3 ms·
Well, from your table S5 and table S12, as is usual we see that about 0.1 - 1% of the cells were mutants in the control group (ie they came pre-"modified"). In
by nonbel 10y ago
Well, from your table S5 and table S12, as is usual we see that about 0.1 - 1% of the cells were mutants in the control group (ie they came pre-"modified").
Interestingly, from table S12 and my (selection for pre-existing mutants) model we can also explain a mysterious result they observed:
"Silent co-mutations in the repair oligonucleotides were introduced into >99% of D54H mutant alleles and ~3% of the F482S allele (Fig. 2c). Carryover of these silent SNPs indicates that the alleles are the product of HR and not de novo mutagenesis. The lower rate of coappearance of silent SNPs in F482S is presumably due to the larger distance between the two SNPs in the oligonucleotide and is rather common to see with single-stranded oligonucleotide donors19."
Rather than that ad hoc explanation, it is simply that the D54H cells had more silent only mutations to begin with (0.1% vs 0.0%). Regarding that 0.0%, an annoying thing is that they only report these percentages to one decimal place.
I'm not exactly clear on the number of cells present before the CRISPR-Cas9 treatment, but it sounds like 10^8, and then they let them grow for 72 hr + 7-12 days (total of 10-15 days) after the treatment. They also don't tell us how many cells were left at the end... but anyway if we assume these cells divide once a day, and 0.1% are preexisting mutants we could calculate the possible number of mutants thus:
Nt = 10^8
p = 0.001
d = 0:15
Nt*p*2^d
After 12 days we can get ~400 million cells from those initial pre-existing mutants, and after 15 days over as 3 billion. Of course other factors would probably come into play that limit this growth, I'm just saying it would be no problem for that small subset of the population to become dominant during the experiment. That is even if the 99,900,000 "WT" cells were just growth arrested rather than died.
So I find those results to favor the "selection for pre-existing mutants" explanation over the "gene modification" one.
- AlexCoventry 10y agoThe key observation from my perspective is that they seem to have done the resequencing before any resistance selection. Why would the indel frequencies rise only in the CRISPR-treated cells during drug-free growth?
- nonbel 10y ago>"The key observation from my perspective is that they seem to have done the resequencing before any resistance selection. Why would the indel frequencies rise only in the CRISPR-treated cells during drug-free growth?" Because in cells that contain the target sequence (the complement to the guide RNA), Cas9 is damaging the DNA, leading to cell death and growth arrest. The small percentage of cells that already contained indels (thus reducing affinity for the guide RNA) are "immune", so they preferentially survive and divide to take over the population.
- AlexCoventry 10y agoOh. Interesting theory.
- AlexCoventry 10y agoDoes that argument assume the Cas9 activity you belive the experiment doesn't demonstrate?
- nonbel 10y agoI assume the Cas9 endonuclease activity is the cause of the toxicity... The theory does not require that though, only that the treatment kills/damages the cells containing the target sequence.
- AlexCoventry 10y agoBut you don't give an alternative etiology?
- nonbel 10y agoSorry, I have no idea what you are looking for. What is confusing you about my explanation? It seems very clear to me.
- AlexCoventry 10y ago