Cystic fibrosis gene repair: correction of ΔF508 using ZFN and CRISPR/Cas9 guide RNA gene editing tools

Cystic Fibrosis (CF) is an autosomal recessive monogenic disorder caused by mutations in the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) gene with the ΔF508 mutation accounting for approximately 70% of all CF cases worldwide. This thesis investigates whether existing zinc finger nucleases designed in this lab and CRISPR/gRNAs designed in this thesis can mediate efficient homology-directed repair (HDR) with appropriate donor repair plasmids to correct CF-causing mutations in a CF cell line. Firstly, the most common mutation, ΔF508, was corrected using a pair of existing ZFNs, which cleave in intron 9, and the donor repair plasmid pITR-donor-XC, which contains the correct CTT sequence and two unique restriction sites. HDR was initially determined to be <1% but further analysis by next generation sequencing (NGS) revealed HDR occurred at a level of 2%. This relatively low level of repair was determined to be a consequence of distance from the cut site to the mutation and so rather than designing a new pair of ZFNs, the position of the existing intron 9 ZFNs was exploited and attempts made to correct >80% of CF-causing mutations. The ZFN cut site was used as the site for HDR of a mini-gene construct comprising exons 10-24 from CFTR cDNA (with appropriate splice acceptor and poly A sites) to allow production of full length corrected CFTR mRNA. Finally, the ability to cleave closer to the mutation and mediate repair of CFTR using the latest gene editing tool CRISPR/Cas9 was explored. Two CRISPR gRNAs were tested; CRISPR ex10 was shown to cleave at an efficiency of 15% and CRISPR in9 cleaved at 3%. Both CRISPR gRNAs mediated HDR with appropriate donor plasmids at a rate of ~1% as determined by NGS. This is the first evidence of CRISPR induced HDR in CF cell lines.

Identification of RNA editing in the human exome and development of DARNED DatabaseSF

RNA editing is a biological phenomena that alters nascent RNA transcripts by insertion, deletion and/or substitution of one or a few nucleotides. It is ubiquitous in all kingdoms of life and in viruses. The predominant editing event in organisms with a developed central nervous system is Adenosine to Inosine deamination. Inosine is recognized as Guanosine by the translational machinery and reverse-transcriptase. In primates, RNA editing occurs frequently in transcripts from repetitive regions of the genome. In humans, more than 500,000 editing instances have been identified, by applying computational pipelines on available ESTs and high-throughput sequencing data, and by using chemical methods. However, the functions of only a small number of cases have been studied thoroughly. RNA editing instances have been found to have roles in peptide variants synthesis by non-synonymous codon substitutions, transcript variants by alterations in splicing sites and gene silencing by miRNAs sequence modifications. We established the Database of RNA EDiting (DARNED) to accommo-date the reference genomic coordinates of substitution editing in human, mouse and fly transcripts from published literatures, with additional information on edited genomic coordinates collected from various databases e.g. UCSC, NCBI. DARNED contains mostly Adenosine to Inosine editing and allows searches based on genomic region, gene ID, and user provided sequence. The Database is accessible at http://darned.ucc.ie RNA editing instances in coding region are likely to result in recoding in protein synthesis. This encouraged me to focus my research on the occurrences of RNA editing specific CDS and non-Alu exonic regions. By applying various filters on discrepancies between available ESTs and their corresponding reference genomic sequences, putative RNA editing candidates were identified. High-throughput sequencing was used to validate these candidates. All predicted coordinates appeared to be either SNPs or unedited.

Human interfaces to structured documents

This research investigates some of the reasons for the reported difficulties experienced by writers when using editing software designed for structured documents. The overall objective was to determine if there are aspects of the software interfaces which militate against optimal document construction by writers who are not computer experts, and to suggest possible remedies. Studies were undertaken to explore the nature and extent of the difficulties, and to identify which components of the software interfaces are involved. A model of a revised user interface was tested, and some possible adaptations to the interface are proposed which may help overcome the difficulties. The methodology comprised: 1. identification and description of the nature of a ‘structured document’ and what distinguishes it from other types of document used on computers; 2. isolation of the requirements of users of such documents, and the construction a set of personas which describe them; 3. evaluation of other work on the interaction between humans and computers, specifically in software for creating and editing structured documents; 4. estimation of the levels of adoption of the available software for editing structured documents and the reactions of existing users to it, with specific reference to difficulties encountered in using it; 5. examination of the software and identification of any mismatches between the expectations of users and the facilities provided by the software; 6. assessment of any physical or psychological factors in the reported difficulties experienced, and to determine what (if any) changes to the software might affect these. The conclusions are that seven of the twelve modifications tested could contribute to an improvement in usability, effectiveness, and efficiency when writing structured text (new document selection; adding new sections and new lists; identifying key information typographically; the creation of cross-references and bibliographic references; and the inclusion of parts of other documents). The remaining five were seen as more applicable to editing existing material than authoring new text (adding new elements; splitting and joining elements [before and after]; and moving block text).