Abstract
The CRISPR-Cas genome editing tools are revolutionizing agriculture and basic biology with their simplicity and precision ability to modify target genomic loci. Software-predicted guide RNAs (gRNAs) often fail to induce efficient cleavage at target loci. Many target loci are inaccessible due to complex chromatin structure. Currently, there is no suitable tool available to predict the architecture of genomic target sites and their accessibility. Hence, significant time and resources are spent on performing editing experiments with inefficient guides. Although in vitro-cleavage assay could provide a rough assessment of gRNA efficiency, it largely excludes the interference of native genomic context. Transient in-vivo testing gives a proper assessment of the cleavage ability of editing reagents in a native genomic context. Here, we developed a modified protocol that offers highly efficient protoplast isolation from rice, Arabidopsis, and chickpea, using a sucrose gradient, transfection using PEG (polyethylene glycol), and validation of single guide RNAs (sgRNAs) cleavage efficiency of CRISPR-Cas9. We have optimized various parameters for PEG-mediated protoplast transfection and achieved high transfection efficiency using our protocol in both monocots and dicots. We introduced plasmid vectors containing Cas9 and sgRNAs targeting genes in rice, Arabidopsis, and chickpea protoplasts. Using dual sgRNAs, our CRISPR-deletion strategy offers straightforward detection of genome editing success by simple agarose gel electrophoresis. Sanger sequencing of PCR products confirmed the editing efficiency of specific sgRNAs. Notably, we demonstrated that isolated protoplasts can be stored for up to 24/48 h with little loss of viability, allowing a pause between isolation and transfection. This high-efficiency protocol for protoplast isolation and transfection enables rapid (less than 7 days) validation of sgRNA cleavage efficiency before proceeding with stable transformation. The isolation and transfection method can also be utilized for rapid validation of editing strategies, evaluating diverse editing reagents, regenerating plants from transfected protoplasts, gene expression studies, protein localization and functional analysis, and other applications.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Protoplasts, which are plant cells devoid of cell walls, have a unique capability to efficiently uptake various macromolecules (such as DNA, RNA, and proteins). This ability makes them highly suitable for transient gene expression analysis, providing valuable insights into gene expression dynamics and regulatory mechanisms in plant biology (Shen et al. 2017; Xu et al. 2020). In addition, protoplast transfection using polyethylene glycol (PEG) is a simple and cost-effective method for studying gene function, subcellular localization, and protein–protein interaction in various plant species (Yu et al. 4 and supplementary Fig. 1), and the tube was incubated on a benchtop for 15–30 min to facilitate the accumulation of more protoplasts. Using a 200 µL pipette with cut tips (see supplementary note 4), a band of protoplasts was transferred from the interface to a new round-bottom tube (typically ~ 1 mL of protoplasts) and checked under the microscope using a Hemocytometer. The visible concentrated round protoplasts at this step were further washed by adding 5 mL of W5 buffer using centrifugation at 100 g for 5 min. After that, the supernatant was carefully removed leaving 0.25 mL, and further counted using a hemocytometer. Finally, MMG buffer (Supplementary Table S4) was added to obtain a titer of 2 × 106 protoplasts per mL. A detailed protocol is given in supplementary file.
Protoplast isolation and density evaluation from Arabidopsis and Chickpea
Protoplast isolation from Arabidopsis and chickpea leaves was performed as detailed below. Three-week-old leaves of Arabidopsis (15 leaves) and chickpea (30 leaves) were chopped with single-edge razor blades into 0.5–1 mm strips. The strips were transferred in a sterile 100 mL conical flask containing 10 mL of 0.6 M mannitol and kept in the dark for 10 min. Mannitol was removed, and 10 mL protoplast isolation buffer was added to the conical flask. The conical flask was incubated for 5 h at 25 °C in the dark with gentle shaking on an orbital shaker at 40 rpm with vacuum infiltration. The following steps are similar to those described for rice. Composition of different solutions, buffers and reagent set up are given in the supplementary file.
Protoplast viability check
The viability of protoplasts from rice, Arabidopsis, and chickpea was evaluated separately by using two different dyes. Firstly, 1% (w/v) Evans Blue staining was performed following a previously described protocol (Gaff and Okong’o-ogola 1971). Secondly, 0.01% of fluorescein diacetate (FDA) was used to stain protoplasts (Williams and Co 1972). Briefly, 5 µL of 1% Evans Blue was added to 20 µL of the protoplast solution. Evans Blue-stained protoplasts were visualized under a bright field using a Leica DMi8 fluorescence microscope with N.A. 1.25 (Leica Microsystems Inc., Buffalo Grove, IL). LAS X software was utilized for image acquisition and analysis. The protoplast viability was also assessed by adding 1 µL of 0.01% of FDA dissolved in acetone to 20 µL of protoplasts. The samples were visualized using a Leica DMi8 fluorescence microscope with a 480–510 nm excitation filter and a 535–585 nm emission filter. Data were recorded for five consecutive fields along with their corresponding bright field images (Grey). The green fluorescence was observed using a FITC filter excited at 488 nm with emission at 505–525 nm. The percentage of viable and non-viable protoplasts was calculated by dividing the number of unstained and stained cells by the total number of cells visible in each microscopic field.
PEG-mediated protoplasts transfection for rice, Arabidopsis and chickpea
The isolated protoplast solution was diluted with MMG buffer to obtain a working stock of 2 × 106/mL for transfection. 200 µL rice protoplast solution was transferred into 2 mL round-bottom microcentrifuge tubes. 30 µL of plasmids at a concentration of 1000 ng/µL were added and mixed gently by tap**. Different amounts of total DNA were used to standardize the optimum concentration and different sets were prepared for pRGE32-GFP, pRGE32-BFP, and pRGEB32-GFP reporter plasmids, and pRGE32-SWEET14-GG, pRGE32-SD1-GG, and pRGE32-Gn1-GG plasmids with three biological replicates. Plasmids were prepared using a Qiagen Plasmid plus midi kit (Qiagen, Cat. No. 12943). The protoplast and plasmid mixtures were incubated at room temperature for 10 min. Subsequently, 230 µL of freshly prepared PEG-calcium chloride transfection buffer (see solution composition, Supplementary Table S5) was added to each tube wall in a dropwise manner, gently mixed by inversion, and incubated for 20 min at room temperature.
Meanwhile, a 12-well culture plate (NEST®, Cat. No. 712001) was made ready by adding 80 µL of 5% calf serum (Gibco, Cat. No. 16170–086) in each well and spreading it using a 100 µL pipette throughout the inner wall of each well. Then, 1 mL of W5 buffer was added to each well. After the 20-min incubation, 900 µL of W5 buffer was added to each 2 mL round bottom tube, and the solution was gently mixed by inverting four times. The tubes were centrifuged at 100 g for 5 min to pellet the protoplasts using a swing bucket rotor. Then, half of the supernatant (680 µL) was carefully removed using a 1 mL pipette, and the remaining solution was mixed by gentle inversion for 4 times. The protoplast mixture was transferred to the 12 well culture plates. The plates were sealed with parafilm, wrapped in aluminum foil, and incubated at 32 °C in the dark for 72 h with gentle shaking at 25 rpm. The transfection procedure for Arabidopsis and chickpea was similar to that used for rice with two modifications: (1) the use of a higher plasmid concentration, 45 µg, and (2) a shorter 15-min incubation after mixing the protoplasts with the plasmid DNA. The protoplasts isolated from Arabidopsis were transfected with pRGEB31-GAT, eCaMV-GFP, and AtUbi10-GFP plasmids. Similarly, chickpea protoplasts were transfected with the constructs viz. pRGEB31-LCY, pRGEB31-M41, and eCaMV-GFP.
GFP and BFP detection using fluorescent microscopy
Green and blue fluorescent signals were seen after 16–18 h post-transfection and gained peak at 48 h. GFP and BFP fluorescence was visualized using a Leica DMi8 fluorescence microscope (Leica Microsystems Inc., Buffalo Grove, IL) from five consecutive fields as well as their corresponding bright field images (Grey) from each replicate. GFP fluorescence was excited at a 488 nm filter and detected using a 505–525 nm emission filter. In the case of BFP, a 351–363 nm was used for excitation, and emission was recorded using a 460 nm filter.
Storage of protoplasts for including a breakpoint
Rice protoplasts obtained from the sucrose gradient were preserved using MMG solution in a sealed 14 mL centrifuge tube (Thermo Scientific, Cat. No. 150268). The tube was covered with Parafilm and enveloped in aluminium foil for storage at room temperature (RT, 25 °C) and on ice. At intervals of 24 h (1, 24, 48 h), protoplasts underwent viability testing and transfection with a GFP-containing vector using PEG-CaCl2-mediated transfection, as previously described. Viability was assessed through FDA staining, and transfection efficiency was determined by counting GFP-positive protoplasts.
Validation of CRISPR-Cas9 vectors in rice, Arabidopsis, and chickpea protoplasts with a CRISPR deletion approach
Genomic DNA was extracted from the transfected protoplasts after three days. Target regions were amplified using high-fidelity Q5 DNA polymerase (New England Biolabs, USA). CRISPR deletions were visualized via agarose gel electrophoresis of PCR products. PCR amplicons were purified, cloned into a TA vector and then transformed in E. coli. The transformants were screened by colony PCR using M13F and M13R and also with gene-specific primer sets described earlier. The positive clones were subjected to CAPS assay and Sanger sequenced for verification.
Abbreviations
- CRISPR-Cas9:
-
Clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)- CRISPR-associated protein 9 (Cas9)
- PEG:
-
Polyethylene glycol
- GFP:
-
Green fluorescent protein
- BFP:
-
Blue fluorescent protein
- FDA:
-
Fluorescein diacetate
- PTG:
-
Polycistronic-tRNA-gRNA
- Indels:
-
Insertions and deletions
- DSBs:
-
Double-strand breaks
- gRNA:
-
Guide RNA
- sgRNA:
-
Single guide RNA
- OsSD1 :
-
Rice Semi Dwarf 1
- OsGn1a :
-
Rice Grain number 1a
- AtGAT :
-
Arabidopsis glutamine amidotransferase
- CaLCY :
-
Chickpea Lycopene epsilon cyclase
- CaM41 :
-
Chickpea METALLOPROTEASE M41 FTSH
References
Andersson M, Turesson H, Olsson N et al (2018) Genome editing in potato via CRISPR-Cas9 ribonucleoprotein delivery. Physiol Plant 164:378–384. https://doi.org/10.1111/ppl.12731
Badhan S, Ball AS, Mantri N (2021) First report of CRISPR/Cas9 mediated DNA-free editing of 4CL and RVE7 genes in chickpea protoplasts. Int J Mol Sci 22:1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22010396
Brandt KM, Gunn H, Moretti N, Zemetra RS (2020) A streamlined protocol for wheat (Triticum aestivum) protoplast isolation and transformation with CRISPR-Cas ribonucleoprotein complexes. Front Plant Sci 11:1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2020.00769
Das Bhowmik SS, Cheng AY, Long H et al (2019) Robust genetic transformation system to obtain non-chimeric transgenic chickpea. Front Plant Sci 10:1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2019.00524
De Bruyn C, Ruttink T, Eeckhaut T et al (2020) Establishment of CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing in Witloof (Cichorium intybus var. foliosum). Front Genome Ed 2:604876. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgeed.2020.604876
de Lorenzo G, Ferrari S, Giovannoni M et al (2019) Cell wall traits that influence plant development. Immunity 97(1):134–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/tpj.14196
Gaff DF, Okongo-ogola O (1971) The use of non-permeating pigments for testing the survival of cells. J Exp Bot 22:756–758. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/22.3.756
Gupta SK, Vishwakarma NK, Malakar P et al (2023) Development of an Agrobacterium-delivered codon-optimized CRISPR/Cas9 system for chickpea genome editing. Protoplasma 260:1437–1451. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00709-023-01856-4
He Y, Zhao Y (2020) Technological breakthroughs in generating transgene-free and genetically stable CRISPR-edited plants. aBiotech 1:88–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42994-019-00013-x
Hsu C-T, Lee W-C, Cheng Y-J et al (2021) Genome editing and protoplast regeneration to study plant-pathogen interactions in the model plant Nicotiana benthamiana. Front Genome Ed 2:1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgeed.2020.627803
Jeong YY, Lee HY, Kim SW et al (2021) Optimization of protoplast regeneration in the model plant Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant Methods 17:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13007-021-00720-x
Ji J, Zhang C, Sun Z et al (2019) Genome editing in cowpea Vigna unguiculata using CRISPR-Cas9. Int J Mol Sci 20:1–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms20102471
Labun K, Montague TG, Krause M, Torres Cleuren YN, Tjeldnes H, Valen E (2019) CHOPCHOP v3: expanding the CRISPR web toolbox beyond genome editing. Nucleic Acids Res 47(W1):W171–W174. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkz365
Lee MH, Lee J, Choi SA et al (2020) Efficient genome editing using CRISPR–Cas9 RNP delivery into cabbage protoplasts via electro-transfection. Plant Biotechnol Rep 14:695–702. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11816-020-00645-2
Li JF, Norville JE, Aach J et al (2013) Multiplex and homologous recombination-mediated genome editing in Arabidopsis and Nicotiana benthamiana using guide RNA and Cas9. Nat Biotechnol 31:688–691. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2654
Li J, Meng X, Zong Y et al (2016) Gene replacements and insertions in rice by intron targeting using CRISPR-Cas9. Nat Plants 2:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/nplants.2016.139
Li Z, Zhang D, **ong X et al (2017) A potent Cas9-derived gene activator for plant and mammalian cells. Nat Plants 3:930–936. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-017-0046-0
Lin Q, Zong Y, Xue C et al (2020) Prime genome editing in rice and wheat. Nat Biotechnol 38:582–585. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-020-0455-x
Liu J, Gunapati S, Mihelich NT et al (2019) Genome editing in soybean with CRISPR/Cas9. Methods Mol Biol 1917:217–234. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-8991-1_16
Liu X, Yang J, Song Y et al (2022) Effects of sgRNA length and number on gene editing efficiency and predicted mutations generated in rice. Crop J 10:577–581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cj.2021.05.015
Malnoy M, Viola R, Jung MH et al (2016) DNA-free genetically edited grapevine and apple protoplast using CRISPR/Cas9 ribonucleoproteins. Front Plant Sci 7:1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.01904
Meng Y, Hou Y, Wang H et al (2017) Targeted mutagenesis by CRISPR/Cas9 system in the model legume Medicago truncatula. Plant Cell Rep 36:371–374. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00299-016-2069-9
Metje-Sprink J, Menz J, Modrzejewski D, Sprink T (2019) DNA-Free genome editing: past, present and future. Front Plant Sci 9:1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.01957
Molla KA, Sretenovic S, Bansal KC, Qi Y (2021) Precise plant genome editing using base editors and prime editors. Nat Plants 7:1166–1187. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-021-00991-1
Murovec J, Guček K, Bohanec B et al (2018) DNA-free genome editing of Brassica oleracea and B. rapa protoplasts using CRISPR-cas9 ribonucleoprotein complexes. Front Plant Sci 871:1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.01594
Pan C, Wu X, Markel K et al (2021) CRISPR–Act3.0 for highly efficient multiplexed gene activation in plants. Nat Plants 7:942–953. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-021-00953-7
Perroud et al (2023) Improved prime editing allows for routine predictable gene editing in Physcomitrium patens. J Exp Bot 74:6176–6187. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erad189
Poddar S, Tanaka J, Cate JHD et al (2020) Efficient isolation of protoplasts from rice calli with pause points and its application in transient gene expression and genome editing assays. Plant Methods 16:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13007-020-00692-4
Priyadarshani SVGN, Hu B, Li W et al (2018) Simple protoplast isolation system for gene expression and protein interaction studies in pineapple (Ananas comosus L.). Plant Methods 14:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13007-018-0365-9
Reed KM, Bargmann BOR (2021) Protoplast regeneration and its use in new plant breeding technologies. Front Genome Ed 3:734951. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgeed.2021.734951
Shen Y, Meng D, McGrouther K et al (2017) Efficient isolation of Magnolia protoplasts and the application to subcellular localization of MdeHSF1. Plant Methods 13:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13007-017-0193-3
Su H, Wang Y, Xu J et al (2023) Generation of the transgene-free canker-resistant Citrus sinensis using Cas12a/crRNA ribonucleoprotein in the T0 generation. Nat Commun 14:3957. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-39714-9
Svitashev S, Schwartz C, Lenderts B et al (2016) Genome editing in maize directed by CRISPR-Cas9 ribonucleoprotein complexes. Nat Commun 7:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms13274
Tang X, Zheng X, Qi Y et al (2016) A single transcript CRISPR-Cas9 system for efficient genome editing in plants. Mol Plant 9:1088–1091. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molp.2016.05.001
Wang L, Wang L, Tan Q et al (2016) Efficient inactivation of symbiotic nitrogen fixation related genes in Lotus Japonicus using CRISPR-Cas9. Front Plant Sci 7:1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.01333
Williams T, Co W (1972) The use of fluorescein diacetate and phenosafranine for determining viability of cultured plant cells. Stain Technol 47:1–6
**e K, Yang Y (2013) RNA-Guided genome editing in plants using a CRISPR-Cas system. Mol Plant 6:1975–1983. https://doi.org/10.1093/mp/sst119
**e K, Minkenberg B, Yang Y (2015) Boosting CRISPR/Cas9 multiplex editing capability with the endogenous tRNA-processing system. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 112:3570–3575. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1420294112
**ong X, Liu K, Li Z et al (2023) Split complementation of base editors to minimize off-target edits. Nat Plants 9:1832–1847. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-023-01540-8
Xu J, Kang BC, Naing AH et al (2020) CRISPR/Cas9-mediated editing of 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylate oxidase1 enhances Petunia flower longevity. Plant Biotechnol J 18:287–297. https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.13197
Yarrington RM, Verma S, Schwartz S et al (2018) Nucleosomes inhibit target cleavage by CRISPR-Cas9 in vivo. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 115:9351–9358. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1810062115
Yoo SD, Cho YH, Sheen J (2007) Arabidopsis mesophyll protoplasts: a versatile cell system for transient gene expression analysis. Nat Protoc 2:1565–1572. https://doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2007.199
Yu G, Cheng Q, **e Z et al (2017) An efficient protocol for perennial ryegrass mesophyll protoplast isolation and transformation, and its application on interaction study between LpNOL and LpNYC1. Plant Methods 13:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13007-017-0196-0
Zhang Y, Su J, Duan S et al (2011) A highly efficient rice green tissue protoplast system for transient gene expression and studying light/chloroplast-related processes. Plant Methods 7:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-4811-7-30
Zhang Y, Liang Z, Zong Y et al (2016) Efficient and transgene-free genome editing in wheat through transient expression of CRISPR/Cas9 DNA or RNA. Nat Commun 7:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms12617
Zhang Y, Malzahn AA, Sretenovic S, Qi Y (2019) The emerging and uncultivated potential of CRISPR technology in plant science. Nat Plants 5:778–794. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-019-0461-5
Zhang Y, Iaffaldano B, Qi Y (2021) CRISPR ribonucleoprotein-mediated genetic engineering in plants. Plant Commun 2:100168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xplc.2021.100168
Zhang Y, Cheng Y, Fang H et al (2022) Highly efficient genome editing in plant protoplasts by ribonucleoprotein delivery of CRISPR-Cas12a nucleases. Front Genome Ed 4:1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgeed.2022.780238
Acknowledgements
DP would like to acknowledge the financial support from the University Grant Commission (UGC), Government of India-JRF program. SK acknowledges the funding support from the Science and Engineering Research Board (SERB)-National Post-Doctoral Fellowship. PD acknowledges the funding support from the Department of Biotechnology (DBT), Government of India-JRF program. MD, SB, MJB, and KM would like to acknowledge funding from the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), New Delhi, in the form of the Plan Scheme- ‘Incentivizing Research in Agriculture’ project and support from the Director, NRRI. MJB and KM would also like to acknowledge funding from the National Agricultural Science Fund, New Delhi.
Funding
Indian Council of Agricultural Research.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
DP, SK, MD, and PD prepared the materials and performed the experiments. SKT prepared GFP and BFP vectors. SB and DP performed fluorescent analysis. SK and DP wrote the manuscript and prepared figures. KM and MJB conceptualized, outlined and supervised the research. YQ provided inputs during experimentations. KM, MJB, YQ, SS, and PKM edited and finalized the manuscript.
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Panda, D., Karmakar, S., Dash, M. et al. Optimized protoplast isolation and transfection with a breakpoint: accelerating Cas9/sgRNA cleavage efficiency validation in monocot and dicot. aBIOTECH 5, 151–168 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42994-024-00139-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42994-024-00139-7