Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Simultaneous multi-site editing of individual genomes using retron arrays

Nature Chemical Biology volume 20, pages 1482–1492 (2024)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

During recent years, the use of libraries-scale genomic manipulations scaffolded on CRISPR guide RNAs have been transformative. However, these existing approaches are typically multiplexed across genomes. Unfortunately, building cells with multiple, nonadjacent precise mutations remains a laborious cycle of editing, isolating an edited cell and editing again. The use of bacterial retrons can overcome this limitation. Retrons are genetic systems composed of a reverse transcriptase and a noncoding RNA that contains an multicopy single-stranded DNA, which is reverse transcribed to produce multiple copies of single-stranded DNA. Here we describe a technology—termed a multitron—for precisely modifying multiple sites on a single genome simultaneously using retron arrays, in which multiple donor-encoding DNAs are produced from a single transcript. The multitron architecture is compatible with both recombineering in prokaryotic cells and CRISPR editing in eukaryotic cells. We demonstrate applications for this approach in molecular recording, genetic element minimization and metabolic engineering.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Encoding several donors in a retron msd enables multiplexed retron recombineering.
Fig. 2: Improved multiplexed editing using donors in arrayed retron msds.
Fig. 3: Increasing limits of deletion size using nested deletion donor arrays.
Fig. 4: Multi-site editing of individual bacterial genomes using multitrons.
Fig. 5: Metabolic engineering using multitrons.
Fig. 6: Arrayed retron msds enable multiplexed editing in eukaryotic cells.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article and its Supplementary Information or will be made available from the authors upon request. Sequencing data associated with this study are available on NCBI SRA as BioProject ID PRJNA1107632.

Code availability

Custom code to process or analyze data from this study is available via GitHub at https://github.com/Shipman-Lab/multitrons (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11289190).

References

  1. Shalem, O., Sanjana, N. E. & Zhang, F. High-throughput functional genomics using CRISPR–Cas9. Nat. Rev. Genet. 16, 299–311 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Doench, J. G. Am I ready for CRISPR? A user’s guide to genetic screens. Nat. Rev. Genet. 19, 67–80 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Wang, H. H. et al. Programming cells by multiplex genome engineering and accelerated evolution. Nature 460, 894–898 (2009).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Lajoie, M. J. et al. Genomically recoded organisms expand biological functions. Science 342, 357–360 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Nyerges, Á. et al. Directed evolution of multiple genomic loci allows the prediction of antibiotic resistance. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, E5726–E5735 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Barbieri, E. M., Muir, P., Akhuetie-Oni, B. O., Yellman, C. M. & Isaacs, F. J. Precise editing at DNA replication forks enables multiplex genome engineering in eukaryotes. Cell 171, 1453–1467.e13 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Isaacs, F. J. et al. Precise manipulation of chromosomes in vivo enables genome-wide codon replacement. Science 333, 348–353 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Komor, A. C., Kim, Y. B., Packer, M. S., Zuris, J. A. & Liu, D. R. Programmable editing of a target base in genomic DNA without double-stranded DNA cleavage. Nature 533, 420–424 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Gaudelli, N. M. et al. Programmable base editing of A·T to G·C in genomic DNA without DNA cleavage. Nature 551, 464–471 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Anzalone, A. V. et al. Search-and-replace genome editing without double-strand breaks or donor DNA. Nature 576, 149–157 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Tong, Y. et al. Highly efficient DSB-free base editing for streptomycetes with CRISPR-BEST. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 20366–20375 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Tong, Y., Jørgensen, T. S., Whitford, C. M., Weber, T. & Lee, S. Y. A versatile genetic engineering toolkit for E. coli based on CRISPR-prime editing. Nat. Commun. 12, 5206 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Volke, D. C., Martino, R. A., Kozaeva, E., Smania, A. M. & Nikel, P. I. Modular (de)construction of complex bacterial phenotypes by CRISPR/nCas9-assisted, multiplex cytidine base-editing. Nat. Commun. 13, 3026 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Yuan, Q. & Gao, X. Multiplex base- and prime-editing with drive-and-process CRISPR arrays. Nat. Commun. 13, 2771 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Aulicino, F. et al. Highly efficient CRISPR-mediated large DNA docking and multiplexed prime editing using a single baculovirus. Nucleic Acids Res. 50, 7783–7799 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Li, H. et al. Multiplex precision gene editing by a surrogate prime editor in rice. Mol. Plant 15, 1077–1080 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Gao, L. et al. Diverse enzymatic activities mediate antiviral immunity in prokaryotes. Science 369, 1077–1084 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Millman, A. et al. Bacterial retrons function in anti-phage defense. Cell 183, 1551–1561.e12 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Mestre, M. R., González-Delgado, A., Gutiérrez-Rus, L. I., Martínez-Abarca, F. & Toro, N. Systematic prediction of genes functionally associated with bacterial retrons and classification of the encoded tripartite systems. Nucleic Acids Res. 48, 12632–12647 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Bobonis, J. et al. Bacterial retrons encode phage-defending tripartite toxin–antitoxin systems. Nature 609, 144–150 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Yee, T., Furuichi, T., Inouye, S. & Inouye, M. Multicopy single-stranded DNA isolated from a Gram-negative bacterium, Myxococcus xanthus. Cell 38, 203–209 (1984).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Inouye, S., Hsu, M. Y., Eagle, S. & Inouye, M. Reverse transcriptase associated with the biosynthesis of the branched RNA-linked msDNA in Myxococcus xanthus. Cell 56, 709–717 (1989).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Lampson, B. C., Inouye, M. & Inouye, S. Reverse transcriptase with concomitant ribonuclease H activity in the cell-free synthesis of branched RNA-linked msDNA of Myxococcus xanthus. Cell 56, 701–707 (1989).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Simon, A. J., Ellington, A. D. & Finkelstein, I. J. Retrons and their applications in genome engineering. Nucleic Acids Res. 47, 11007–11019 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Farzadfard, F. & Lu, T. K. Genomically encoded analog memory with precise in vivo DNA writing in living cell populations. Science 346, 1256272 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Sharon, E. et al. Functional genetic variants revealed by massively parallel precise genome editing. Cell 175, 544–557.e16 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Simon, A. J., Morrow, B. R. & Ellington, A. D. Retroelement-based genome editing and evolution. ACS Synth. Biol. 7, 2600–2611 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Schubert, M. G. et al. High-throughput functional variant screens via in vivo production of single-stranded DNA. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2018181118 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Lopez, S. C., Crawford, K. D., Lear, S. K., Bhattarai-Kline, S. & Shipman, S. L. Precise genome editing across kingdoms of life using retron-derived DNA. Nat. Chem. Biol. 18, 199–206 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Jiang, W. et al. High-efficiency retron-mediated single-stranded DNA production in plants. Synth. Biol. 7, ysac025 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Fishman, C. B. et al. Continuous multiplexed phage genome editing using recombitrons. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.03.24.534024 (2023)

  32. Mosberg, J. A., Lajoie, M. J. & Church, G. M. Lambda red recombineering in Escherichia coli occurs through a fully single-stranded intermediate. Genetics 186, 791–799 (2010).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Wannier, T. M. et al. Improved bacterial recombineering by parallelized protein discovery. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 13689–13698 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Palka, C., Fishman, C. B., Bhattarai-Kline, S., Myers, S. A. & Shipman, S. L. Retron reverse transcriptase termination and phage defense are dependent on host RNase H1. Nucleic Acids Res. 50, 3490–3504 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Datsenko, K. A. & Wanner, B. L. One-step inactivation of chromosomal genes in Escherichia coli K-12 using PCR products. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 97, 6640–6645 (2000).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Ellington, A. J. & Reisch, C. R. Efficient and iterative retron-mediated in vivo recombineering in Escherichia coli. Synth Biol (Oxf) 7, ysac007 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Alper, H., Jin, Y. S., Moxley, J. F. & Stephanopoulos, G. Identifying gene targets for the metabolic engineering of lycopene biosynthesis in Escherichia coli. Metab. Eng. 7, 155–164 (2005).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Kang, M. J. et al. Identification of genes affecting lycopene accumulation in Escherichia coli using a shot-gun method. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 91, 636–642 (2005).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Jin, Y. S. & Stephanopoulos, G. Multi-dimensional gene target search for improving lycopene biosynthesis in Escherichia coli. Metab. Eng. 9, 337–347 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Chen, H., Bjerknes, M., Kumar, R. & Jay, E. Determination of the optimal aligned spacing between the Shine–Dalgarno sequence and the translation initiation codon of Escherichia coli mRNAs. Nucleic Acids Res. 22, 4953–4957 (1994).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Engler, C., Kandzia, R. & Marillonnet, S. A one pot, one step, precision cloning method with high throughput capability. PLoS ONE 3, e3647 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Cunningham, F. X. J., Sun, Z., Chamovitz, D., Hirschberg, J. & Gantt, E. Molecular structure and enzymatic function of lycopene cyclase from the cyanobacterium Synechococcus sp strain PCC7942. Plant Cell 6, 1107–1121 (1994).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Liu, W. et al. Retron-mediated multiplex genome editing and continuous evolution in Escherichia coli. Nucleic Acids Res. 51, 8293–8307 (2023).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. DiCarlo, J. et al. Genome engineering in Saccharomyces cerevisiae using CRISPR–Cas systems. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, 4336–4343 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. DiCarlo, J. et al. Yeast oligo-mediated genome engineering (YOGE). ACS Synth. Biol. 2, 741–749 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Roy, K. et al. Multiplexed precision genome editing with trackable genomic barcodes in yeast. Nat. Biotechnol. 36, 512–520 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Guo, X. et al. High-throughput creation and functional profiling of DNA sequence variant libraries using CRISPR–Cas9 in yeast. Nat. Biotechnol. 36, 540–546 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Świat, M. et al. FnCpf1: a novel and efficient genome editing tool for Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Nucleic Acids Res. 45, 12585–12598 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Ferreira, R. et al. Multiplexed CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing and gene regulation using Csy4 in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. ACS Synth. Biol. 7, 10–15 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Liang, Z. et al. Advanced eMAGE for highly efficient combinatorial editing of a stable genome. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.30.256743 (2020).

  51. Niwa, H., Yamamura, K. & Miyazaki, J. Efficient selection for high-expression transfectants with a novel eukaryotic vector. Gene 108, 193–199 (1991).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Gietz, R. D. & Schiestl, R. H. High-efficiency yeast transformation using the LiAc/SS carrier DNA/PEG method. Nat. Protoc. 2, 31–34 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Work was supported by funding from the National Science Foundation (MCB 2137692), the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (R21EB031393), the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (1DP2GM140917) and the UCSF Program for Breakthrough Biomedical Research. S.L.S. is a Chan Zuckerberg Biohub—San Francisco investigator and acknowledges additional funding support from the L.K. Whittier Foundation and the Pew Biomedical Scholars Program. A.G.-D. was supported by the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) scholar program. S.C.L. was supported by a Berkeley Fellowship for Graduate Study.

Author information

Author notes

  1. These authors contributed equally: Alejandro González-Delgado, Santiago C. Lopez.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Gladstone Institute of Data Science and Biotechnology, San Francisco, CA, USA

    Alejandro González-Delgado, Santiago C. Lopez, Matías Rojas-Montero, Chloe B. Fishman & Seth L. Shipman

  2. Graduate Program in Bioengineering, University of California, San Francisco and Berkeley, San Francisco, CA, USA

    Santiago C. Lopez

  3. Department of Bioengineering and Therapeutic Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA

    Seth L. Shipman

  4. Chan Zuckerberg Biohub—San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA

    Seth L. Shipman

Authors
  1. Alejandro González-Delgado
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Santiago C. Lopez
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Matías Rojas-Montero
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Chloe B. Fishman
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Seth L. Shipman
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

S.L.S., A.G.-D. and S.C.L. conceived the study. A.G.-D., S.C.L. and M.R.-M. cloned plasmids used in this study, A.G.-D. performed all experiments with E. coli, and S.C.L. performed all experiments with S. cerevisiae and human cultured cells. M.R.M. and C.B.F. performed NGS and prepped and ran the sequencing libraries. A.G.-D., S.C.L. and S.L.S. designed the work, analyzed the data and wrote the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Seth L. Shipman.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

A.G.-D., S.C.L. and S.L.S. are named inventors on a patent application related to the technologies described in this work (63/524,317). S.L.S. is a founder of Retronix Bio. The remaining authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Chemical Biology thanks the anonymous reviewers for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 Trans msr multitron architecture enables precise genome editing.

Top: Schematic of retron recombineering using an msd array with a single msr sequence in trans including a terminator (T) between the msd array and msr. Bottom: quantification of precise editing rates for precise editing of rpoB or gyrA simultaneously by Illumina sequencing after 24 h of editing. Circles show each of the three biological replicates, bars are mean ± SD.

Extended Data Fig. 2 Optimization of retron recombineering using a single plasmid.

a. Left: schematic of the different retron operon architectures tested. ncRNA with donor (orange and blue), genes required (grey) and optimized ribosome binding sites (RBS) regions (green) are indicated Right: quantification of rates for precise rpoB editing, circles show each of the three biological replicates, bars are mean ± SD. b. Quantification of precise editing rates for rpoB target site at 30 and 37 °C, circles show each of the three biological replicates, lines are mean ± SD. c. Quantification of OD600 using increasing concentrations of m-toluic acid after 16 h of bacterial growing (n = 1). d. Quantification of precise editing rates for rpoB using different concentrations of arabinose (n = 1). e. Quantification of colonies with intact msd arrays. A total of 30 colonies coming from 3 different replicates were sequenced, bars are mean ± SD All precise editing rates were quantified using Illumina MiSeq after 24 h of editing. f. Scheme of the protocol used to analyze genetic stability of the retron arrays. Briefly, recombineering plasmid was transformed into E. coli strain bMS.346, followed by 5 days of growing and diluting in the presence or absence of the arabinose. A dilution of the final culture was diluted and plated. Finally, the msd Array of 10 individual colonies per replicate (n = 3) were amplified and sequenced to assess genetic stability of the multitron approach.

Extended Data Fig. 3 Local off-target mutations.

a. Quantification of precise editing rates for fbaH and hda genes using a live or dead version of Eco1 RT, circles show each of the three biological replicates, bars are mean ± SD. b. Local off-target mutation frequency in the 70 bp region of the chromosome homologous to fbaH and hda editing donors using a live of dead version of Eco1 RT circles show each of the three biological replicates, bars are mean ± SD. All data was quantified using Illumina MiSeq after 24 h of editing.

Extended Data Fig. 4 Intended and undesired on-target mutation rates caused by arrayed retron multiplexed editing in yeast cells.

a. Top: Schematic of the donor encoding retron ncRNA/gRNA expression cassette expressed from a Gal7 Pol II promoter and flanked by ribozymes versus a new construction replacing ribozymes with Csy4 sequences. Bottom left: schematic of a retron ncRNA-Cas9 gRNA hybrid for genome editing in yeast, depicted above the protein-coding expression cassette which is inserted into the yeast genome. Bottom right: quantification of indel rates of the ADE2 locus in yeast by Illumina sequencing after 48 h of editing. Circles show each of the three biological replicates, bars are mean ± SD; absence/presence of Csy4 in the protein-coding expression cassette is shown below the graph. b. Top: schematic of an arrayed retron ncRNA-Cas9 gRNA expression cassette, expressed from a Gal7 Pol II promoter, flanked by ribozymes, and separated by a Csy4 sequence. The retron editors in positions 1 and 2 target the ADE2 and FAA1 locus, respectively. Bottom: quantification of indel rates of the ADE2 and FAA1 loci in yeast by Illumina sequencing after 48 h of editing. Circles show each of the three biological replicates, bars are mean ± SD; absence/presence of Csy4 in the protein-coding expression cassette is shown below the graph. c. Top: schematic of an arrayed retron msdRNA-Cas9 gRNA expression cassette, expressed from a Gal7 Pol II promoter, flanked and separated by a Csy4 sequence; the msrRNA is expressed in trans from a SNR52 Pol III promoter. Bottom: assembly schematic for one-pot Golden Gate cloning of multiple msdRNA-sgRNA editors. d. Schematic showing the presumed processing, annealing and reverse-transcription involved in the generation of editing donors from arrayed retron msdRNA-Cas9 gRNA cassettes. e. top: schematic of 5x arrayed retron msdRNA-Cas9 gRNA expression cassettes, as shown in Extended Data Fig. 4c. Bottom: quantification of precise editing of the various yeast loci targeted by the retron editors shown above, by Illumina sequencing, after 24 and 120 h of editing. The editors target ADE2, CAN1, TRP2, SGS1 and FAA1. Two-way ANOVA, effect of expression time, P = 0.0038. Circles show each 3 biological replicates, bars are mean ± SD. f–h, top: schematic of 2x, 3x or 5x arrayed retron msdRNA-Cas9 gRNA expression cassettes. Bottom: quantification of indel rates of the various yeast loci targeted by the retron editors shown above, by Illumina sequencing, after 24 and 120 h of editing. Individual open circles show each of three biological replicates per condition, bars are mean ± SD The editors target ADE2 and FAA1 (f); ADE2, CAN1 and FAA1 (g); and ADE2, CAN1, TRP2, SGS1 and FAA1 (h).

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

González-Delgado, A., Lopez, S.C., Rojas-Montero, M. et al. Simultaneous multi-site editing of individual genomes using retron arrays. Nat Chem Biol 20, 1482–1492 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41589-024-01665-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41589-024-01665-7

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing