via sequential genome editing

Abstract

DNA is naturally well suited to serve as a digital medium for in vivo molecular recording. However, contemporary DNA-based memory devices are constrained in terms of the number of distinct ‘symbols’ that can be concurrently recorded and/or by a failure to capture the order in which events occur 1 . Here we describe DNA Typewriter, a general system for in vivo molecular recording that overcomes these and other limitations. For DNA Typewriter, the blank recording medium (‘DNA Tape’) consists of a tandem array of partial CRISPR–Cas9 target sites, with all but the first site truncated at their 5′ ends and therefore inactive. Short insertional edits serve as symbols that record the identity of the prime editing guide RNA 2 mediating the edit while also shifting the position of the ‘type guide’ by one unit along the DNA Tape, that is, sequential genome editing. In this proof of concept of DNA Typewriter, we demonstrate recording and decoding of thousands of symbols, complex event histories and short text messages; evaluate the performance of dozens of orthogonal tapes; and construct ‘long tape’ potentially capable of recording as many as 20 serial events. Finally, we leverage DNA Typewriter in conjunction with single-cell RNA-seq to reconstruct a monophyletic lineage of 3,257 cells and find that the Poisson-like accumulation of sequential edits to multicopy DNA tape can be maintained across at least 20 generations and 25 days of in vitro clonal expansion.

References 42

1. 1.

   Sheth RU, Wang HH. DNA-based memory devices for recording cellular events. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2018;19:718-732.

   Not in our library10.1038/s41576-018-0052-8

2. 2.

   Anzalone AV, et al. Search-and-replace genome editing without double-strand breaks or donor DNA. Nature. 2019;576:149-157.

   Not in our library10.1038/s41586-019-1711-4

3. 3.

   Church, G. & Shendure, J. Nucleic acid memory device. US patent US20100099080A1 (2003).

   Not in our library

4. 4.

   Roquet N, Soleimany AP, Ferris AC, Aaronson S, Lu TK. Synthetic recombinase-based state machines in living cells. Science. 2016;353:aad8559.

   Not in our library10.1126/science.aad8559

5. 5.

   Farzadfard F, Lu TK. Genomically encoded analog memory with precise in vivo DNA writing in living cell populations. Science. 2014;346:1256272.

   Not in our library10.1126/science.1256272

6. 6.

   McKenna A, et al. Whole-organism lineage tracing by combinatorial and cumulative genome editing. Science. 2016;353:aaf7907.

   Not in our library10.1126/science.aaf7907

7. 7.

   Frieda KL, et al. Synthetic recording and in situ readout of lineage information in single cells. Nature. 2017;541:107-111.

   Not in our library10.1038/nature20777

8. 8.

   Kalhor R, Mali P, Church GM. Rapidly evolving homing CRISPR barcodes. Nat. Methods. 2017;14:195-200.

   Not in our library10.1038/nmeth.4108

9. 9.

   Perli SD, Cui CH, Lu TK. Continuous genetic recording with self-targeting CRISPR–Cas in human cells. Science. 2016;353:aag0511.

   Not in our library10.1126/science.aag0511

10. 10.

    Sheth RU, Yim SS, Wu FL, Wang HH. Multiplex recording of cellular events over time on CRISPR biological tape. Science. 2017;358:1457-1461.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.aao0958

11. 11.

    Shipman SL, Nivala J, Macklis JD, Church GM. Molecular recordings by directed CRISPR spacer acquisition. Science. 2016;353:aaf1175.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.aaf1175

12. 12.

    Loveless TB, et al. Lineage tracing and analog recording in mammalian cells by single-site DNA writing. Nat. Chem. Biol. 2021;17:739-747.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41589-021-00769-8

13. 13.

    Zamft BM, et al. Measuring cation dependent DNA polymerase fidelity landscapes by deep sequencing. PLoS ONE. 2012;7:e43876.

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0043876

14. 14.

    Tang W, Liu DR. Rewritable multi-event analog recording in bacterial and mammalian cells. Science. 2018;360:eaap8992.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.aap8992

15. 15.

    Bhattarai-Kline, S. et al. Reconstructing transcriptional histories by CRISPR acquisition of retron-based genetic barcodes. Nature (in press).

    Not in our library

16. 16.

    Schmidt F, Cherepkova MY, Platt RJ. Transcriptional recording by CRISPR spacer acquisition from RNA. Nature. 2018;562:380-385.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41586-018-0569-1

17. 17.

    Silas S, et al. Direct CRISPR spacer acquisition from RNA by a natural reverse transcriptase–Cas1 fusion protein. Science. 2016;351:aad4234.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.aad4234

18. 18.

    Loveless TB, et al. DNA writing at a single genomic site enables lineage tracing and analog recording in mammalian cells. Nat. Chem. Biol. 2021;17:739-747.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41589-021-00769-8

19. 19.

    Farzadfard F, et al. Single-nucleotide-resolution computing and memory in living cells. Mol. Cell. 2019;75:769-780.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.molcel.2019.07.011

20. 20.

    Schep R, et al. Impact of chromatin context on Cas9-induced DNA double-strand break repair pathway balance. Mol. Cell. 2021;81:2216-2230.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.molcel.2021.03.032

21. 21.

    Shin HR, et al. Small-molecule inhibitors of histone deacetylase improve CRISPR-based adenine base editing. Nucleic Acids Res. 2021;49:2390-2399.

    Not in our library10.1093/nar/gkab052

22. 22.

    Nelson, J. W. et al. Engineered pegRNAs improve prime editing efficiency. Nat. Biotechnol.40, 402–410 (2022).

    Not in our library10.1038/s41587-021-01039-7

23. 23.
    Enhanced prime editing systems by manipulating cellular determinants of editing outcomes · 2021

    No notice
24. 24.

    Hsu PD, et al. DNA targeting specificity of RNA-guided Cas9 nucleases. Nat. Biotechnol. 2013;31:827-832.

    Not in our library10.1038/nbt.2647

25. 25.

    Kim DY, Moon SB, Ko J-H, Kim Y-S, Kim D. Unbiased investigation of specificities of prime editing systems in human cells. Nucleic Acids Res. 2020;48:10576-10589.

    Not in our library10.1093/nar/gkaa764

26. 26.

    Kim HK, et al. Predicting the efficiency of prime editing guide RNAs in human cells. Nat. Biotechnol. 2021;39:198-206.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41587-020-0677-y

27. 27.

    Choi, J. et al. Precise genomic deletions using paired prime editing. Nat. Biotechnol.40, 218–226 (2022).

    Not in our library10.1038/s41587-021-01025-z

28. 28.

    Doench JG, et al. Optimized sgRNA design to maximize activity and minimize off-target effects of CRISPR–Cas9. Nat. Biotechnol. 2016;34:184-191.

    Not in our library10.1038/nbt.3437

29. 29.

    Shipman SL, Nivala J, Macklis JD, Church GM. CRISPR–Cas encoding of a digital movie into the genomes of a population of living bacteria. Nature. 2017;547:345-349.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature23017

30. 30.
    Recording development with single cell dynamic lineage tracing · 2019

    No notice
31. 31.

    Gong W, et al. Benchmarked approaches for reconstruction of in vitro cell lineages and in silico models of C. elegans and M. musculus developmental trees. Cell Syst. 2021;12:810-826.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cels.2021.05.008

32. 32.
    Inference of single-cell phylogenies from lineage tracing data using Cassiopeia · 2020

    No notice
33. 33.
    Aptazyme-embedded guide RNAs enable ligand-responsive genome editing and transcriptional activation · 2017

    No notice
34. 34.
    Controlling CRISPR-Cas9 with ligand-activated and ligand-deactivated sgRNAs · 2019

    No notice
35. 35.

    Iwasaki RS, Ozdilek BA, Garst AD, Choudhury A, Batey RT. Small molecule regulated sgRNAs enable control of genome editing in E. coli by Cas9. Nat. Commun. 2020;11:1394.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41467-020-15226-8

36. 36.

    Chen, W. et al. Multiplex genomic recording of enhancer and signal transduction activity in mammalian cells. Preprint at bioRxiv10.1101/2021.11.05.467434 (2021).

    Not in our library

37. 37.

    Sulston JE, Schierenberg E, White JG, Thomson JN. The embryonic cell lineage of the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans. Dev. Biol. 1983;100:64-119.

    Not in our library10.1016/0012-1606(83)90201-4

38. 38.

    Minkina, A., Cao, J. & Shendure, J. Tethering distinct molecular profiles of single cells by their lineage histories to investigate sources of cell state heterogeneity. Preprint at bioRxiv 10.1101/2022.05.12.491602 (2022).

    Not in our library

39. 39.

    Datlinger P, et al. Pooled CRISPR screening with single-cell transcriptome readout. Nat. Methods. 2017;14:297-301.

    Not in our library10.1038/nmeth.4177

40. 40.
    PEAR: a fast and accurate Illumina Paired-End reAd mergeR · 2013

    No notice

Cited by papers we hold 1

• A single-cell time-lapse of mouse prenatal development from gastrula to birth · 2024
  No notice

Reads

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.