Generation of megabase-scale deletions, inversions and duplications involving the Contactin-6 gene in mice by CRISPR/Cas9 technology
© The Author(s). 2017
Published: 28 December 2017
Copy Number Variation (CNV) of the human CNTN6 gene (encoding the contactin-6 protein), caused by deletions or duplications, is responsible for severe neurodevelopmental impairments, often in combination with facial dysmorphias. Conversely, deleterious point mutations of this gene do not show any clinical phenotypes. The aim of this study is to generate mice carrying large deletions, duplications and inversions involving the Cntn6 gene as a new experimental model to study CNV of the human CNTN6 locus.
To generate large chromosomal rearrangements on mouse chromosome 6, we applied CRISPR/Cas9 technology in zygotes. Two guide RNAs (gRNAs) (flanking a DNA fragment of 1137 Mb) together with Cas9 mRNA and single-stranded DNA oligonucleotides (ssODN) were microinjected into the cytoplasm of 599 zygotes of F1 (C57BL x CBA) mice, and 256 of them were transplanted into oviducts of CD-1 females. As a result, we observed the birth of 41 viable F0 offspring. Genotyping of these mice was performed by PCR analysis and sequencing of PCR products. Among the 41 F0 offspring, we identified seven mice with deletions, two animals carrying duplications of the gene and four carrying inversions. Interestingly, two F0 offspring had both deletions and duplications. It is important to note that while three of seven deletion carriers showed expected sequences at the new joint sites, in another three, we identified an absence of 1–10 nucleotides at the CRISPR/Cas9 cut sites, and in one animal, 103 bp were missing, presumably due to error-prone non-homologous end joining. In addition, we detected the absence of 5 and 13 nucleotides at these sites in two F0 duplication carriers. Similar sequence changes at CRISPR/Cas9 cut sites were observed at the right and left boundaries of inversions. Thus, megabase-scale deletions, duplications and inversions were identified in 11 F0 offspring among 41 analyzed, i.e., approximately 25% efficiency. All genetically modified F0 offspring were viable and able to transmit these large chromosomal rearrangements to the next generation.
Using CRISPR/Cas9 technology, we created mice carrying megabase-scale deletions, duplications, and inversions involving the full-sized Cntn6 gene. These mice became founders of new mouse lines, which may be more appropriate experimental models of CNV in the human 3p26.3 region than Сntn6 knockout mice.
Peritelomeric region pter-p26.3 of human chromosome 3 contains three genes of the immunoglobulin superfamily: CHL1, encoding neural cell adhesion molecule L1-like protein, and both CNTN4 and CNTN6, which encode contactin-4 and contactin-6 proteins, respectively. These genes are considered to be candidates for causing intellectual impairment based mainly on analysis of deletions and duplications in 3p26.3 [1–6]. In fact, copy number variations (CNV) in the 3p26.3 region, due to microdeletions and microduplications involving and one or more genes, are accompanied by severe neurodevelopmental disorders including intellectual disability, developmental delay, autism spectrum disorders, seizures and attention deficit hyperactivity [1–6]. Sizes of deletions and duplications in the 3p26.3 region vary from hundreds of kb to over three Mb. The CNTN6 gene is often involved in CNV in the 3p26.3 region either alone or in combination with the CHL1 and the CNTN4 genes. For instance, among 14 patients carrying deletions (7 cases) or duplications (5 cases) involving only the CNTN6 gene, eleven had neurodevelopmental disorders, and six had dysmorphic features . In addition, two unrelated patients with various neurodevelopmental and neuropsychiatric disorders along with dysmorphic features were characterized; one had a microdeletion, and the other had a microduplication involving only the CNTN6 gene . Interestingly, pedigrees with inheritance of 3p26.3 microdeletions and microduplications involving the CNTN6 gene include families with healthy or only mildly affected carriers in several generations [3, 5, 7].
The CNTN6 gene is a member of the immunoglobulin superfamily of neural cell-adhesion molecules . The CNTN6 gene has a size of over 420 kB and contains 30 exons with sizes varying from 355 bp to 12,000 bp (; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene/27255). The CNTN6 protein promotes neurite outgrowth and synaptogenesis, especially in sensory-motor pathways and is crucial for the appropriate orientation of dendrite growth in cortical pyramidal neurons  and synapse formation in the cerebellum .
In contrast to the aforementioned severe neurodevelopmental disorders caused by CNV of the CNTN6 gene, deleterious point mutations (missense, nonsense, splice site, or disrupted start or stop codon) of the CNTN6 gene do not show any clinical phenotypes and have been revealed as rare mutations (approximately 1%) in a study of 942 healthy people . In this instance, it is pertinent to note that knockout mice homozygous for Cntn6 −/− are viable and fertile . Moreover, the formation and organization of all nuclei and layers throughout the brains of these mutant mice appeared normal, but Cntn6 deficiency led to defects in motor coordination . It is important to note that the Cntn6, Chl1 and Cntn4 genes are all located on mouse chromosome 6 at position 103,510,581–106,700,141 (GRCm38/mm10) and their order relative to each other in mice, Chl1, Cntn6 and Cntn4, is the same as in humans.
The obvious contrast between the phenotypic manifestations of chromosomal rearrangements and point mutations at the CNTN6 locus, in both humans and mice, prompted us to generate mice carrying megabase-scale deletions, duplications and inversions involving the Cntn6 gene as a more appropriate experimental model for studying its CNV then knockout mutants.
Sequences of gRNAs complementary to target sites flanking the Cntn6 gene and ssODN
Sequences (5′ - 3′)
Target positions for gRNAs
chr6: 103,842,565-103,842,587: «-»
chr6: 104,979,795-104,979,817: «-»
5’GGTCCTTGGAGAGGAACATGGCCTTGCTTCTGTGCAGTCTTCCATCCTCAGTGGCCTCCTTGGCGCACTATATTACCTAATCCATTTTTCAGCATCCAAGATATTTTAAAGAAGAAGAAA3’ « + »
Manipulations of zygotes and birth efficiency of F0 offspring with genetic modifications: deletions, duplications and inversions
Number of zygotes microinjected
Number of transplanted zygotes
Number of recipient females
Number of mice born alive
Number of mice born dead
Number of F0 offspring with deletions
Number of F0 offspring with
Number of F0 offspring with
Primers used for genotyping F0 offspring with deletions, duplications and inversions
Sequence (5′ - 3′)
Positions on mouse chromosome 6
As is illustrated in Figs. 1e, 2c and d, F0 offspring #2, #10, #21 and #39 had inversions. It was possible to identify the precise right boundaries of all inversions whereas the left boundary was identified for #2 and #21.
It is important to note that in the one stillborn offspring and the three that died shortly after birth, there were no signs of sequence changes at the CRISPR/Cas9 cut sites. All eleven genetically modified F0 offspring were viable without visible anomalies. Six F0 males and four F0 females were crossed with C57BL and we observed birth of F1 offspring, on average nine offspring per female. These data imply that most F0 males and females were fertile.
Interestingly, among 9 F1 offspring from founder #20 was identified one animal carrying duplication, and none among 10 F1 offspring from founder #1 (Fig. 4). Analysis of SNP (single nucleotide polymorphism) distinguishing the parental alleles of the Cntn6 gene in founder #20 and its F1 offspring (Fig. 4, #4) demonstrated that founder #20 had both SNP parental variants (T and C in position 104,848,175 derived from C57BL/6 and CBA, respectively) but F1 offspring (#4) had T only. It is evidence that duplication occurred from single allele derived from C57BL/6.
All F1 offspring derived from nine founders were healthy without visible anomalies.
Genomic anomalies at the submicroscopic level are often based on variability of DNA copy number in unstable genome regions . CNVs are frequently represented by DNA fragments larger than 1 Mb , which arise due to deletions and duplications involving single or multiple genes. CNVs significantly to the variability of our genome and are often associated (up to 15%) with severe disorders [17, 18].
Considering the evolutionary conservation of syntenic gene groups between humans and mice, it is possible to create mouse models of chromosomal deletions and duplications responsible for human disorders. The large sizes of such chromosomal rearrangements have led to major difficulties in realizing this approach. To overcome this obstacle, a multi-step approach has been previously employed, based on insertion of Cre-loxP sites at desirable chromosome sites in embryonic stem (ES) cells followed by recombination between them [19, 20]. Application of CRISPR/Cas9 technology in ES cells has allowed the generation of large deletions, duplications, and inversions, and then mice carrying these rearrangements can be produced by chimera technology . However, these approaches are time consuming and laborious.
Recently, two protocols have been published [14, 22] based on direct microinjection of CRISPR/Cas9 components into zygotes, resulting in the generation of large deletions, inversions, and duplications, and leading to birth of genetically modified mice. We applied this new approach to generate megabase-scale deletions, duplication, and inversions involving the Cntn6 gene. The desired chromosomal rearrangements were generated at up to 25% efficiency, with eleven genetically modified animals among F0 41 total offspring. Among the eleven genetically modified offspring, seven animals harbored deletions and two were identified as simultaneous carriers of deletions and duplications. Interestingly, similar sized deletions at the tyrosinase gene locus (Tyr) obtained by the same approach  were not accompanied by duplications.
All genetically modified F0 animals were viable and transmitted deletions, duplications and inversions to the next generation; hence, they became founders of new mouse lines with potential for studying the effects of CNV of the Cntn6 gene. More generally, the method used here permits rapid in vivo modeling of large chromosomal rearrangements in mice.
Thus, we created mice carrying megabase-scale deletions, duplications, and inversions involving the full-sized Cntn6 gene through using CRISPR/Cas9 technology. This approach have provided to generate mice potentially modeling of human diseases due to CNV in the human 3p26.3 region than Сntn6 knockout mice.
C57BL/6 male and F1 (C57BL/6 x CBA) female mice were used in experiments with early embryos. Pseudopregnant female CD-1 mice were used as recipients for transplantation of microinjected zygotes into oviducts. Food and water were available for animals ad libitum.
CRISPR/Cas9 target sites and construction of plasmid vectors
Target sites for CRISPR/Cas9 were identified using https://crispr.med.harvard.edu/ as described previously . Selection of the target sites for CRISPR/Cas9 was based on analysis of published deletions and duplications involving the human CNTN6 gene [2, 5]. Plasmid vectors gRNA-CNTN6 containing gRNA sequences were prepared via modification of pSpCas9(BB)-2A–GFP (PX458) (Addgene) according to protocol .
Preparation of Cas9 mRNA, gRNA and ssODN for microinjection
To synthesize gRNAs, we first amplified corresponding gRNA sequence from the gRNA-CNTN6 plasmid. We introduced the T7 promoter sequence at the 5′-end of the forward primer, which resulted in generation of a PCR product containing the T7 promoter adjacent to the first nucleotide of the gRNA. This PCR product was extracted from agarose gel using a kit (Biosilica, RF), precipitated with ethanol, and then used for in vitro transcription reactions. In vitro transcription was performed with a MEGAshortscript™ T7 Transcription Kit (Ambion) according to manufacturer’s protocol. For purification of gRNAs, we used a MEGAclear™ Transcription Clean-Up Kit (Ambion) according to manufacturer’s protocol. We purchased GeneArt™ CRISPR Nuclease mRNA to use as Cas9 mRNA (Thermo Fisher Scientific, USA).
Single-stranded DNA oligonucleotides (ssODN) were 120 bp in length (DNA Synthesis, Moscow, RF) and positioned directly adjacent to the external gRNA site . ssODN had two homologous shoulders of 60 bp each and both were complementary to the «-»-DNA strand whereas both gRNAs were complementary to the « + »-strand. ssODN sequence was determined based on the Cas9 cut site between the 3rd and 4th nucleotides after PAM.
Obtaining fertilized zygotes by superovulation
Five-week-old F1 (C57BL/6 x CBA) females were super-ovulated by intraperitoneal injection of 7.5 IU of pregnant mare serum (PMSG) at 16.00 h, and 45 h later by 7.5 IU human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG). The next morning the females were checked for the presence of a vaginal copulation plug.
Females were sacrificed by cervical dislocation . Oviducts of the fertilized females were dissected, and fertilized eggs with cumulus cells were placed in M2 medium (Sigma Aldrich, USA) 21–22 h after hCG injection. The fertilized zygotes were treated with hyaluronidase (Sigma Aldrich, H4272) to release them from cumulus cells, and then were cultured prior to cytoplasmic injection in drops of M16 medium (Sigma Aldrich, M7292) under mineral oil (Sigma Aldrich, M8410) at 37 °C and an atmosphere of 5% CO2.
Cytoplasmic injection into zygotes
50 ng/μL Cas9 mRNA, 25 ng/μL gRNA (each) and 100 ng/μL ssODN were mixed in RNase-free water, backfilled into an injection needle with positive balancing pressure (Transjector 5246, Eppendorf, Germany) and injected into the cytoplasm of zygotes. After injections, the embryos were cultured for 1 h in drops of M16 medium at 37 °C and an atmosphere of 5% CO2.
The viable microinjected zygotes were transplanted the same day into oviducts of pseudopregnant CD-1 females (0.5 days after coitus). Isoflurane inhalation anesthesia was applied in these experiments.
Genotyping and identification of mutant F0 founders and its F1 offspring
Genomic DNA was isolated from tail tips by first placing them in 500 μl of Tail Lysis Buffer containing 100 mM NaCl, 10 mM Tris pH 8.0, 25 mM EDTA, 0.5% sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS), 0.2 μg/μl Proteinase K, and then incubating them at 56 °C until completely dissolved. Lysates were treated by a standard phenol-chloroform extraction method and then DNA was repeatedly precipitated with ethanol. PCR was performed with 2 μl (20 ng) of genomic DNA in 25 μl of mixture containing 1× Taq AS buffer (67 mM Tris-HCl, pH 8.8; 16.6 mM (NH4)2SO4, 0.01% Tween-20) with 1.5 mM MgCl2, 0.2 mM of each deoxynucleotide (dATP, dCTP, dGTP, and dTTP), 0.4 mM of forward and reverse primers, and 1 U of Taq polymerase. The reaction was conducted under the following conditions: initial denaturation at 95 °C 3 min, 35 cycles (30 s at 95 °C, 30 s at 63 °C and 2 min at 72 °C), and a final incubation at 72 °C for 3 min. PCR products were analyzed by electrophoresis with 2% agarose gels in Tris-EDTA-acetate buffer and sequenced using the BigDye® Terminator v3.1 kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific, USA) on an Applied Biosystems 3500 Genetic Analyzer according to manufacturer’s recommendations.
A list of primers used for genotyping is given in the Table 3.
This study was supported by the Russian Science Foundation, grant # 14-15-00772.
Publication of this article was funded by the Russian Science Foundation, grant # 14–15-00772.
About this supplement
This article has been published as part of BMC Genetics Volume 18 Supplement 1, 2017: Selected articles from Belyaev Conference 2017: genetics. The full contents of the supplement are available online at https://bmcgenet.biomedcentral.com/articles/supplements/volume-18-supplement-1.
ANK prepared all recombinant constructs and primers for PCR, performed microinjections into zygotes, transferred embryos into recipient females and did sequencing analyses of offspring; IAS performed breeding, superovulation, transfer of embryos into recipient females and PCR analysis; OLS conceived the study, provided analysis and interpretation of the data and is the principal investigator of the project. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
All procedures complied with the European Communities Council Directive of 24 November 1986 (86/609/EEC) and were approved by the Bioethical Committee at the Institute of Cytology and Genetics (Permission no. 24 from October 24, 2014).
Consent for publication
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
- Shoukier M, Fuchs S, Schwaibold E, Lingen M, Gärtner J, Brockmann K, Zirn B. Microduplication of 3p26.3 in nonsyndromic intellectual disability indicates an important role of CHL1 for normal cognitive function. Neuropediatrics. 2013;44:268–71.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Te Weehi L, Maikoo R, Mc Cormack A, Mazzaschi R, Ashton F, Zhang L, George AM, Love DR. Microduplication of 3p26.3 implicated in cognitive development. Case Rep Genet. 2014; https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/295359.
- Kashevarova AA, Nazarenko LP, Schultz-Pedersen S, Skryabin NA, Salyukova OA, Chechetkina NN, Tolmacheva EN, Rudko AA, Magini P, Graziano C, Romeo G, Joss S, Tümer Z, Lebedev IN. Single gene microdeletions and microduplication of 3p26.3 in three unrelated families: CNTN6 as a new candidate gene for intellectual disability. Mol Cytogenet. 2014; https://doi.org/10.1186/s13039-014-0097-0.
- Palumbo O, Fischetto R, Palumbo P, Nicastro F, Papadia F, Zelante L, Carella M. De novo microduplication of CHL1 in a patient with non-syndromic developmental phenotypes. Mol Cytogenet. 2015; https://doi.org/10.1186/s13039-015-0170-3.
- Hu J, Liao J, Sathanoori M, Kochmar S, Sebastian J, Yatsenko SA. Surti U (2015) CNTN6 copy number variations in 14 patients: a possible candidate gene for neurodevelopmental and neuropsychiatric disorders. J Neurodev Disord. 2015; https://doi.org/10.1186/s11689-015-9122-9.
- Li C, Liu C, Zhou B, Hu C, Xu X. Novel microduplication of CHL1 gene in a patient with autism spectrum disorder: a case report and a brief literature review. Mol Cytogenet. 2016; https://doi.org/10.1186/s11689-015-9122-9.9:51.
- Moghadasi S, van Haeringen A, Langendonck L, Gijsbers ACJ, Ruivenkamp CAL. A terminal 3p26.3 deletion is not associated with dysmorphic features and intellectual disability in a four-generation family. Am J Med Genet A. 2014;164A:2863–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Shimoda Y, Watanabe K. Contactins: emerging key roles in the development and function of the nervous system. Cell Adh. 2009;3:64–70.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Lee S, Takeda Y, Kawano H, Hosoya H, Nomoto M, Fujimoto D, Takahashi N, Watanabe K. Expression and regulation of a gene encoding neural recognition molecule NB-3 of the contactin/F3 subgroup in mouse brain. Gene. 2000;245:253–66.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Ye H, Tan YL, Ponniah S, Takeda Y, Wang SQ, Schachner M, Watanabe K, Pallen CJ, Xiao ZC. Neural recognition molecules CHL1 and NB-3 regulate apical dendrite orientation in the neocortex via PTP alpha. EMBO J. 2008;27:188–200.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Sakurai K, Toyoshima M, Ueda H, Matsubara K, Takeda Y, Karagogeos D, Shimoda Y, Watanabe K. Contribution of the neural cell recognition molecule NB-3 to synapse formation between parallel fibers and Purkinje cells in mouse. Dev Neurobiol. 2009;69:811–24.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Murdoch JD, Gupta AR, Sanders SJ, Walker MF, Keaney J, Fernandez TV, Murtha MT, Anyanwu S, Ober GT, Raubeson MJ, DiLullo NM, Villa N, Waqar Z, Sullivan C, Gonzalez L, Willsey AJ, Choe SY, Neale BM, Daly MJ, State MW. No evidence for association of autism with rare heterozygous point mutations in Contactin-Associated Protein-Like 2 (CNTNAP2), or in Other Contactin-Associated Proteins or Contactins. PLoS Genet. 2015; https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1004852.
- Takeda Í, Akasaka K, Lee S, Kobayashi S, Kawano H, Murayama S, Takahashi N, Hashimoto K, Kano M, Asano M, Sudo K, Iwakura Y, Watanabe A. Impaired motor coordination in mice lacking neural recognition molecule NB-3 of the contactin/F3 subgroup. J Neurobiol. 2003;56:252–65.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Boroviak K, Doe B, Banerjee R, Yang F, Bradley A. Chromosome engineering in zygotes with CRISPR/Cas9. Genesis. 2016;54:78–85.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Lupski JR. Genomic disorders: structural features of the genome can lead to DNA rearrangements and human disease traits. Trends Genet. 1998;14:417–22.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kearney HM, Thorland EC, Brown KK, Quintero-Rivera F, South ST. Working group of the American College of Medical Genetics standards and guidelines for interpretation and reporting of postnatal constitutional copy number variants. Genet Med. 2011;13:680–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Stankiewicz P, Lupski JR. Structural variation in the human genome and its role in disease. Annu Rev Med. 2010;61:437–55.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Martin CL, Kirkpatrick BE, Ledbetter DH. Copy number variants, aneuploidies, and human disease. Clin Perinatol. 2015;42:27–42.Google Scholar
- Ramirez-Solis R, Liu P, Bradley A. Chromosome engineering in mice. Nature. 1995;378:720–4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Smith AJ, De Sousa MA, Kwabi-Addo B, Heppell-Parton A, Impey H, Rabbitts P. 1995. A site-directed chromosomal translocation induced in embryonic stem cells by Cre-loxP recombination. Nat Genet. 1995;9:376–85.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kraft K, Geuer S, Will AJ, Chan WL, Paliou C, Borschiwer M, Harabula I, Wittler L, Franke M, Ibrahim DM, Kragesteen BK, Spielmann M, Mundlos S, Lupianez DG, Andrey G. Deletions, inversions, duplications: engineering of structural variants using CRISPR/Cas in mice. Cell Rep. 2015;10:833–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Zhang L, Jia R, Palange NJ, Satheka AC, Togo J, An Y, Humphrey M, Ban L, Ji Y, Jin H, Feng X, Zheng Y. Large genomic fragment deletions and insertions in mouse using CRISPR/Cas9. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0120396. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0120396.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Chari R, Yeo NC, Chavez A, Church GM. sgRNA Scorer 2.0: A species-independent model to predict CRISPR/Cas9 activity. ACS Synth Biol [Internet]. 2017;6:902–4.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Ran FA, Hsu PD, Wright J, Agarwala V, Scott DA, Zhang F. Genome engineering using the CRISPR-Cas9 system. Nat Protoc [Internet]. 2013;8:2281–308.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Bialk P, Rivera-Torres N, Strouse B, Kmiec EB. Regulation of gene editing activity directed by single-stranded oligonucleotides and CRISPR/Cas9 systems. PLoS One. 2015; https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0129308.
- Hogan B, Beddington R, Constatntini F, Lacy EManipulating the mouse embryo. A laboratory manual 2nd ed. New York: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press; 1994.Google Scholar