Skip to main content
PLOS Biology logoLink to PLOS Biology
. 2023 Jul 21;21(7):e3001888. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001888

Highly efficient CRISPR-mediated gene editing in a rotifer

Haiyang Feng 1, Gemma Bavister 1, Kristin E Gribble 1,*, David B Mark Welch 1,*
Editor: Andreas Hejnol2
PMCID: PMC10395877  PMID: 37478130

Abstract

Rotifers have been studied in the laboratory and field for over 100 years in investigations of microevolution, ecological dynamics, and ecotoxicology. In recent years, rotifers have emerged as a model system for modern studies of the molecular mechanisms of genome evolution, development, DNA repair, aging, life history strategy, and desiccation tolerance. However, a lack of gene editing tools and transgenic strains has limited the ability to link genotype to phenotype and dissect molecular mechanisms. To facilitate genetic manipulation and the creation of reporter lines in rotifers, we developed a protocol for highly efficient, transgenerational, CRISPR-mediated gene editing in the monogonont rotifer Brachionus manjavacas by microinjection of Cas9 protein and synthetic single-guide RNA into the vitellaria of young amictic (asexual) females. To demonstrate the efficacy of the method, we created knockout mutants of the developmental gene vasa and the DNA mismatch repair gene mlh3. More than half of mothers survived injection and produced offspring. Genotyping these offspring and successive generations revealed that most carried at least 1 CRISPR-induced mutation, with many apparently mutated at both alleles. In addition, we achieved precise CRISPR-mediated knock-in of a stop codon cassette in the mlh3 locus, with half of injected mothers producing F2 offspring with an insertion of the cassette. Thus, this protocol produces knockout and knock-in CRISPR/Cas9 editing with high efficiency, to further advance rotifers as a model system for biological discovery.


Rotifers have been studied in the laboratory and field for over 100 years in investigations of microevolution, ecological dynamics and ecotoxicology. This study presents a CRISPR/Cas9-based method for achieving knockout mutations of one or both alleles and knockin mutations in rotifers with high efficiency.

Introduction

Rotifers are microscopic invertebrates found globally in aquatic habitats; at times they are the most abundant animals in some freshwater ecosystems. Rotifers comprise a phylum within the protostome clade Gnathifera [1,2] and are by far the most experimentally tractable of this early branching example of metazoan evolution [3]. Monogonont rotifers, one of the two major groups of Rotifera, have long been used in studies of evolution, limnology, ecology, and toxicology [4,5]. One of the most well-studied genera, Brachionus, is cultured at large-scale worldwide as live feed for hatchery rearing in aquaculture, leading to intense interest in improving their nutritional value and energy content. In recent years, Brachionus has been an important representative in studies of metazoan body plan evolution [1,5] and has reemerged as an alternative model in translational research areas such as aging and maternal effects [6,7]. However, a lack of gene editing tools, transgenic lines, and molecular reporter strains has hindered research on molecular mechanisms using Brachionus or other rotifers.

Brachionus is an attractive experimental system not only because of the animals’ small size, transparency, ease of culturing, and short generation time but also because of their particular life cycle: Reproduction is usually amictic (asexual), with diploid females producing daughters by mitotically derived embryos, resulting in clonal cultures. In response to species-specific environmental cues (often crowding), these amictic females produce mictic daughters that undergo meiosis in their ovaries. Unfertilized eggs develop into haploid males, which mate with mictic females to fertilize undeveloped haploid eggs, producing overwintering resting eggs that hatch as amictic females [8,9]. This has led to using rotifers for extensive research on the environmental cues and molecular controls on inducible sexual reproduction and for investigation on the evolutionary fitness effects and ecological consequences of this bet hedging life history strategy [1012]. Alternating asexual and sexual generations permits laboratory experimentation with asexual lineages in which all individuals are genetically identical, or with sexual reproducing, genetically diverse populations. The absence of genetic manipulation methods has slowed mechanistic research on these topics, however.

Existing genomic resources for Brachionus species include several sequenced genomes and transcriptomes [1317]. A transfection-based RNA interference (RNAi) protocol is available, though it has not been shown to act transgenerationally [18,19]. Cell-penetrating peptides (CPPs) [20] and lipofection reagents [21] facilitate uptake of plasmid DNA by Brachionus, but to date, these techniques have not been shown to penetrate germ tissue. In 2019, CRISPR/Cas9 activity was demonstrated in rotifers by electroporating Cas9 and single-guide RNAs (sgRNAs) targeted to a cytochrome P450 gene into Brachionus koreanus, deep sequencing PCR products generated from DNA of electroporated animals, and detecting indels in a small fraction of gene copies consistent with CRISPR activity [22]. However, as with RNAi and CPP transfection, this method did not affect the germ line and thus did not result in a stable mutated lineage.

Here, we develop and describe a CRISPR/Cas9 protocol that delivers Cas9 and sgRNA through microinjection, achieving transgenerational knockout and knock-in mutations in offspring at high efficiency and enabling the establishment of stable, clonal, mutant lines.

Results

General approach

We immobilized neonates (newly hatched amictic females) by grasping the apical corona with a holding needle and injected Cas9 protein and sgRNA into the vitellarium, a reproductive tissue that provides material to developing oocytes, analogous to the nurse cells of Drosophila or rachis of C. elegans (Fig 1). Using this approach, 50% to 66% of the injected neonates survived to produce offspring. We call injected individuals “mothers,” in which Cas9/sgRNA could have been delivered to oocytes. After injection, each mother was transferred to an individual well of a tissue culture plate to reproduce. The offspring of injected mothers were designated as the F0 generation, consisting of asexually produced individuals potentially altered by CRISPR at the single-cell stage and/or at later developmental stages in which Cas9 and sgRNA may have directly affected the F0 germline. We transferred the first 4 to 6 F0 individuals produced by each mother to discrete wells of a tissue culture plate. Each F0 female asexually produced multiple F1 offspring, which we subsequently transferred individually or in pools to fresh wells. To establish whether editing had occurred and to define the range of mutation types, we genotyped F0, F1, and subsequent asexual generations (Fn) by PCR amplification of a short region containing the CRISPR target, cloning the amplicons, and sequencing individual clones (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Anatomy and microinjection of Brachionus manjavacas.

Fig 1

(A) Schematic of B. manjavacas. Rotifers have about 1,000 nuclei in highly syncytial tissue including muscle, digestive, nervous, and reproductive systems. The vitellarium provides material including organelles and mRNA to oocytes developing within the ovarium. Oocytes expand in size to become single-celled embryos that are extruded from the mother as eggs before further development. Multiple single-celled eggs may remain attached to the mother by thin filaments during development until just prior to hatching. Within the embryo, the vitellarium and ovarium develop from a common progenitor after the 16-cell stage and are separated from the somatic tissue by a barrier called the follicular layer [23,24]. (B) Microinjection: A neonate is immobilized by light suction to the apical corona while an injection needle is inserted through the integument into the vitellarium/ovarium. Scale bar, 100 μm. (C) Same individual as (B), showing fluorescence of tetramethylrhodamine in the vitellarium. Scale bar, 100 μm. (D) Strategy for isolating mutant lines: Injected neonate matures to an asexually reproducing female (“mother,” top). Cas9 complexes are transmitted from the mother’s vitellarium into oocytes that mature into the F0 generation. Many of these are expected to be mosaic [25,26]. Individuals are used for genotyping or allowed to reproduce asexually to create the F1 generation. Offspring of the F1 and subsequent generations are used for genotyping or allowed to reproduce asexually, forming clonal Fn lines; a portion of each Fn line is used for genotyping while the line is maintained through asexual reproduction.

CRISPR/Cas9-induced mutations of vasa

There are no known phenotypes associated with specific gene mutations in rotifers. We selected vasa as our initial target gene because previous studies in Brachionus demonstrated that in situ hybridization produced a distinctive expression pattern confined to the posterior of the developing ovary, allowing at least an indirect inference of function [27]. The vasa protein is a DEAD box RNA helicase with broad roles in the development and maintenance of germ cells in other animals [28,29]; thus, we predicted that knocking out vasa could affect offspring viability.

We selected a sgRNA target region 5′ to the DEAD box helicase motif that would cause a complete loss of function if CRISPR/Cas9 produced an indel resulting in a reading frameshift (Fig 2A). High-resolution melt (HRM) curve analysis was used to screen for mutants. Those samples for which HRM results suggested a likely mutation were genotyped by cloning and sequencing. F0 individuals showed mutations consistent with CRISPR/Cas9 activity 5′ of the targeted PAM (protospacer adjacent motif) site: Sequencing 13 clones from 1 F0 revealed a single, mutated allele, and sequencing 22 clones from a pool of 4 F0s revealed 4 additional variants (Fig 2A). No sequenced clone contained a wild-type allele, indicating a high efficiency of CRISPR activity.

Fig 2. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated mutagenesis of vasa.

Fig 2

(A) Brachionus manjavacas vasa gene, showing the single exon with predicted functional domains, with the sgRNA target site labelled by a red arrow. The WT reference sequence shows the sgRNA target sequence in shadow and its adjacent PAM. The Cas9-cutting site is indicated by a red triangle. Mutant alleles (from no. 1 to 11) identified in F0s and F1s of CRISPR-injected females are listed below, with deletions indicated by dashes and insertions in lowercase letters. The net indels (− deletion, + insertion, in bp) are noted on the right. (B) Portion of F0 and F1 individuals with each mutant allele from 4 CRISPR-injected mothers. Numbers correspond to mutation types shown in (A). PAM, protospacer adjacent motif; sgRNA, single-guide RNA; WT, wild-type.

Genotyping individual F1s derived from a second set of F0s showed the same mutated sequences and, at much lower frequency, a small number of additional variants, demonstrating the spectrum of mutations resulting from CRISPR/Cas9 activity (Fig 2A and 2B): 7 to 10 bp deletions starting within or immediately before the PAM site, occasionally including mismatches, and a low frequency of insertions. Medium-size deletions were facilitated by 2 bp microhomology within the target site within approximately 10 bp distance (e.g., the CT sequences at the 5′ and 3′ ends of the deletion in mutant types #1 and #4; Fig 2A). This suggests that a variety of repair mechanisms occur following Cas9 endonuclease activity, including nonhomologous end joining (NHEJ), with a bias in mechanism causing the same set of mutations to arise repeatedly in replicate experiments.

We examined the number and types of allelic variants by sequencing cloned amplicons from each of 19 F1 individuals. Each F1 had at least 1 mutation. With the caveat that we sequenced on average only 10 clones from each individual, 3 F1s appeared to be heterozygous with wild type, and 3 were heterozygous for 2 mutant alleles, with the remainder harboring more than 2 sequences (including wild type). While some of these sequences may be the result of PCR error, it appears that some F1 individuals are mosaic. The presence of up to 4 unique mutation types in individual F1s suggests editing of the germline or somatic cells in the developing F1.

We observed transgenerational CRISPR knockout of vasa. The population of each clonal lineage dramatically declined and became extinct with 18 days of the first F1 hatching. This suggested that vasa may be a haploinsufficient maternal effect gene required for development in rotifers and that the CRISPR/Cas9-induced mutations in these experiments caused lack of function sufficient to stop development and reproduction. The failure of F2s to develop and hatch demonstrates successful editing of vasa via CRISPR activity in the F1.

CRISPR/Cas9-induced mutations of mlh3

We next set out to knock out a gene not required for normal development, but the loss of which could be deleterious under certain conditions. The MutL homolog mlh3 meets these requirements. In model systems from yeast to mice, the Mlh3–Mlh1 protein heterodimer plays a redundant role in DNA mismatch repair process in mitosis but is critical for resolving double Holliday junctions into crossovers in meiosis [30]. Our prediction was that an mlh3 knockout would be viable in mitotically reproducing amictic females but would interfere with meiosis in mictic females, resulting in the absence or reduced presence of males or of viable resting eggs.

We selected an sgRNA target region upstream of the predicted Mlh1-interacting protein box [31] (Fig 3A). Among 14 F0s sampled from the 3 mothers that survived injection to produce offspring, all contained at least 1 mutated mlh3 allele, consistent with the high efficiency of CRISPR activity observed for vasa. One F0 appeared to be homozygous for a single CRISPR mutation, 4 appeared to be heterozygous with wild type, and the remaining 9 were mosaic. Of the 17 F1 individuals sampled from 13 F0s, 7 appeared to be homozygous for a single CRISPR mutation, and 2 appeared to be heterozygous with wild type, with the remainder appearing to be mosaic. Of the 20 Fn pools examined from 9 F0s, 7 appeared to be homozygous for a single CRISPR mutation, 2 appeared to be heterozygous with wild type, and 4 appeared to contain 2 different mutant alleles (Fig 3C). Genotyping F0 and F1 individuals revealed a broader spectrum of mutations than what we observed at the vasa locus, with 1 to 2 bp substitutions, medium-sized deletions of 2 to 11 bp with insertions of 0 to 6 bp, and larger insertions of 14 bp (Fig 3A and 3B). The deletion–insertion events suggest that after the Cas9-induced double strand break, the NHEJ repair process occurs at a few specific positions within 10 bp from the cut site and may involve fill-in of apparently random nucleotides. Another process may be involved to produce the larger insertions. A BLAST search with the 14-bp insertion sequence (#11 in Fig 3A) found 126 matches in the B. manjavacas genome, many of which were in variable number tandem repeats (VNTRs), present in at least 8 loci. CRISPR-mediated insertion comprised of repetitive sequences has been reported in mice, though the underlying repair mechanism is unknown [32]. This suggested that, in rotifers, the DNA repair process following CRISPR activity is complicated and that in addition to local sequence context, topological interactions with other regions in the genome should be considered when assessing CRISPR mutation results.

Fig 3. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated mutagenesis of mlh3.

Fig 3

(A) Brachionus manjavacas mlh3 gene, showing exons as rectangles, introns and untranslated regions as lines. Predicted functional motifs are filled with different colors. MIP box stands for Mlh1-interacting protein box. The sgRNA target site in exon 2 is labelled by red arrow. The WT reference sequence shows the sgRNA target sequence (shaded) and its adjacent PAM. The Cas9-cutting site is indicated by a red triangle. Mutant alleles (numbered 1–13) identified in the offspring of CRISPR-injected females are listed below, with deletions indicated by dashes and insertions in lowercase letters. The net indels (− deletion, + insertion, > substitution, in bp) are noted on the right. (B) Portion of offspring with each mutant allele from 3 CRISPR-injected mothers. Numbers correspond to mutation types shown in (A). (C) Frequency of genotypes of mlh3 in F0, F1, and Fn of CRISPR-injected mothers: WT/KOj, heterozygous wild type and knockout; KOj/KOj, homozygous knockout; KOj/KOk, heterozygous knockout; or mosaic (3 or more alleles); see S1 Data for details of allele sequences found in each individual. The relative frequency of mosaicism decreases with each successive generation after injection. PAM, protospacer adjacent motif; sgRNA, single-guide RNA; WT, wild-type.

mlh3 knockout phenotypes

We established 6 clonal lineages homozygous for alleles CA>AT, −2 bp, −5 bp, −7 bp, −10 bp, and −18 bp. Over the course of 10 weeks and 20 to 30 generations in continuous crowded conditions that normally produce high proportions of mictic females and haploid males, we never observed males in lineages with loss-of-function alleles (−2, −5, −7, and −10 bp). Males were occasionally observed in lineages with CA>AT and −18 bp alleles. The loss-of-function mutations result in translation termination before functional motifs of Mlh3. In contrast, CA>AT substitution results in 1 amino acid change (A>D), and the −18-bp mutation causes a deletion of 6 amino acids (LYAQRG) before the MIP box. Thus, Mlh3 proteins produced by CA>AT and −18 bp mutants may still have limited function. These results suggest that functional mlh3 is required for meiosis in sexually reproducing B. manjavacas and demonstrates that CRISPR-mediated knockouts can be used to study the relationship between genotype and phenotype in Brachionus.

While all 6 homozygous lineages were stable, 6 of the 9 mosaic F0 mutants had severely reduced fecundity, producing only 2 to 3 offspring per individual. This is 90% lower than the typical lifetime reproductive output of 25 to 30 offspring per individual in wild-type B. manjavacas and in the homozygous knockouts. These individuals accumulated many undeveloped eggs in their ovaries that were not extruded. As a result, the mass of undeveloped eggs deformed other structures inside the rotifer and changed the overall morphology of the posterior. Their F1 offspring (15 in total) were sterile and had a tiny vitellarium with 1 or 2 small, undeveloped eggs in the ovary. Most of these F1s died with a tiny ovary, but 2 developed a similar morphology as their mother.

CRISPR/Cas9-mediated knock-in at the mlh3 locus through homology-directed repair

To assess the feasibility of precisely editing the B. manjavacas genome through homology-directed repair (HDR), we designed a template consisting of a standard 35 nt stop codon cassette, which contains stop codons in all 3 reading frames, and two 20 nt homology arms that match the sequences flanking the PAM site targeted in the knock-in experiment (Fig 4A). We used the same sgRNA as in the knockout experiment and single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) complementary to the nontarget strand as the repair template. This design was based on findings from mammalian cells that Cas9 releases the PAM-distal nontarget strand first [33] and from success in zebrafish using 20 nt homology arms [34]. In an initial trial, we pooled 6 F0s from 1 CRISPR-injected mother for qPCR, cloning, and sequencing and found that approximately 8% of sequenced clones had a stop codon cassette insertion with most other clones containing indels created by NHEJ.

Fig 4. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated HDR of mlh3.

Fig 4

(A) Schematic of ssDNA repair template containing a stop codon cassette (with stop codons in bold), flanked by 20 bp homology arms. Dashed lines indicate regions of sequence homology between the template and the mlh3 locus. Red triangle indicates Cas9-cutting site. (B) The number of F2 offspring genotyped that possess HDR alleles descended from 3 injected mothers. (C) Mutant alleles generated by CRISPR through HDR or NHEJ. The allele with accurate stop codon cassette insertion (lowercase letters) is the top sequence, followed by 3 variants that were also found. Mutant alleles generated through NHEJ are also listed. Out of 18 F2 rotifers genotyped, the number of rotifers that possess each allele is noted on the right in parentheses. HDR, homology-directed repair; NHEJ, nonhomologous end joining; PAM, protospacer adjacent motif; ssDNA, single-stranded DNA.

To determine if these HDR alleles were stably inherited, we isolated 6 CRISPR-injected mothers and their F0 and F1 offspring. Lineages from 3 mothers produced F1 males and were not genotyped based on the results described above. We genotyped 6 F2 offspring from each of the lineages from the 3 other mothers. Not surprisingly, most mutations were indels generated by NHEJ, many of which had been identified in the previous knockout experiment. However, out of 18 F2s, 12 possessed an HDR allele (Fig 4B). More than half of HDR-mediated insertions had the correct stop codon cassette; the remainder had a few erroneous nucleotides incorporated towards the 3′ end of the stop codon cassette or a small deletion in the PAM-proximal homology arm (Fig 4C). All 3 mothers produced offspring with precise and imprecise inserts of the cassette. Together, these results indicate that HDR insertions can be achieved relatively easily in rotifers, with knock-in mutations occurring in oocytes from about half of injected mothers.

Discussion

Here, we establish a protocol for efficient and rapid CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing resulting in heritable mutation in the rotifer B. manjavacas. The mutations created by CRISPR/Cas9 through microinjection into the vitellaria of B. manjavacas can be stably inherited. Homozygous mutants account for approximately 40% of F1 individuals. The high efficiency of generating homozygous and double knockouts, asexual reproduction alleviating the need for genetic crosses, and a short asexual generation time of 3 days allow stable, transgenic mutant lineages of B. manjavacas to be established in about 3 weeks.

Using the method developed here, we demonstrate the use of CRISPR/Cas9-induced knockouts to examine gene function in B. manjavacas. Phenotypes of knockout lineages suggested that in rotifers, vasa may be an essential maternal effect gene and that mlh3 may be required for meiotic production of males. However, additional, focused studies are necessary to support these preliminary observations. Stable mutant lines of B. manjavacas mlh3 and other gene knockouts in which sexual reproduction cannot be induced will be useful to explore the mechanisms of cyclical parthenogenesis, a life history strategy common among aquatic microscopic invertebrates [21].

Finally, we demonstrate that homology-directed knock-in mutations can be generated in B. manjavacas with high efficiency, an application that is inefficient or lacking in many experimental systems. The length of the inserted stop codon cassette is similar to those of small epitope tags (e.g., FLAG, HA, His, and Myc) and fluorescent complementation peptides (e.g., HiBiT and GFP11). Insertion of gene reporters like these will allow examination of the timing and localization of gene expression in mechanistic studies of development, aging, and plasticity in Brachionus species. The efficiency of precise insertion will depend on the sequence composition and length of each insert and thus may differ from what we observe here.

The gene editing method we developed uses equipment standard in most microinjection facilities and thus can be widely adopted. Community use will lead to further optimization of the protocol, e.g., through the use of microfluidic chambers to increase the success rate of injection and the number of neonates that can be injected at very early ages, before DNA replication begins in the germline. The use of commercially synthesized gRNAs may further improve maternal survival and editing efficiency and precision. Injecting younger neonates, and titration of sgRNA and Cas9 concentrations and injection volumes, may decrease mosaicism and the spectrum of mutant types. However, given the high efficiency with which the existing protocol produces CRISPR-edited mutations and the ability to establish and phenotype clonal mutant lines through asexual reproduction, screening to eliminate mosaics is easier than screening to identify mutants in many other systems. Of course, as with any experiment using CRISPR to dissect molecular mechanisms, in rotifers or other species, screening for off-target effects will be necessary for individual experiments.

CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing has been developed in only a few protostomes beyond arthropods and nematodes: an annelid worm [35], freshwater snail [36], and pygmy octopus [37]. To our knowledge, in Gnathifera, a clade of primarily microscopic aquatic species that includes rotifers, no advanced genetic manipulation tools are available for routine experimental use. Development of transgenerational gene editing for Brachionus thus not only expands the capabilities to conduct mechanistic research in rotifers but also broadens the capacity for comparative biology approaches across distantly related taxa. Our protocol can be adapted for use in other rotifer species that are employed for diverse studies of microevolution, neurobiology, DNA repair, novel genetic markers, and production of antimicrobial and antiparasitic compounds [3,3843]. While additional work is needed to develop and assess clonal lineages for specific gene mutations in Brachionus, this protocol provides a template for creating novel mutants and transgenics in rotifers. This method will enable other laboratories to use rotifers to address both new and long-standing biological questions in an ecologically important and experimentally tractable animal.

Materials and methods

Experimental model

The monogonont rotifer Brachionus manjavacas Fontaneto, Giordani, Melone and Serra, 2007 (i.e., the Russian strain of the Brachionus plicatilis species group) was cultured in filter sterilized 15 ppt Instant Ocean (IO) artificial seawater at 21°C on a 12-h/12-h light/dark cycle and fed with the chlorophyte alga Tetraselmis sueccica, which was maintained in bubbled f/2 medium under the same temperature and light conditions.

sgRNA target design, ssDNA synthesis, and Cas9 protein

Sequences for vasa and mlh3 were extracted from the B. manjavacas whole genome assembly GCA_018683815.1. Potential sgRNA targets were identified using the CHOPCHOP online server (https://chopchop.cbu.uib.no) [44] and selected to optimize GC content (40% to 60%) and the presence of microhomology flanking the Cas9-cutting site. The potential for off-target binding was examined by searching the genome of B. manjavacas for sequence identity to the prospective sgRNA sequences using BLAST. Candidates without other significant BLAST hits, particularly those approximately 10 bp upstream of PAM sites, were chosen as candidate sgRNA targets. The sgRNAs were synthesized following Schier’s Cas9 protocol [34]. The ssDNA repair template was synthesized as a custom oligo by IDT (Table 1). EnGen Spy Cas9 NLS protein (20 μM) was purchased from NEB. The injection mixture consisted of 600 ng/μl Cas9 protein, 300 ng/μl sgRNA, (3 μM ssDNA for knock-in), 100 ng/μl tetramethylrhodamine labelled dextran, and 1× NEB buffer r3.1 and was assembled at room temperature.

Table 1. Oligonucleotides.

vasa sgRNA Forward TGTAATACGACTCACTATAGCAGCAGCGACGGTAGTGAACGTTTTAGAGCTAGAAATAGC
mlh3 sgRNA Forward TGTAATACGACTCACTATAGATCCGAGGCTCTATGCACAGGTTTTAGAGCTAGAAATAGC
Universal reverse scaffold AAAAGCACCGACTCGGTGCCACTTTTTCAAGTTGATAACGGACTAGCCTTATTTTAACTTGCTATTTCTAGCTCTAAAAC
mlh3 ssDNA repair template TCCAAAAATTTTCCCCTCTGCTACAACAGCTTAATTAAGGTTTAAACGCCATGACTGCATAGAGCCTCGGATCGG
vasa HRM Forward CCGAAAATGAACCAGTTAA
vasa HRM Reverse CGCTGCTATTACCAGATA
mlh3 HRM Forward AAAATTGGAAAACCCTTG
mlh3 HRM Reverse AACTATTTCAACCCTGTC

Neonate preparation and ovary injection

Eggs were collected in a 6-well plate by forcefully pipetting adult rotifers through P1000 micropipette tips to separate the eggs from mothers. Eggs were then transferred to IO containing T. suecica as a food source and left overnight to hatch. The next day, neonates were transferred for 3 to 5 min to Protoslo quieting solution (Carolina Biological Supply) diluted 3 times in IO or to 1 mM bupivicaine to stop their movement and then briefly washed in IO before being placed in a 60-mm petri dish filled with fresh IO. Microinjection was performed at 100× on a Zeiss Axio Observer using a XenoWorks Digital Microinjector (Sutter Instruments). Injection needles (1.0 mm quartz capillaries) were pulled on a P-2000 Pipette Puller (Sutter Instruments) with the parameters of heat 800, filament 4, velocity 60, delay 150, and pull 175. After pulling, needles were beveled for 15 s at a 20° angle using a BV-10 Micropipette Beveler (Sutter Instruments). A holding pipette made from 1.0 mm borosilicate capillary with an opening size of approximately 140 μm was used to hold the corona of the neonate. The injection needle penetrated the vitellarium through the lorica from the posterior roughly at an angle between 20° and 30°. We used an injection time of 1 s to inject approximately 30 pL, which resulted in the vitellarium expanding slightly during injection. This slight expansion proved to be a practical way to judge that an injection was successful, which could then be confirmed by observing tetramethylrhodamine fluorescence. After injection, the neonate was transferred to a new 6-well plate with T. suecica.

Genotyping and phenotyping the offspring of CRISPR-injected rotifers

Genomic DNA was extracted from potential mutants and genotyped by PCR, cloning, and sequencing. Individual offspring (F0s, F1s, and Fns) of CRISPR-injected rotifers were collected by snap freezing in liquid nitrogen, and genomic DNA was extracted following a modified quick embryo DNA preparation protocol. Briefly, a rotifer was incubated in 25 μl lysis buffer (10 mM Tris–HCl (pH 8.3), 50 mM KCl, 3‰ NP40, 3‰ Tween 20) at 98°C for 10 min. Then, 2.5 μl Proteinase K (10 mg/ml) was added and incubated at 55°C for 1 h before inactivation at 98°C for 10 min. HRM analysis was performed to screen for mutations: each 20 μl reaction contained 2 μl genomic DNA, 0.5 μM of each primer (Table 1), 0.2 mM of each dNTP, 2.5 mM MgCl2, 1× Cheetah buffer, 0.05 U/μl Cheetah Taq DNA polymerase, 1.25 μM EvaGreen Dye, and 0.625 μM ROX reference dye (Biotium). The qPCR reaction was performed using ABI StepOne Real-Time PCR System with cycle parameters of initial denaturing at 95°C for 2 min; 50 cycles of amplification at 95°C for 10 s, 50°C for 15 s, 72°C for 30 s; followed by final melting at 95°C for 30 s and reannealing at 60°C for 1 min. HRM disassociation curves spanned from 65°C to 95°C with a continuous temperature increment of 0.3%. The reannealing produced heteroduplex DNA from mosaic or heterozygous mutants, or homoduplex DNA from homozygous mutants, which has a different melt curve or a shift of melting temperature compared with WT. The PCR products that showed an obvious difference in HRM were cloned into pGEM-T easy vector (Promega) and sequenced by the Sanger method at the DNA Sequencing and Genotyping Facility at the University of Chicago Comprehensive Cancer Center.

To characterize reproductive phenotypes, F0s and their descendants were observed for up to 30 generations for changes in lifetime reproductive output, morphology of the reproductive system, and the production of mictic female and male offspring.

Quantification of mutation types

The spectrum of mutation types of the individuals in Figs 2 and 3 were based on sequencing from 219 colonies and 371 colonies, respectively. Most of the homozygous mutants were based on 8 colonies with the same mutation types. The phenotypes of mlh3 mutants in Fig 3 were determined from 6 individual F0s and 15 individual F1s. The allele frequencies of mlh3 knock-in mutants in Fig 4 were based on 261 colonies.

Supporting information

S1 Data. Data in support of Fig 3C.

Alleles found in each individual; numbers refer to sequences in Fig 3A.

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

We thank the University of Chicago DNA Sequencing and Genotyping Facility and the Marine Biological Laboratory Genome Editing Core Facility for assistance.

Abbreviations

CPP

cell-penetrating peptide

HDR

homology-directed repair

HRM

high-resolution melt

IO

Instant Ocean

NHEJ

nonhomologous end joining

PAM

protospacer adjacent motif

RNAi

RNA interference

sgRNA

single-guide RNA

ssDNA

single-stranded DNA

VNTR

variable number tandem repeat

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This project was supported by a grant from the Marine Biological Laboratory to KEG and DMW. KEG was supported by Grant R21AG067034 from the National Institute on Aging. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Fröbius AC, Funch P. Rotiferan Hox genes give new insights into the evolution of metazoan bodyplans. Nat Commun. 2017;8:9. doi: 10.1038/s41467-017-00020-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Marlétaz F, Peijnenburg KTCA, Goto T, Satoh N, Rokhsar DS. A new spiralian phylogeny places the enigmatic arrow worms among gnathiferans. Curr Biol. 2019;29:312–318.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2018.11.042 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Wu L, Hiebert LS, Klann M, Passamaneck Y, Bastin BR, Schneider SQ, et al. Genes with spiralian-specific protein motifs are expressed in spiralian ciliary bands. Nat Commun. 2020;11:4171. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-17780-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Serra M, Snell TW, Wallace RL. Reproduction, overview by phylogeny: Rotifera. In: Skinner MK, editor. Encyclopedia of reproduction. 2nd ed. Oxford: Academic Press; 2018. p. 513–521. doi: [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Gilbert JJ. Morphological variation and its significance in a polymorphic rotifer: environmental, endogenous, and genetic controls. Bioscience. 2018;68: 169–181. doi: 10.1093/biosci/bix162 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Gribble KE. Brachionus rotifers as a model for investigating dietary and metabolic regulators of aging. Nutr Healthy Aging. 2021;6:1–15. doi: 10.3233/NHA-200104 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Snell TW, Johnston RK, Gribble KE, Mark Welch DB. Rotifers as experimental tools for investigating aging. Invertebr Reprod Dev. 2015;59:5–10. doi: 10.1080/07924259.2014.925516 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Gilbert JJ. Mictic female production in the rotifer Brachionus calyciflorus. J Exp Zool. 1963;153:113–123. doi: 10.1002/jez.1401530204 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Gilbert JJ. Dormancy in Rotifers. Trans Am Microsc Soc. 1974;93:490–513. doi: 10.2307/3225154 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Serra M, Aparici E, Carmona MJ. When to be sexual: sex allocation theory and population density-dependent induction of sex in cyclical parthenogens. J Plankton Res. 2008;30:1207–1214. doi: 10.1093/plankt/fbn077 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Gilbert JJ. Induction of mictic females in the rotifer Brachionus: oocytes of amictic females respond individually to population-density signal only during oogenesis shortly before oviposition. Freshw Biol. 2007;52:1417–1426. doi: 10.1111/J.1365-2427.2007.01782.X [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Franch-Gras L, García-Roger EM, Serra M, Carmona MJ. Adaptation in response to environmental unpredictability. Proc R Soc B. 2017;284:20170427. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2017.0427 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Kim H-S, Lee B-Y, Han J, Jeong C-B, Hwang D-S, Lee M-C, et al. The genome of the freshwater monogonont rotifer Brachionus calyciflorus. Mol Ecol Resour. 2018;18:646–655. doi: 10.1111/1755-0998.12768 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Han J, Park JC, Choi B-S, Kim M-S, Kim H-S, Hagiwara A, et al. The genome of the marine monogonont rotifer Brachionus plicatilis: Genome-wide expression profiles of 28 cytochrome P450 genes in response to chlorpyrifos and 2-ethyl-phenanthrene. Aquat Toxicol. 2019;214:105230. doi: 10.1016/j.aquatox.2019.105230 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Kang H-M, Kim M-S, Choi B-S, Kim D-H, Kim H-J, Hwang U-K, et al. The genome of the marine monogonont rotifer Brachionus rotundiformis and insight into species-specific detoxification components in Brachionus spp. Comp Biochem Physiol Part D Genomics Proteomics. 2020;36:100714. doi: 10.1016/j.cbd.2020.100714 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Byeon E, Choi B-S, Park JC, Kim M-S, Kim D-H, Lee J-S, et al. The genome of the freshwater monogonont rotifer Brachionus angularis: Identification of phase I, II, and III detoxification genes and their roles in molecular ecotoxicology. Comp Biochem Physiol Part D Genomics Proteomics. 2021;38:100821. doi: 10.1016/j.cbd.2021.100821 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Gribble KE, Mark Welch DB. Genome-wide transcriptomics of aging in the rotifer Brachionus manjavacas, an emerging model system. BMC Genomics. 2017;18:217. doi: 10.1186/s12864-017-3540-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Shearer TL, Snell TW. Transfection of siRNA into Brachionus plicatilis (Rotifera). Hydrobiologia. 2007;593:141–150. doi: 10.1007/s10750-007-9067-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Snell TW, Johnston RK, Rabeneck B, Zipperer C, Teat S. Joint inhibition of TOR and JNK pathways interacts to extend the lifespan of Brachionus manjavacas (Rotifera). Exp Gerontol. 2014;52:55–69. doi: 10.1016/j.exger.2014.01.022 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Liu BR, Liou J-S, Chen Y-J, Huang Y-W, Lee H-J. Delivery of nucleic acids, proteins, and nanoparticles by arginine-rich cell-penetrating peptides in rotifers. Mar Biotechnol. 2013;15:584–595. doi: 10.1007/s10126-013-9509-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Snell TW. A review of the molecular mechanisms of monogonont rotifer reproduction. Hydrobiologia. 2011;662:89–97. doi: 10.1007/s10750-010-0483-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Kim D-H, Yu J, Park JC, Jeong C-B, Bae S, Lee J-S. Targeted cytochrome P450 3045C1 (CYP3045C1) gene mutation via CRISPR-Cas9 ribonucleoproteins in the marine rotifer Brachionus koreanus. Hydrobiologia. 2019;844:117–128. doi: 10.1007/s10750-018-3854-y [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Gilbert JJ. Rotifera. In: Adiyodi KG, Adiyodi RG, editors. Reproductive biology of invertebrates: Fertilization, development, and parental care. Part A. New Delhi: Oxford & IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd; 1989. p. 179–199. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Clement P, Wurdak E. Rotifera. In: Harrison FW, Ruppert EE, editors. Microscopic anatomy of invertebrates: Aschelminthes. New York: Wiley-Liss; 1991. p. 219–297. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Mehravar M, Shirazi A, Nazari M, Banan M. Mosaicism in CRISPR/Cas9-mediated genome editing. Dev Biol. 2019;445:156–162. doi: 10.1016/j.ydbio.2018.10.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Lamas-Toranzo I, Galiano-Cogolludo B, Cornudella-Ardiaca F, Cobos-Figueroa J, Ousinde O, Bermejo-Álvarez P. Strategies to reduce genetic mosaicism following CRISPR-mediated genome edition in bovine embryos. Sci Rep. 2019;9:14900. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-51366-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Smith JM, Cridge AG, Dearden PK. Germ cell specification and ovary structure in the rotifer Brachionus plicatilis. Evodevo. 2010;1:5. doi: 10.1186/2041-9139-1-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Lasko PF, Ashburner M. The product of the Drosophila gene vasa is very similar to eukaryotic initiation factor-4A. Nature. 1988;335:611–617. doi: 10.1038/335611a0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Extavour CG, Akam M. Mechanisms of germ cell specification across the metazoans: epigenesis and preformation. Development. 2003;130:5869–5884. doi: 10.1242/dev.00804 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Al-Sweel N, Raghavan V, Dutta A, Ajith VP, di Vietro L, Khondakar N, et al. mlh3 mutations in baker’s yeast alter meiotic recombination outcomes by increasing noncrossover events genome-wide. PLoS Genet. 2017;13:e1006974. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1006974 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Gueneau E, Dherin C, Legrand P, Tellier-Lebegue C, Gilquin B, Bonnesoeur P, et al. Structure of the MutLα C-terminal domain reveals how Mlh1 contributes to Pms1 endonuclease site. Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2013;20:461–468. doi: 10.1038/nsmb.2511 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Shin HY, Wang C, Lee HK, Yoo KH, Zeng X, Kuhns T, et al. CRISPR/Cas9 targeting events cause complex deletions and insertions at 17 sites in the mouse genome. Nat Commun. 2017;8:15464. doi: 10.1038/ncomms15464 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Richardson CD, Ray GJ, DeWitt MA, Curie GL, Corn JE. Enhancing homology-directed genome editing by catalytically active and inactive CRISPR-Cas9 using asymmetric donor DNA. Nat Biotechnol. 2016;34:339–344. doi: 10.1038/nbt.3481 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Gagnon JA, Valen E, Thyme SB, Huang P, Akhmetova L, Pauli A, et al. Efficient mutagenesis by Cas9 protein-mediated oligonucleotide insertion and large-scale assessment of single-guide RNAs. PLoS ONE. 2014;9:e98186. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0098186 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Neal S, de Jong DM, Seaver EC. CRISPR/CAS9 mutagenesis of a single r-opsin gene blocks phototaxis in a marine larva. Proc R Soc B. 2019;286:20182491. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2018.2491 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Abe M, Kuroda R. The development of CRISPR for a mollusc establishes the formin Lsdia1 as the long-sought gene for snail dextral/sinistral coiling. Development. 2019;146:dev175976. doi: 10.1242/dev.175976 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Crawford K, Diaz Quiroz JF, Koenig KM, Ahuja N, Albertin CB, Rosenthal JJC. Highly efficient knockout of a squid pigmentation gene. Curr Biol. 2020;30:3484–3490.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2020.06.099 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Orr JA, Luijckx P, Arnoldi JF, Jackson AL, Piggott JJ. Rapid evolution generates synergism between multiple stressors: Linking theory and an evolution experiment. Glob Chang Biol. 2022;28:1740–1752. doi: 10.1111/gcb.15633 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Rodriguez F, Yushenova IA, DiCorpo D, Arkhipova IR. Bacterial N4-methylcytosine as an epigenetic mark in eukaryotic DNA. Nat Commun. 2022;13:1072. doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-28471-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Martín-Durán JM, Pang K, Børve A, Lê HS, Furu A, Cannon JT, et al. Convergent evolution of bilaterian nerve cords. Nature. 2018;553:45–50. doi: 10.1038/nature25030 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Gao J, Yang N, Lewis FA, Yau P, Collins JJ, Sweedler JV, et al. A rotifer-derived paralytic compound prevents transmission of schistosomiasis to a mammalian host. PLoS Biol. 2019;17:e3000485. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000485 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Hecox-Lea BJ, Mark Welch DB. Evolutionary diversity and novelty of DNA repair genes in asexual Bdelloid rotifers. BMC Evol Biol. 2018;18:177. doi: 10.1186/s12862-018-1288-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Blasius B, Rudolf L, Weithoff G, Gaedke U, Fussmann GF. Long-term cyclic persistence in an experimental predator–prey system. Nature. 2020;577:226–230. doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1857-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Labun K, Montague TG, Krause M, Torres Cleuren YN, Tjeldnes H, Valen E. CHOPCHOP v3: expanding the CRISPR web toolbox beyond genome editing. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019;47:W171–W174. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkz365 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Richard Hodge

23 Oct 2022

Dear Dr Mark Welch,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled "Development of Highly Efficient CRISPR-Mediated Gene Editing in the Rotifer Brachionus manjavacas" for consideration as a Methods and Resources article by PLOS Biology.

Your manuscript has now been evaluated by the PLOS Biology editorial staff, as well as by an academic editor with relevant expertise, and I am writing to let you know that we would like to send your submission out for external peer review.

However, before we can send your manuscript to reviewers, we need you to complete your submission by providing the metadata that is required for full assessment. To this end, please login to Editorial Manager where you will find the paper in the 'Submissions Needing Revisions' folder on your homepage. Please click 'Revise Submission' from the Action Links and complete all additional questions in the submission questionnaire.

Once your full submission is complete, your paper will undergo a series of checks in preparation for peer review. After your manuscript has passed the checks it will be sent out for review. To provide the metadata for your submission, please Login to Editorial Manager (https://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology) within two working days, i.e. by Oct 25 2022 11:59PM.

If your manuscript has been previously peer-reviewed at another journal, PLOS Biology is willing to work with those reviews in order to avoid re-starting the process. Submission of the previous reviews is entirely optional and our ability to use them effectively will depend on the willingness of the previous journal to confirm the content of the reports and share the reviewer identities. Please note that we reserve the right to invite additional reviewers if we consider that additional/independent reviewers are needed, although we aim to avoid this as far as possible. In our experience, working with previous reviews does save time.

If you would like us to consider previous reviewer reports, please edit your cover letter to let us know and include the name of the journal where the work was previously considered and the manuscript ID it was given. In addition, please upload a response to the reviews as a 'Prior Peer Review' file type, which should include the reports in full and a point-by-point reply detailing how you have or plan to address the reviewers' concerns.

During the process of completing your manuscript submission, you will be invited to opt-in to posting your pre-review manuscript as a bioRxiv preprint. Visit http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/preprints for full details. If you consent to posting your current manuscript as a preprint, please upload a single Preprint PDF.

Feel free to email us at plosbiology@plos.org if you have any queries relating to your submission.

Kind regards,

Richard

Richard Hodge, PhD

Associate Editor, PLOS Biology

rhodge@plos.org

PLOS

Empowering researchers to transform science

Carlyle House, Carlyle Road, Cambridge, CB4 3DN, United Kingdom

ORCiD I plosbio.org I @PLOSBiology I Blog

California (U.S.) corporation #C2354500, based in San Francisco

Decision Letter 1

Richard Hodge

19 Nov 2022

Dear Dr Mark Welch,

Thank you for your patience while your manuscript "Development of Highly Efficient CRISPR-Mediated Gene Editing in the Rotifer Brachionus manjavacas" was peer-reviewed at PLOS Biology. I'm handling your paper temporarily while my colleague Dr Richard Hodge is out of the office. It has now been evaluated by the PLOS Biology editors, an Academic Editor with relevant expertise, and by three independent reviewers.

In light of the reviews, which you will find at the end of this email, we would like to invite you to revise the work to thoroughly address the reviewers' reports.

IMPORTANT: You'll see that while the reviewers are tentatively positive about your study, they each raise a number of concerns that must be addressed before further consideration. I discussed these requests with the Academic Editor, who thought that the concerns were reasonable, and pointed out that you may be able to "kill two birds with one stone" by using editing of an additional gene to address the principal concerns of both reviewers #2 and #3.

Specifically, the Academic Editor said: "I think the comments and suggestions from the reviewers are very good. The suggestion with F3 is doable, since they have a very fast generation time. Maybe give them a bit longer for the major revision. And indeed, they will need to show it with another gene, since vasa effects the germ line. It will become very convincing if they do this. Also the repeat with another gene will satisfy reviewer #3, since they can also exclude one more time the non-specific effects. The gene should be chosen wisely, but the authors know what to do best. They have the knowledge."

Based on the Academic Editor's advice, I'm giving you an additional month (4 months instead of our "COVID-normal" 3 months) to perform the work, but do get back to us if you need more.

Given the extent of revision needed, we cannot make a decision about publication until we have seen the revised manuscript and your response to the reviewers' comments. Your revised manuscript is likely to be sent for further evaluation by all or a subset of the reviewers.

We expect to receive your revised manuscript within 4 months. Please email us (plosbiology@plos.org) if you have any questions or concerns, or would like to request an extension.

At this stage, your manuscript remains formally under active consideration at our journal; please notify us by email if you do not intend to submit a revision so that we may withdraw it.

**IMPORTANT - SUBMITTING YOUR REVISION**

Your revisions should address the specific points made by each reviewer. Please submit the following files along with your revised manuscript:

1. A 'Response to Reviewers' file - this should detail your responses to the editorial requests, present a point-by-point response to all of the reviewers' comments, and indicate the changes made to the manuscript.

*NOTE: In your point-by-point response to the reviewers, please provide the full context of each review. Do not selectively quote paragraphs or sentences to reply to. The entire set of reviewer comments should be present in full and each specific point should be responded to individually, point by point.

You should also cite any additional relevant literature that has been published since the original submission and mention any additional citations in your response.

2. In addition to a clean copy of the manuscript, please also upload a 'track-changes' version of your manuscript that specifies the edits made. This should be uploaded as a "Revised Article with Changes Highlighted" file type.

*Re-submission Checklist*

When you are ready to resubmit your revised manuscript, please refer to this re-submission checklist: https://plos.io/Biology_Checklist

To submit a revised version of your manuscript, please go to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology/ and log in as an Author. Click the link labelled 'Submissions Needing Revision' where you will find your submission record.

Please make sure to read the following important policies and guidelines while preparing your revision:

*Published Peer Review*

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out. Please see here for more details:

https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/05/plos-journals-now-open-for-published-peer-review/

*PLOS Data Policy*

Please note that as a condition of publication PLOS' data policy (http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/data-availability) requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions arrived at in your manuscript. If you have not already done so, you must include any data used in your manuscript either in appropriate repositories, within the body of the manuscript, or as supporting information (N.B. this includes any numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.). For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5

*Blot and Gel Data Policy*

We require the original, uncropped and minimally adjusted images supporting all blot and gel results reported in an article's figures or Supporting Information files. We will require these files before a manuscript can be accepted so please prepare them now, if you have not already uploaded them. Please carefully read our guidelines for how to prepare and upload this data: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements

*Protocols deposition*

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Thank you again for your submission to our journal. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive thus far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Roli Roberts

Roland G Roberts PhD

Senior Editor

PLOS Biology

rroberts@plos.org

on behalf of

Richard Hodge,

Associate Editor

PLOS Biology

rhodge@plos.org

------------------------------------

REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:

Reviewer #1:

Title: Development of Highly Efficient CRISPR-Mediated Gene Editing in the Rotifer Brachionus

manjavacas

Authors: Haiyang Feng et al.

Authors made CRISPR/Cas9-mediated knock out mutants with an application for knock-in technology by homology-directed repair using rotifers. Their success rate was 50-66% of the injected neonates survived to produce offspring. This is not bad if we consider rotifers are doing parthenogenesis.

However, the interesting researchers need to approach the genome information to determine off-target binding sites for Brachionus manjavacas. However, they are not published its genome into journal. This is a main flaw of this manuscript.

The Discussion section is too short and they need to discuss more substantially to the better understanding for the readers.

Also in Fig. 2, the authors need to show HMA and % of mutant spectra of deleted mutants (should be reached to almost 100%) but they did not show it in the manuscript.

Overall, I cannot support to publish this manuscript to PLoS Biology.

Reviewer #2:

The study be Feng et al., is a promising and exciting advance for CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing in the rotifer Brachionus manjavacas, an important animal system for examining molecular mechanisms of metazoan evolution. It will be of broad, significant interest to investigators using non-model system aquatic species for evolution and ecotoxicology, and more generally as another example of the universality of CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing across biological systems. The authors show robust targeted mutagenesis at two genes, vasa and mlh3, by injection of CRISPR/Cas9 RNPs in to the vitellaria of adult females. CRIPSR/Cas9 targeted knock-in of stop codon sequences from a single stranded oligonucleotide template was demonstrated at mlh3. The data indicates the edited alleles are transmitted through F1 animals to the F2 generation. Although CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing has previously been reported in somatic tissues of the rotifer Brachious koreanus using electroporation (Kim et al., 2019), the current study by Feng et al., has very high novelty in demonstrating effective germline CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing and knock-in via injection into the vitellaria/oocytes of Brachionus manjavacas.

Overall the study was well organized but seems somewhat preliminary, and the presentation of how transmission of edited alleles is followed through the germline to the F1 and F2 generations could have been more clearly explained. As presented the data does not demonstrate the establishment of stable, clonal mutant or precision knock-in lines, as claimed in the introduction. In genetic model systems, a family of F3 animals is generated from a single F2 individual transmitting an edited allele, to establish a mutant line carrying the stable germline allele. It was unclear if this is a feasible goal in this rotifer, since gene edited animals were inviable and infertile in the F1 and F2 generation. The paper would be strengthened by establishing an F3 rotifer line that has a specific edit in the genome, and the line used for robust genetic analysis linking phenotype to genotype. If this is the longer term intent it could be better explained in the Discussion.

Other issues:

1. The very strong claims presented in the Discussion should be tempered to indicate further studies are needed to show indel and precision knock-in tagged alleles can be generated and used for mechanistic studies, and generation of reporter knock-ins is a possibility.

2. Other suggested improvements to strengthen the paper include optimizing targeted mutagenesis by titration of CRISPR/Cas9 reagents. Only one condition for CRISPR/Cas9 mutagenesis was tested, and only a percentage of the targeted animals survived. There were resulting phenotypes including fertility and viability that were attributed to the targeted genes, but these phenotypes as indicated may be due to off targeting or gene knock-out by biallelic inactivation. Targeted knock-in of a 3Xstop cassette using an ssoligo template led to the identification of precise and imprecise alleles in F2 animals. Additional detail showing the lineage of alleles from each F1 would clarify the frequency of recovering precise integrations - not every F0 animal may transmit a precise knock-in allele. Having an idea of the number of F0 adults that need to be screened to recover a precise allele in the F1 to F2 generation is useful for replicating this approach.

3. Figure 1. The authors begin the results section with a clear description of the approach used for CRISPR/Cas9 gRNA RNP targeting of oocytes in the adult female vitellaria, and Figure 1 illustrates the approach. This is very much appreciated.

It would also be very helpful if there were a diagram of a flow chart of allele analysis through the F0 - F1 - F2 generations. A panel in Figure 1 showing life cycle or expected allele transmission (asexual or sexual) would be useful. A single F0 could transmit multiple alleles through the germline if the germline cells continue to be edited during early F0 development - this is established in other animal systems.

Inclusion of the amount/molarity of reagents injected, either in the diagram, text, or figure legend would be helpful, particularly since this a novel approach for CRISPR/Cas9 targeting in rotifers. The methods state the concentration of reagents in the injection mix, but not the amount injected.

For future analyses, more consistent targeted mutagenesis may be achieved with synthetic guide RNAs from IDT or Synthego, which provide quality control, reducing possible toxicity due to the variable integrity of in-house synthesized and purified gRNAs.

4. Figure 2 shows the results of indel targeting to vasa to generate lof alleles. In Figure 2B plot it was unclear what the y axis and x axis represent. Is the x axis (1 - 11) the individual 11 mutant alleles shown in 2A? and the y axis is the number of times that allele appeared in individual F1s?

In Figure 2C, it seems there are 19 individual F1s represented on the x-axis. The y-axis is labeled mutagenesis ratio. The arrow pointing to Control - is this meant to be a value of zero? Many of the individual F1s noted on the x-axis show multiple alleles.

Pg. 7 lines 154-156: The text states "ongoing CRISPR activity carried from F0s to F1 oocytes or embryos" is responsible or F1s with 2+ alleles, and incorrectly cites references 24 (animal zygote targeting) and 25 (editing in arabidopsis). This is highly unlikely - CRISPR/Cas9 RNP particles would not be stable throughout the development of an F0 animal and segregated into its germline and F1 embryos. The citation # 24 by Mehravar et al., describes mosaicism in the F0 zygote targeted generation. Please remove this line and these references. F1 animals from a single F0 may inherit different germline alleles, but an individual F1 animal can only inherit, at most, two germline alleles.

The data indicated a stable germline vasa mutant couldn't be established since F1s died within 18 days. The text states this demonstrates a maternal effect, but to definitively show this, mothers that are homozygous for a mutant allele, generated by fertilization of haploid gametes carrying an established allele, is necessary.

5. Figure 3 shows the results of targeting the non-essential mismatch repair mutL Homolog mlh3.

Panel 3D shows a mosaic F1 with overall reduced morphology and few oocytes, but the genotype of this individual isn't indicated. Again it isn't clear how an individual F1 could carry more than two alleles.

It could be helpful to target another gene not involved in DNA repair - disruption of mlh3 activity could have potential negative impact on genome replication during embryonic growth/cell divisions, leading to reduced viability and fertility. Targeting a developmental transcription factor involved in lineage specification, so that a stable line could be isolated, would be interesting.

6. Figure 4. F2 animals were recovered carrying precise and imprecise knock-in alleles of STOP codons, from an ss oligo template, at the mlh3 target site. From 6 injected mothers, 3 had F1 offspring transmitting, and F2 inheriting, knock-in alleles. A total of 18 F2s were genotyped - a record of which of the 3 mothers transmitted a precise allele to F1 and F2 would be useful to know. This would clarify how many F0 animals need to be raised to recover a precise knock-in allele transmitted to the next generation.

Reviewer #3:

This paper introduces an important new method that opens up functional genetics in the phylum Rotifera for the first time. Rotifers are used in lots of areas of research in part because they are small animals with fast generation times. I agree with the authors that current work is hampered by the lack of ways to alter genes to test their functional effects. Knowledge of the deep branching clade of animals that rotifers belong to is limited at present because of the lack of tractable genetic model systems. Two knockouts and one knock-in are presented.

One challenge due to the lack of previous tools is that good genetic/phenotypic markers (like eye colour in Drosophila) are not known already. Two genes with different presumed effects are chosen, and the primary method for gauging success is cloning and sequencing. It might have been interesting to see how expression level of vasa varies among the different mutant types to confirm that different amounts of the vasa gene are expressed depending on the pattern of mutation introduced. Some phenotypic observations are presented that fit with expectations, although both with a complication that wasn't predicted a priori (e.g. there is partial viability of vasa knockouts, irrespective of whether wt is present or not,; for mlh3 there is an apparent effect during amixis as well as during mixis). Is there any further evidence that can be used to confirm this is an unexpected effect of gene knockout as opposed to other unanticipated effects of the the CRISPR manipulation (which might be continuing activity between generations)?

In an ideal world, you might prefer clearer cut links from genotype to phenotype for the initial test of the method, but I think this encapsulates the severe challenges of the state of play in rotifer research. This manuscript paves the way for future studies that introduce gene reporters and systematically investigate other genetic pathways.

Some more comments are listed below.

Line 75. It would be good to add half a sentence saying why affecting the germ line is key for the benefits outlined above.

Line 93. It might be clear to everyone, but worth highlighting these are all amictic still here?

Fig 1C. I can't see much here except a bi-lobed red blob. Would it be permissible to highlight the outline of the animal to aid interpretation?

Line 112-115. I don't follow why it is useful to have a gene expressed in the vitellarium and oocytes, as your method is targeting DNA rather than RNA? Somehow it seemed to imply that it is good for the gene to be expressed in the place that you are injecting…? Also, you say it is expected to affect offspring viability - this seems an odd choice if you're wanting to detect transmission of the edit in the F1.

Line 159. If you think there was ongoing CRISPR activity, could it be that the decline was caused by other mutational events rather than haploidy of the vasa gene. For example, could your injected Cas9 recruit other RNA in the cells and cause different mutations?

Line 190. Intriguing. Were any of these repeats close to your target region or are they far apart in the genome?

Line 235. Interesting additional effect of the manipulation. Is it 100% certain that 'amictic' egg production in Brachionus is really mitotic rather than automictic? (I imagine it is but mention just in case). Or again, could this be off-target residual effects of the Cas9?

Line 261. Regarding the knock-ins, did you see any phenotypic effects of these?

Line 281 "Allows stable transgeneration lineages in about 3 weeks" - I thought they all became extinct after 18 days? Which cases survived for 3 weeks?

A diagram of the design for each knockout and the knock in with number of individuals in F0 and F1 might be useful to have an overview of the design. I found it quite hard to keep track

Decision Letter 2

Richard Hodge

31 May 2023

Dear Dr Mark Welch,

Thank you for your patience while we considered your revised manuscript "A Method for Highly Efficient CRISPR-Mediated Gene Editing in the Rotifer Brachionus manjavacas" for publication as a Methods and Resources Article at PLOS Biology. This revised version of your manuscript has been evaluated by the PLOS Biology editors, the Academic Editor and two of the original reviewers.

Based on the reviews, I am pleased to say that we are likely to accept this manuscript for publication, provided you address the following data and other policy-related requests that I have provided below (A-C):

(A) We would like to suggest the following modification to the title:

“Highly efficient CRISPR-mediated gene editing in a rotifer”

(B) You may be aware of the PLOS Data Policy, which requires that all data be made available without restriction: http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/data-availability. For more information, please also see this editorial: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001797

Note that we do not require all raw data. Rather, we ask that all individual quantitative observations that underlie the data summarized in the figures and results of your paper be made available in one of the following forms:

-Supplementary files (e.g., excel). Please ensure that all data files are uploaded as 'Supporting Information' and are invariably referred to (in the manuscript, figure legends, and the Description field when uploading your files) using the following format verbatim: S1 Data, S2 Data, etc. Multiple panels of a single or even several figures can be included as multiple sheets in one excel file that is saved using exactly the following convention: S1_Data.xlsx (using an underscore).

-Deposition in a publicly available repository. Please also provide the accession code or a reviewer link so that we may view your data before publication.

Regardless of the method selected, please ensure that you provide the individual numerical values that underlie the summary data displayed in the following figure panels as they are essential for readers to assess your analysis and to reproduce it:

Figure 1C

NOTE: the numerical data provided should include all replicates AND the way in which the plotted mean and errors were derived (it should not present only the mean/average values).

(C) Please also ensure that each of the relevant figure legends in your manuscript include information on *WHERE THE UNDERLYING DATA CAN BE FOUND*, and ensure your supplemental data file/s has a legend.

---------------------------------

As you address these items, please take this last chance to review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the cover letter that accompanies your revised manuscript.

We expect to receive your revised manuscript within two weeks.

To submit your revision, please go to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology/ and log in as an Author. Click the link labelled 'Submissions Needing Revision' to find your submission record. Your revised submission must include the following:

- a cover letter that should detail your responses to any editorial requests, if applicable, and whether changes have been made to the reference list

- a Response to Reviewers file that provides a detailed response to the reviewers' comments (if applicable)

- a track-changes file indicating any changes that you have made to the manuscript.

NOTE: If Supporting Information files are included with your article, note that these are not copyedited and will be published as they are submitted. Please ensure that these files are legible and of high quality (at least 300 dpi) in an easily accessible file format. For this reason, please be aware that any references listed in an SI file will not be indexed. For more information, see our Supporting Information guidelines:

https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/supporting-information

*Published Peer Review History*

Please note that you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out. Please see here for more details:

https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/05/plos-journals-now-open-for-published-peer-review/

*Press*

Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, please ensure you have opted out of Early Article Posting on the submission form. We ask that you notify us as soon as possible if you or your institution is planning to press release the article.

*Protocols deposition*

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions.

Kind regards,

Richard

Richard Hodge, PhD

Associate Editor, PLOS Biology

rhodge@plos.org

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reviewer remarks:

Reviewer #2: The authors have addressed all issues.

This reviewer appreciates the author's explanation that an F0 could transmit more than two alleles to offspring. It makes sense, given the rapid development and short generation time of rotifers, and persistence of Cas9 RNP, Casa9 RNP could continue to mutagenize cells in the vitellaria and germline stem cells ovarium.

Decision Letter 3

Richard Hodge

9 Jun 2023

Dear David,

On behalf of my colleagues and the Academic Editor, Andreas Hejnol, I am pleased to say that we can accept your manuscript for publication, provided you address any remaining formatting and reporting issues. These will be detailed in an email you should receive within 2-3 business days from our colleagues in the journal operations team; no action is required from you until then. Please note that we will not be able to formally accept your manuscript and schedule it for publication until you have completed any requested changes.

Please take a minute to log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information to ensure an efficient production process.

PRESS

We frequently collaborate with press offices. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximise its impact. If the press office is planning to promote your findings, we would be grateful if they could coordinate with biologypress@plos.org. If you have previously opted in to the early version process, we ask that you notify us immediately of any press plans so that we may opt out on your behalf.

We also ask that you take this opportunity to read our Embargo Policy regarding the discussion, promotion and media coverage of work that is yet to be published by PLOS. As your manuscript is not yet published, it is bound by the conditions of our Embargo Policy. Please be aware that this policy is in place both to ensure that any press coverage of your article is fully substantiated and to provide a direct link between such coverage and the published work. For full details of our Embargo Policy, please visit http://www.plos.org/about/media-inquiries/embargo-policy/.

Thank you again for choosing PLOS Biology for publication and supporting Open Access publishing. We look forward to publishing your study. 

Best wishes, 

Richard

Richard Hodge, PhD

Senior Editor, PLOS Biology

rhodge@plos.org

PLOS

Empowering researchers to transform science

Carlyle House, Carlyle Road, Cambridge, CB4 3DN, United Kingdom

ORCiD I plosbio.org I @PLOSBiology I Blog

California (U.S.) corporation #C2354500, based in San Francisco

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Data. Data in support of Fig 3C.

    Alleles found in each individual; numbers refer to sequences in Fig 3A.

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response2Reviewers_20230501.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS Biology are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES