Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2021 Jan 7;16(1):e0223288. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0223288

CRISPR/Cas9-loaded stealth liposomes effectively cleared established HPV16-driven tumours in syngeneic mice

Luqman Jubair 1,2, Alfred K Lam 3, Sora Fallaha 1, Nigel A J McMillan 1,2,*
Editor: Valentin Ceña4
PMCID: PMC7790238  PMID: 33411765

Abstract

Gene-editing has raised the possibility of being able to treat or cure cancers, but key challenges remain, including efficient delivery, in vivo efficacy, and its safety profile. Ideal targets for cancer therapy are oncogenes, that when edited, cause cell death. Here, we show, using the human papillomavirus (HPV) type 16 cancer cell line TC1, that CRISPR/Cas9 targeting the E7 oncogene and packaged in PEGylated liposomes cleared established tumours in immunocompetent mice. Treatment caused no significant toxicity in the spleen or liver. An ideal therapeutic outcome would be the induction of an immunogenic cell death (ICD), such that recurrent tumours would be eliminated by the host immune system. We show here for the first time that CRISPR/Cas9-mediated cell death via targeting E7 did not result in ICD. Overall, our data show that in vivo CRISPR/Cas targeting of oncogenes is an effective treatment approach for cancer.

Introduction

While gene therapy has long held a promise in treating a range of diseases, the field has been beset by issues of efficacy, immunogenicity and rare activation of oncogenes [1]. The discovery of siRNAs further refined our ability to treat diseases, yet it took 20 years before the first siRNA-based therapy, Onpattro™, was approved in 2018 [2]. Cas9/guide RNA (gRNA) technology, derived from the CRISPR/Cas9 bacterial immune system, is poised to revolutionize medicine via its ability to correct disease-causing genes, particularly in the cancer setting where the driver oncogenes are known. However, several challenges remain ahead of its clinical translation, such as the targeting specificity, the delivery of the CRISPR/Cas9, the immunogenicity of the delivery vehicle and CRISPR/Cas9 components, and whether the latter would affect the in vivo treatment efficacy [3]. In addition, treating early-stage cancers, when they are still confined to the primary site or organ, is surgically possible with a high success rate. Once metastasized, however, the treatment becomes more challenging as the systemic delivery of cancer therapies has proven to be difficult, with significant side-effects and poor overall efficacy [4]. There is a clear need to optimize systemic delivery vehicles to deliver targeted therapeutics to the desired sites, which should be safer and more effective.

Many viral and non-viral delivery systems have been tested as a modality for the systemic delivery of CRISPR/Cas9 with varying success [5]. In immunocompromised mice, we previously demonstrated that packaging Cas9/gRNA plasmids in PEGylated liposomes via the hydration of freeze-dried matrix (HFDM) could effectively deliver payloads to cervical cancer xenografts [6]–a disease characterized by its addiction on the expression of human papillomavirus (HPV) oncogenes, E6 and E7 [7]. Beyond the targeting and the delivery of treatment, the immunogenicity of CRISPR/Cas9 components could be a hurdle as the introduction of nucleic acids/proteins may elicit innate, cellular, and humoral immune responses [3]. Indeed, Cas9 exposure was previously shown to activate Cas9-specific IgM and IgG antibodies in mice [8], which may neutralize the edited cells in the long-term. In immunocompetent mice, we have previously shown that shielding liposomes with PEGylation, a non-toxic and non-immunogenic polyether diol layer, could protect siRNAs and evade the immune system with no significant immune activation [9,10]. However, the systemic toxicity of PEGylated liposomes loaded with CRISPR/Cas9 is yet to be explored in immunocompetent mouse models.

A further challenge is post-editing immunity as the generation of random indels may give rise to novel antigens that are immunologically foreign. In previous work, we showed that the intravenously administered stealth liposomes coating Cas9/gRNAs targeting HPV16E7 (16E7) or HPV18E7 (18E7) oncogenes effectively eliminated established CasKi (HPV16 +ve) or HeLa (HPV18 +ve) tumours in immunocompromised mice [6]. However, whether this effect would be sustained under competent immune conditions remains unknown. Finally, to improve the long-term anticancer effect of treatment, eliciting oxidative ER stress is essential for developing immunity against cancerous cells through emission of damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs) [11]. This allows the dying cancer cells to induce host anticancer immunity, a phenomenon called immunogenic cell death (ICD) [12]. ICD requires the surface exposure of intracellular chaperones such as calreticulin (CALR), heat shock protein 90 (HSP90) or HSP70, ATP release, and high-mobility group box-1 (HMGB1) protein release [11]. This would prevent cancer reoccurrence and to date this has not been tested in CRISPR/Cas therapies.

Here we test PEGylated liposomes containing Cas9/16E7-expressing plasmids for their ability to target and eliminate established HPV16 E7-driven tumours in syngeneic mice, as well as their toxicity profile. We also examine, for the first time, whether CRISPR/Cas-mediated cell death can result in ICD and thereby prevent cancer reoccurrence.

Methods and materials

Cell culture, transfection and plasmid

CasKi (HPV 16 +ve, passage number 6), C33A (HPV -ve, passage 12), HeLa (passage number 23), and Jurkat cell lines (purchased from American Type Culture Collection) were cultured in Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle’s Medium (DMEM) supplemented with 10% heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (FBS), and 1% antibiotic mixture of penicillin G, streptomycin sulfate and L-Glutamine. TC1 cell line (passage number 14, derived from primary lung epithelial cells of C57BL/6, complemented with HPV 16E7 gene, were kindly provided by Prof James Wells, Translational Research Institute, Diamantina Institute, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia) was cultured in RPMI 1640, supplemented with 10% heat inactivated FBS, insulin, 2 mM L-glutamine, 1 mM Pyruvate, 0.1 mM minimal essential medium with nonessential amino acids, penicillin 100U/ml and 100 μg streptomycin/ml. Mycoplasma testing by PCR was carried out on monthly basis to ensure the cell lines are contamination-free. All cell lines were authenticated by short tandem repeats (STR) analysis at the Griffith DNA Sequencing Facility in accordance with ATCC guidelines.

The Cas9 and gRNA expressing plasmid was purchased from Addgene (px330S-2, #58778). The target site within the HPV16E7 gene was selected using CRISPRDirect online tool [13]. The 16E7 gRNA (target sequence: ccggacagagcccattacaatat) and control (non-specific) gRNA (target sequence: tcgtactctacagcagatgc) were cloned into px330S-2 plasmid as described elsewhere [14]. Lipofectamine 3000 reagent (Thermo Fisher Scientific) was used according to the manufacturer’s instructions

Cell viability assay

The MTT (3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide) tetrazolium reduction assay was used to determine the effect of 16E7 targeting on cell viability. Three days after treatment, 50 μL of MTT (12 mM) was added to a fresh 450 μL of DMEM per well (24-well plate) and incubated at 37°C for four hours. The development of the blue formazan due to MTT metabolism by viable cells was assessed by quantifying its optical density at a wavelength of 544 nm.

ATP release assay

The release of ATP after treatment was assessed using colorimetric ATP assay kit (Abcam, #83355) according to manufacturer’s protocol. Briefly, TC1 cells were transfected with either Cas9+nonspecific gRNA, or Cas9+ 16E7 gRNA or untreated in triplicates. Samples were incubated at room temperature for 30 minutes in a dark room. Optical density was measured at 570 nm.

T7E1 assay

The editing efficiency was estimated by the T7E1 assay as described elsewhere [15]. After treatment, the target 16E7 gene was amplified by PCR using two primers flanking the editing site. The digested products were analysed by 2% agarose gel electrophoresis.

Western blot

The effect of 16E7 targeting was assessed by quantifying retinoblastoma (Rb) protein via western blotting. TC1 cells were seeded in T25 flask and transfected, 48 hours after transfection, cells were treated with MG132 (20 μM) for 12 hours, then lysed with RIPA buffer and halt protease inhibitor. Samples were loaded into 12% SDS-PAGE gel, for three hours (at 120 V, 4°C). Membranes were probed with primary antibody overnight with agitation at 4°C. Rb antibody (BD Sciences, #610261), HMGB-1 (abcam, ab18256). Jurkat and HeLa whole cell lysates were used as a positive control for Rb and HMGB-1 antibodies, respectively.

In vivo testing

For in vivo testing, 1×105 TC1 cells were suspended in PBS then subcutaneously injected into immunocompetent C57BL/6J mice (six mice per test group, 6-week of age, purchased from the University of Queensland Biological Resources, Brisbane, Australia). The animals were sheltered in the animal facility unit at Griffith University and care was provided by trained staff (divided into five mice per group, each group was kept in a conventional cage, normal bedding, normal feeding and watering, ambient humidity and temperature). Cas9 and 16E7 gRNA expressing plasmids were packaged into PEGylated liposomes by the hydration of freeze-dried matrix (HFDM) [16]. The packaging capacity and the PEGylation ratio were determined using procedures described previously [16]. Once tumours were ≈ 50 mm3 in size, ten microgram/dose of either treatment (Cas9+16E7 targeting gRNAs), control (Cas9+nonspecific gRNA), or PBS were injected via the tail vein at different time points. The well-being of the animals was assessed on daily basis following Griffith University Guidelines for Animal Care and Use (general health assessment including eating, locomotion, behaviour, appearance, and weight loss). To minimise animal stress, Isoflurance anaesthesia was used prior to inoculation of tumour cells or the assessment of tumour volume. No animal death was reported prior to reaching the humane endpoint. Tumours were monitored on daily basis after inoculation for a total of 38 days until the conclusion of the experiment. As tumours appeared to take mostly spheroid geometry, tumour volume was assessed using the following formula: V = (W(2) × L)/2, where V represents the volume, W represents the width, and L represents the length.

From previous work, the number of treatments required varied based on the growth rate of the cell line. TC1 cells are rapidly growing tumour cells, and therefore we tested two treatment arms; the first group received a total of seven injections of treatment (Cas9+16E7 gRNA) on second-daily basis, followed by four injections of control (Cas9+nonspecific gRNA). The second group continued treatment (Cas9+16E7) until the experimental endpoint was reached (tumour volume of 1000 mm3, culling by carbon dioxide method, or cervical dislocation as a secondary method of euthanasia). Tissue blocks were collected from mice’ tumour, liver, and spleen for immunohistochemical staining. Haematoxylin and eosin (H&E) stained sections were cut from the tissue blocks to examine tissue morphology, inflammation, and pathological alterations. Cleaved Caspase-3 Rabbit monoclonal antibody (Cell Signaling, #9664) was used to assess apoptosis.

Immunogenic cell death was assessed by injecting 1×106 of pre-treated TC1 cells with Cas9+16E7 treatment (2.5 μg of total DNA), cisplatin treated cells (50 μM for six hours), or Mitoxantrone (1 μM for six hours) into the left flank of C57BL/6J mice (five mice per group). Seven days later, a rechallenge experiment was undertaken by injecting 1×105 of viable TC1 cells into the right flank of these mice. This project has been approved by Griffith University Ethics Committee (project number MSC/04/17).

Statistical analysis

Data were expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD). Independent samples t-test (at p <0.05) were used to determine statistically significant differences. All analyses were done by using GraphPad Prism software (version 7).

Results

In vitro targeting of HPV 16E7 inhibited cell proliferation via Rb protein restoration

We first established if the targeting of HPV 16E7 with CRISPR/Cas9 in the mouse HPV transformed cell line, TC-1, would result in changes in cell growth. It was observed that a significant reduction in cell proliferation occurred with 16E7-targeting gRNA and that this effect was specific to HPV 16 +ve cell lines, TC1 and CasKi, while HPV -ve C33A cells were not affected (Fig 1A). Consistent with our previous work [6], transfection with a nonspecific gRNA or Cas9-expressing plasmids alone had a small but reproducible effect, likely due to nonspecific DNA toxicity (800 ng/well, 24-well plate). We next assessed the long-term effect of treatment using colony-forming assays. The results mirrored the viability assays, with a significant reduction in the number of colonies in HPV16 +ve cell lines compared to other controls (Fig 1B), indicating highly specific killing of 16E7-expressing cells. Because E7 protein binds to Rb protein resulting in its degradation [17], we assessed Rb expression levels by western blotting and showed that it was higher (Fig 1C) in 16E7 gRNA-treated cells, consistent with a knockout of HPV 16E7 gene expression. Finally, we investigated the editing efficiency of 16E7 gene in TC1 cells using the T7E1 assay, showing that 48.2% of the target gene was successfully edited through the non-homologous end joining repair pathway (NHEJ), when 800 ng of DNA/well were transfected (24-well plate). Increasing DNA concentration beyond that has shown to be toxic.

Fig 1. The targeting of HPV 16E7 gene with CRISPR/Cas9 inhibited cell proliferation and restored Rb protein expression.

Fig 1

(A) HPV 16 +ve (TC1 and CasKi) and HPV -ve (C33A) cell lines were treated with Cas9+ 16E7 specific gRNA or control gRNA (nonspecific) for 72 hours before cell viability was determined by MTT assay. (B) HPV 16 +ve (TC1 and CasKi) and HPV -ve (C33A) cell lines were treated with Cas9+ 16E7 or control gRNAs and allowed to form colonies for two weeks, then the number of colonies was counted. (C) TC1 cells were treated with either Cas9+16E7 or Cas9+ control gRNAs for 72 hours before Rb protein expression was determined by western blot. Jurkat lysate was used as a positive control. Beta-actin was used as loading control. (D) TC1 cells were treated with Cas9+16E7 or control gRNAs for 72 hours, then editing efficiency was determined by T7E1 assay. Two DNA concentrations (500 ng or 800 ng per well, 24-well plate) were tested. All data are presented as mean ± SD. Statistical difference was assessed by ANOVA with post-hoc analysis, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001.

The systemic delivery of Cas9/16E7 targeting gRNA packaged in stealth liposomes effectively cleared tumour xenografts in immunocompetent mouse model with minimal inflammation

We and others have previously shown the effects of CRISPR/Cas in cancer models that use xenografts in immunodeficient mice [6,18,19]. This misses an important aspect of responses to treatment, namely the immune response itself. To address this, we tested the in vivo efficacy of targeting 16E7 in an immunocompetent mouse model. Cas9 plasmids and gRNAs were packed in stealth liposomes which we have previously used extensively with siRNA in vivo work [10,16] and injected into the tail vein of mice that had established TC1 tumours. We observed a good control of tumour growth compared to experimental controls in the first arm, however, growth suppression was not maintained; with tumours growing when 16E7 specific treatment ceased at day 14, and ultimately reaching the experimental endpoint (1000 mm3) by day 36 (Fig 2A). The second treatment arm, which continued to receive 16E7 specific treatment, showed a complete growth inhibition by the end of the experiment, and tumours were effectively cleared (Fig 2A). All controls reached the endpoint by day 22.

Fig 2. The systemic administration of Cas9/16E7 targeting gRNAs coated in PEGylated liposomes effectively cleared established HPV 16-driven tumours via apoptosis with minimal toxicity.

Fig 2

(A) TC1 (HPV 16 +ve) cells were subcutaneously inoculated in C57BL/6J and allowed to grow to ≈ 50 mm3 before treatments were injected via tail vein (a total of 10 μg of plasmid DNA expressing Cas9 and 16E7 targeting gRNA for treatment groups, or Cas9 and nonspecific gRNA for control, or PBS for untreated group). Injections were administered second daily. First treatment arm (16E7#1) received a total of seven 16E7 treatments, then another four control (Cas9+nonspecific gRNA) injections. The second treatment arm (16E7#2) received a total of eleven 16E7 injections. Tumour volume was measured second daily with digital caliper. The experiment endpoint was tumour volume reaching 1000 mm3. (B) The survival analysis of established TC1 xenografts after 16E7 targeting, with similar experimental groups as in A. (C) Immunohistochemical staining of tumour specimens with H&E staining (upper panel) or cleaved caspase-3 (lower panel) for control (nonspecific) or 16E7 treated mice. (D) The apoptotic cell counts in cleaved caspase-3 stained tumour samples from untreated, control, or 16E7 treated mice. (E) H&E staining of liver and spleen specimens from untreated, control, or 16E7 treated mice. N = 6 per group. Data were represented as mean ± SD. Statistical significance was assessed by ANOVA with post-hoc analysis. * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001.

This finding confirmed the specificity of treatment to HPV 16E7-driven tumours, and that its effect is independent of a possible “empty vector effect” as reported elsewhere [2022]. Targeting 16E7 gene with seven doses prolonged cancer-free survival by 12 days (36 versus 24 days, for 16E7#1 vs control, respectively, P<0.001), while eleven consecutive 16E7 doses (the second treatment arm) eliminated tumour entirely (Fig 2B). H&E staining of tumour specimens (from treatment group #1) showed a markedly increased number of apoptotic cells in 16E7 treated tumours, with degenerative cells and extensive necrotic regions (Fig 2C). Staining for cleaved caspase-3 showed 11-fold increase in apoptosis in 16E7 treated mice compared to the control (Fig 2C and 2D).

Intravenously injected lipoplexes were previously shown to accumulate largely in the liver and spleen [23,24]. Some evidence suggests that DOTAP in certain isoforms could activate CD8+ T-cells mediated immune response through the production of reactive oxygen species [25,26]. We previously investigated our HFDM liposomes loaded with siRNA and showed that they did not significantly induce pro-inflammatory cytokines [IFN α, IL-6, IFN γ) [27,28]. To further investigate this, we performed H&E staining of the liver, spleen and tumour specimens from mice treated with PBS only, or HFDM liposomes loaded with CRISPR/Cas9 (Fig 2E). There was no evidence of significant inflammation or necrosis, with minimal leukocytic recruitment in liver specimens from mice treated with HFDM liposomes compared to the untreated group. On the other hand, splenic reactive follicular hyperplasia was noticed in the control gRNA and treated mice compared to the untreated murine spleen, possibly a nonspecific and inevitable reaction to plasmid DNA due to its high frequency of CpG motifs, a known feature of bacterial DNA [29,30].

The CRISPR/Cas9 mediated cell death is not immunogenic

To assess whether the observed cell death was also immunogenic, we examined H&E stained tumour specimens for infiltration of inflammatory cells (Fig 3A). It showed extensive necrotic regions peripherally, which is expected with the systemic delivery of the treatment. Apoptotic and degenerative changes were also noticed, but no evidence of significant inflammation within tumour tissue was detected. Our data support the extracellular release of ATP, with a significant increase 72 hours after 16E7 treatment (Fig 3B). The western blot analysis of both adherent cells and media showed that the HMGB-1 protein was passively released in the media of 16E7 treated cells 72 hours after treatment (Fig 3C).

Fig 3. CRISPR/Cas9-induced cell death in HPV 16-driven xenografts is not immunogenic.

Fig 3

(A) Examination of H&E stained tumour specimens from Cas9+16E7 treated mice (16E7 #1 group) for inflammatory cells infiltration. (B) Extracellular ATP release assay of TC1 cells (HPV 16+ve) treated with Cas9+16E7, Cas9+nonspecific gRNA, or untreated, over 72 hours. A total of 800 ng of plasmid DNA was transfected per well (24-well plate) at 70% cell confluency. (C) TC1 cells were treated with Cas9+16E7, Cas9+nonspecific gRNA (control), or untreated for 72 hours before protein release of HMGB-1 was assessed by western blot analysis. Samples were collected from adherent cells (adh) or supernatant (snt) for each group. HeLa cells lysate was used as positive control. Data were represented as mean ± SD. Statistical significance was assessed by ANOVA with post-hoc analysis. * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001.

Next, we examined if treating TC1 cells would induce an immune response in immunocompetent mice. To ensure the pretreated TC1 cells were viable at the time of inoculation to induce antitumour immunity, the effect of treatment on cell viability was assessed at different time points (Fig 4A). It was shown that 48 hours post-treatment was an ideal time point to prepare cells for subcutenous injection (Fig 4B). The ex vivo treatment with 16E7 appeared less effective compared to cisplatin and mitoxantrone (Fig 4C, left flank). However, this could result from the less efficient transfection of plasmid DNA compared to other controls. When rechallenged with viable TC1 cells, 16E7 treatment did not seem to induce anticancer immunity in the host, and thus tumour growth rate was not significantly different from cisplatin-treated mice (Fig 4C, challenge flank), with no survival advantage (Fig 4D). Therefore, we conclude that the targeting of E7 with CRISPR/Cas9, while inducing apoptosis in target cells, does not result in immunogenic cell death.

Fig 4. In vivo testing of the immunogenicity of cell death induced by CRISPR/Cas9 targeting HPV 16-driven tumours.

Fig 4

(A) Cell viability assay of HPV 16 +ve (TC1) cell line treated with Cas9 only, 16E7 gRNA only, Cas9+control gRNA or Cas9 +16E7 gRNA for 48, 60, or 72 hours before viability was assessed by MTT assay. (B) The experiment design and timeline to assess immunogenic cell death. TC1 cells were treated with either Cas9+16E7 (test group), cisplatin (non-ICD inducing, negative control), mitoxantrone (ICD inducing, positive control), injected in the left flank of C57BL/6J mice, and allowed to grow for seven days. The right flank was then rechallenged with viable (untreated) TC1 cells and followed up to the experiment endpoint (tumour volume of 1000 mm3). Tumour volume was assessed by digital caliper. (C) The tumour volume assessment of pre-treated TC1 cells (left flank) or the challenge viable cells (right flank) as explained in Fig 2A. (D) survival analysis of established TC1 xenografts after exposure to pre-treated TC1 cells with either 16E7, cisplatin, or mitoxantrone (right flank tumours). N = 5 per group. Data were represented as mean ± SD. Statistical significance was assessed by ANOVA with post-hoc analysis. * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001.

Discussion

It is now clear that a major challenge to developing CRISPR/Cas9 therapeutics in humans is the delivery of the gene-editing components to target organs with acceptable safety profiles and minimal immunogenic/antigenic toxicity. After a decade of clinical trials, the use of PEGylated liposomes has shown promising results, particularly in the anticancer gene therapy area [31]. Here we demonstrate that the intravenously administered Cas9/16E7sgRNA plasmids packaged in stealth liposomes effectively cleared established 16E7-driven tumours in syngeneic mice with a significant survival advantage. These results are comparable to efficacy testing in immunocompromised mice [6]. The effect was specific to 16E7 gene targeting as demonstrated by the two treatment arms, with one arm resuming tumour growth once the 16E7 treatment was ceased. This rules out the “empty vector effect”, defined as the nonspecific release of cytokines and activation of NK cells elicited by the immunogenicity of the empty vector itself without the therapeutic genes, resulting in a transient anti-tumour effect [20,22].

To the best of our knowledge, this paper is the first to report on the in vivo efficacy and immunogenicity of CRISPR/Cas9 coated in stealth liposomes in an immunocompetent mouse model. Host immune responses to CRISPR/Cas9, delivery vehicle, or gene expression of the edited genes have been reported since the early studies on CRISPR/Cas9 [32]. Both humoral and T cell-mediated immunity against Streptococcus pyogenes and Cas9 antibody were detected in more than 80% of healthy individuals [3335]. We did not measure the anti-Cas9 antibody in the blood stream after treatment, and thus we cannot claim an immune response did not occur. However, it did not seem to affect in vivo efficacy of the treatment or the wellbeing of the mice. We previously demonstrated that HFDM liposomes could protect siRNA payloads from circulating reticuloendothelial cells with no significant activation of the immune system [10], which could explain the consistent in vivo efficacy of targeting the 16E7 gene. Moreover, administering the lowest efficacious dose of the treatment was previously suggested to minimize the chance of developing anti-Cas9 immune response [32]. Here we administered small but more frequent treatments (10 μg per dose, 11 total treatments) instead of the widely adopted regimen of 30–60 μg per dose (2 mg/kg). Higher doses of CRISPR/Cas9 therapeutics correlates with long-term expression of Cas9, which could potentially trigger an immune response [32].

We argue that our HFDM liposomes effectively delivered payloads to target organs as a result of optimal characterization of key determinants for a successful delivery vehicle. Coating liposomes with PEGylation was shown to increase its stability, reduce renal clearance and prolong circulation time [36]. PEGylation also increased particle size, limiting the extravasation of liposomes into healthy tissues with intact endothelium, while preferentially accumulated in tumour tissues via the enhanced permeation and retention effect [37], leading to an improved transfection efficiency. Using DOPE is also implicated in the enhanced intracellular processing of plasmid DNA. DOPE was shown to play an important role in destabilizing endosomal membrane due to its fusogenic properties under acidic conditions, resulting in the release of DNA into the cytoplasm [38]. Another pertinent aspect of HFDM liposome efficiency was its particle size and homogeneity (N/P ratio = 16:1, average particle diameter = 217 nm ± 13.35, average PDI = 0.39 ± 0.04, zeta-potential = +48 ±3.12mV). Lipoplexes with smaller particle size (<200 nm) were shown to be mainly internalized via clathrin-mediated endocytosis, and thus rapidly cleared by lysosomal compartment. On the other hand, larger lipoplexes were internalized by the kinetically slow caveolea-mediated endocytosis, allowing for cytoplasmic escape of cargo [39], and thus enabled more efficient intracellular processing. We previously showed that stealth liposomes prepared with HFDM displayed less hepatic uptake [16], with no significant increase in lactate dehydrogenase after IV treatment of mice [27,28], which explains the observed minimal changes in the liver of treated mice. Of note, the reactive splenic follicular hyperplasia observed in our experiment was not surprising as it was previously shown that the administration of fluorescently labelled lipids in mice did not leave vasculature except in the spleen due to its discontinuous endothelium [40]. Plasmid DNA derived from bacteria differs from eukaryotic DNA by the high frequency of hypomethylated CpG motifs, which induces B-cells and pro-inflammatory cytokines [29]. Hence, it is possible to reduce potential splenic toxicity by methylating these motifs prior to systemic administration [20,21]. Our data also suggest that the apoptotic cell death induced by CRISPR/Cas9 was not immunogenic, as the rechallenge experiment failed to establish the presence of an immune response against HPV 16E7-driven TC1 cells.

Altogether, our data show that HFDM liposomes are a promising delivery system for CRISPR therapeutics, with high in vivo efficacy in syngeneic mice. The systemic administration of CRISR-lipoplexes showed minimal hepatic toxicity and did not induce inflammation. Although the observed cell death was apoptotic but not immunogenic, other strategies may be explored to enhance the host anticancer immunity [41].

Supporting information

S1 Raw images

(PDF)

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Goncalves GAR, Paiva RMA. Gene therapy: advances, challenges and perspectives. Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil). 2017;15(3):369–75. 10.1590/S1679-45082017RB4024 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.FDA Approves Onpattro (patisiran) Targeted RNA-based Therapy for Polyneuropathy Caused by hATTR August 10, 2018 [cited 2018 October 12]. Available from: https://www.drugs.com/newdrugs/fda-approves-onpattro-patisiran-targeted-rna-based-therapy-polyneuropathy-caused-hattr-4794.html.
  • 3.Chew WL. Immunity to CRISPR Cas9 and Cas12a therapeutics. Wiley interdisciplinary reviews Systems biology and medicine. 2018;10(1). 10.1002/wsbm.1408 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Senapati S, Mahanta AK, Kumar S, Maiti P. Controlled drug delivery vehicles for cancer treatment and their performance. Signal Transduction and Targeted Therapy. 2018;3(1):7 10.1038/s41392-017-0004-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.He ZY, Men K, Qin Z, Yang Y, Xu T, Wei YQ. Non-viral and viral delivery systems for CRISPR-Cas9 technology in the biomedical field. Science China Life sciences. 2017;60(5):458–67. 10.1007/s11427-017-9033-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Jubair L, Fallaha S, McMillan NA. Systemic Delivery of CRISPR/Cas9 targeting HPV oncogenes is effective at eliminating established tumors. Manuscript accepted for publication in Molecular Therapy 2019. 10.1016/j.ymthe.2019.08.012 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Tan S, de Vries EG, van der Zee AG, de Jong S. Anticancer drugs aimed at E6 and E7 activity in HPV-positive cervical cancer. Current cancer drug targets. 2012;12(2):170–84. 10.2174/156800912799095135 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Chew WL, Tabebordbar M, Cheng JK, Mali P, Wu EY, Ng AH, et al. A multifunctional AAV-CRISPR-Cas9 and its host response. Nat Methods. 2016;13(10):868–74. 10.1038/nmeth.3993 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Dreborg S, Akerblom EB. Immunotherapy with monomethoxypolyethylene glycol modified allergens. Critical reviews in therapeutic drug carrier systems. 1990;6(4):315–65. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.McCaskill J, Singhania R, Burgess M, Allavena R, Wu S, Blumenthal A, et al. Efficient Biodistribution and Gene Silencing in the Lung epithelium via Intravenous Liposomal Delivery of siRNA. Molecular therapy Nucleic acids. 2013;2(6):e96 10.1038/mtna.2013.22 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Kepp O, Senovilla L, Vitale I, Vacchelli E, Adjemian S, Agostinis P, et al. Consensus guidelines for the detection of immunogenic cell death. Oncoimmunology. 2014;3(9):e955691 10.4161/21624011.2014.955691 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Garg AD, Dudek-Peric AM, Romano E, Agostinis P. Immunogenic cell death. The International journal of developmental biology. 2015;59(1–3):131–40. 10.1387/ijdb.150061pa [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Naito Y, Hino K, Bono H, Ui-Tei K. CRISPRdirect: software for designing CRISPR/Cas guide RNA with reduced off-target sites. Bioinformatics (Oxford, England). 2015;31(7):1120–3. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu743 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Sakuma T, Nishikawa A, Kume S, Chayama K, Yamamoto T. Multiplex genome engineering in human cells using all-in-one CRISPR/Cas9 vector system. Scientific Reports. 2014;4:5400 10.1038/srep05400 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Guschin DY, Waite AJ, Katibah GE, Miller JC, Holmes MC, Rebar EJ. A rapid and general assay for monitoring endogenous gene modification. Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, NJ). 2010;649:247–56. 10.1007/978-1-60761-753-2_15 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Wu SY, Putral LN, Liang M, Chang HI, Davies NM, McMillan NA. Development of a novel method for formulating stable siRNA-loaded lipid particles for in vivo use. Pharmaceutical research. 2009;26(3):512–22. 10.1007/s11095-008-9766-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Boyer SN, Wazer DE, Band V. E7 protein of human papilloma virus-16 induces degradation of retinoblastoma protein through the ubiquitin-proteasome pathway. Cancer research. 1996;56(20):4620–4. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Zhu D, Shen H, Tan S, Hu Z, Wang L, Yu L, et al. Nanoparticles Based on Poly (beta-Amino Ester) and HPV16-Targeting CRISPR/shRNA as Potential Drugs for HPV16-Related Cervical Malignancy. Molecular therapy: the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy. 2018;26(10):2443–55. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Jung I-Y, Kim Y-Y, Yu H-S, Lee M, Kim S, Lee J. CRISPR/Cas9-Mediated Knockout of DGK Improves Antitumor Activities of Human T Cells. Cancer research. 2018;78(16):4692–703. 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-18-0030 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Whitmore M, Li S, Huang L. LPD lipopolyplex initiates a potent cytokine response and inhibits tumor growth. Gene therapy. 1999;6(11):1867–75. 10.1038/sj.gt.3301026 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Dow SW, Elmslie RE, Fradkin LG, Liggitt DH, Heath TD, Willson AP, et al. Intravenous cytokine gene delivery by lipid-DNA complexes controls the growth of established lung metastases. Human gene therapy. 1999;10(18):2961–72. 10.1089/10430349950016375 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Dow SW, Fradkin LG, Liggitt DH, Willson AP, Heath TD, Potter TA. Lipid-DNA complexes induce potent activation of innate immune responses and antitumor activity when administered intravenously. Journal of immunology (Baltimore, Md: 1950). 1999;163(3):1552–61. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Parker SE, Ducharme S, Norman J, Wheeler CJ. Tissue distribution of the cytofectin component of a plasmid-DNA/cationic lipid complex following intravenous administration in mice. Human gene therapy. 1997;8(4):393–401. 10.1089/hum.1997.8.4-393 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Niven R, Pearlman R, Wedeking T, Mackeigan J, Noker P, Simpson-Herren L, et al. Biodistribution of radiolabeled lipid-DNA complexes and DNA in mice. Journal of pharmaceutical sciences. 1998;87(11):1292–9. 10.1021/js980087a [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Dokka S, Toledo D, Shi X, Castranova V, Rojanasakul Y. Oxygen radical-mediated pulmonary toxicity induced by some cationic liposomes. Pharmaceutical research. 2000;17(5):521–5. 10.1023/a:1007504613351 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Vasievich EA, Chen W, Huang L. Enantiospecific adjuvant activity of cationic lipid DOTAP in cancer vaccine. Cancer immunology, immunotherapy: CII. 2011;60(5):629–38. 10.1007/s00262-011-0970-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Khairuddin N, Gantier MP, Blake SJ, Wu SY, Behlke MA, Williams BR, et al. siRNA-induced immunostimulation through TLR7 promotes antitumoral activity against HPV-driven tumors in vivo. Immunology and cell biology. 2012;90(2):187–96. 10.1038/icb.2011.19 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Wu SY, Singhania A, Burgess M, Putral LN, Kirkpatrick C, Davies NM, et al. Systemic delivery of E6/7 siRNA using novel lipidic particles and its application with cisplatin in cervical cancer mouse models. Gene therapy. 2011;18(1):14–22. 10.1038/gt.2010.113 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Weiner GJ. The immunobiology and clinical potential of immunostimulatory CpG oligodeoxynucleotides. Journal of leukocyte biology. 2000;68(4):455–63. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Zelenay S, Elias F, Flo J. Immunostimulatory effects of plasmid DNA and synthetic oligodeoxynucleotides. European journal of immunology. 2003;33(5):1382–92. 10.1002/eji.200323614 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Cattel L, Ceruti M, Dosio F. From conventional to stealth liposomes: a new frontier in cancer chemotherapy. Tumori. 2003;89(3):237–49. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Crudele JM, Chamberlain JS. Cas9 immunity creates challenges for CRISPR gene editing therapies. Nature Communications. 2018;9(1):3497 10.1038/s41467-018-05843-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Colque-Navarro P, Jacobsson G, Andersson R, Flock J-I, Möllby R. Levels of Antibody against 11 Staphylococcus aureus Antigens in a Healthy Population. Clinical and Vaccine Immunology. 2010;17(7):1117–23. 10.1128/CVI.00506-09 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Kolata JB, Kuhbandner I, Link C, Normann N, Vu CH, Steil L, et al. The Fall of a Dogma? Unexpected High T-Cell Memory Response to Staphylococcus aureus in Humans. The Journal of infectious diseases. 2015;212(5):830–8. 10.1093/infdis/jiv128 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Charlesworth CT, Deshpande PS, Dever DP, Dejene B, Gomez-Ospina N, Mantri S, et al. Identification of Pre-Existing Adaptive Immunity to Cas9 Proteins in Humans. bioRxiv. 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Milla P, Dosio F, Cattel L. PEGylation of proteins and liposomes: a powerful and flexible strategy to improve the drug delivery. Current drug metabolism. 2012;13(1):105–19. 10.2174/138920012798356934 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Maeda H, Sawa T, Konno T. Mechanism of tumor-targeted delivery of macromolecular drugs, including the EPR effect in solid tumor and clinical overview of the prototype polymeric drug SMANCS. Journal of controlled release: official journal of the Controlled Release Society. 2001;74(1–3):47–61. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Noguchi A, Furuno T, Kawaura C, Nakanishi M. Membrane fusion plays an important role in gene transfection mediated by cationic liposomes. FEBS letters. 1998;433(1–2):169–73. 10.1016/s0014-5793(98)00837-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Rejman J, Oberle V, Zuhorn IS, Hoekstra D. Size-dependent internalization of particles via the pathways of clathrin- and caveolae-mediated endocytosis. The Biochemical journal. 2004;377(Pt 1):159–69. 10.1042/BJ20031253 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.McLean JW, Fox EA, Baluk P, Bolton PB, Haskell A, Pearlman R, et al. Organ-specific endothelial cell uptake of cationic liposome-DNA complexes in mice. The American journal of physiology. 1997;273(1 Pt 2):H387–404. 10.1152/ajpheart.1997.273.1.H387 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Bezu L, Gomes-de-Silva LC, Dewitte H, Breckpot K, Fucikova J, Spisek R, et al. Combinatorial strategies for the induction of immunogenic cell death. Frontiers in immunology. 2015;6:187 10.3389/fimmu.2015.00187 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Valentin Ceña

9 Oct 2019

PONE-D-19-24737

CRISPR/Cas9-loaded stealth liposomes effectively clear established HPV16-driven tumours in syngeneic mice.

PLOS ONE

Dear Professor McMillan,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that includes a point-by-point  answer to all the revieweres' comments.    The reviewers think that the authors need to describe the synthesis method of the liposomes that they used in the study and the characterization of  their physico-chemical properties. In addition, successful delivery of the liposomes/Cas9toin the tumor site should be shown. A complete account of the comments can be found at the end of this letter.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript  by Nov 23 2019 11:59PM.  When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

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. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

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.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Valentin Ceña

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please provide additional information about each of the cell lines used in this work, including source, history, culture conditions and any quality control testing procedures (authentication, characterisation, and mycoplasma testing). For more information, please see " ext-link-type="uri" xlink:type="simple">http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-cell-lines."

3. At this time, we request that you  please report additional details in your Methods section regarding animal care, as per our editorial guidelines:

(1) Please provide details of animal welfare (e.g., shelter, food, water, environmental enrichment)

(2) Please include the secondary method of euthanasia in addition to carbon dioxide asphyxiation

(3) Please state the duration of the experiment

(4) Please state the frequency of monitoring of the mice after tumor cell inoculation

Thank you for your attention to these requests

4. PLOS ONE now requires that authors provide the original uncropped and unadjusted images underlying all blot or gel results reported in a submission’s figures or Supporting Information files. This policy and the journal’s other requirements for blot/gel reporting and figure preparation are described in detail at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-preparing-figures-from-image-files. When you submit your revised manuscript, please ensure that your figures adhere fully to these guidelines and provide the original underlying images for all blot or gel data reported in your submission. See the following link for instructions on providing the original image data: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-original-images-for-blots-and-gels.

In your cover letter, please note whether your blot/gel image data are in Supporting Information or posted at a public data repository, provide the repository URL if relevant, and provide specific details as to which raw blot/gel images, if any, are not available. Email us at plosone@plos.org if you have any questions.

5. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

'The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to

publish, or preparation of the manuscript.'

  1. Please provide an amended Funding Statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support received during this specific study (whether external or internal to your organization) as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now.  

  2. Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funder. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Jubair L et al demonstrated the power of CRISPR/Cas9 to inhibit the expression of 16E7 and the antitumoral implications of these both in vitro and in vivo in an immunocompetent tumor model. The nano-delivery of gRNA guides targeting 16E7 show a potent anti-tumoral effect without obvious toxicity in major organs. The results show apoptosis induction in the tumor biopsies and while absence of immunogenic cell death.

The paper shows a strong anti-tumoral effect in vivo in a syngeneic tumor model which is quite interesting. However, there are a number of major points that the authors need to address. For example, the authors did not describe the synthesis method of the liposomes that they used in the study. Also, the physical and chemical characterization of liposomes is lacking such as size, shape and charge. Also, they did not prove the successful delivery of the liposomes/Cas9 in the tumor site. I would suggest authors show evidence of tumoral delivery of Cas9 by IHC or IF.

Other points to address

As the paper is focused on the utilization of in-house liposomes, why did not the authors perform the cell transfections with those liposomes instead of lipofectamine 3000? I think the paper will benefit from additional experiments done with their liposomes or an experiment comparing the in vitro transduction efficiency of lipofectamine versus their liposomes in reducing the expression of 16E7.

In Fig 1A, there is a ~25% reduction in cell viability in TC-1 cells transfected with Cas9 only and Cas9+unspecific gRNA. Although the authors explain that is due to unspecific DNA toxicity and is not significant, it looks significant to me. Can you show p values? Figure 1A also needs the experimental negative controls for C33A and Caski cells (as TC-1 cells).

Similarly, for 1B, do the authors have the negative controls for C33A and Caski colonies? For a better assessment of clonogenicity inhibition, it will also be interesting to show the images of the colony formation assays.

In Figure 2B, the Y axis annotation should be changed as it´s not natural survival of mice bearing tumors but percentage mice not reaching the ethical culling point. The same in 4D.

In the in vivo experiments, how were the tumors measured? What was the formula used to determine the tumor volumes?

It would be good to provide a TUNEL assay of the tumor biopsies or another additional technique that detect apoptotic cell death to further prove existence of apoptosis.

As a non-specialist in immunology or pathology, can the authors point in the HE images the “minimal leukocytic recruitment” and also the “splenic reactive follicular hyperplasia” in the slides presented? Can the authors mention where/how the slides were analyzed? In a pathology service?

Figure 3C lacks a protein loading control for the Western blot.

Line 292, substitute “indeal” for “ideal”.

Reviewer #2: This is a very elegant paper describing well performed experiments and paving the way towards CRISPR/Cas9 treatment in cancer processes.

Three errors shoud be corrected:

Line 75 should say "humoral" instead of "humeral"

line 292 should say "ideal" instead of "indeal"

The inside legend of fig 2D (countings) should say "16E" instead of "18E"

The first group of experiments demonstrate that in vitro targeting of HPV 16E7 with CRISPR/Cas9 in the mouse 180 HPV transformed cell line, TC-1, would results in changes in cell growth, inhibiting proliferation, via enhanced expression of Rb protein. The authors mention that this occurs with 16E7-targeting gRNA and that this effect was specific to HPV 16 +ve cell lines, TC1 and CasKi, while HPV -ve C33A cells were not affected. ¿Could the authors mention this again in the discussion and explain why this last line had different behaviour?

The second group of experiments demonstrate that the systemic delivery of Cas9/16E7 targeting gRNA packaged in stealth liposomes effectively clears tumour xenografts in immunocompetent mouse model with minimal inflammation via apoptosis. The countings of cleaved-caspase 3 in fig 2D however do not reflect well what is shown in image 2C right hand side. One would expect to see many more immunostained cells. I suggest showing a better photomicrograph, to document the countings..

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Jan 7;16(1):e0223288. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0223288.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


27 Oct 2020

In uploaded file but copied here too

Response to reviewers (in red):

Reviewer #1: Jubair L et al demonstrated the power of CRISPR/Cas9 to inhibit the expression of 16E7 and the antitumoral implications of these both in vitro and in vivo in an immunocompetent tumor model. The nano-delivery of gRNA guides targeting 16E7 show a potent anti-tumoral effect without obvious toxicity in major organs. The results show apoptosis induction in the tumor biopsies and while absence of immunogenic cell death.

The paper shows a strong anti-tumoral effect in vivo in a syngeneic tumor model which is quite interesting. However, there are a number of major points that the authors need to address. For example, the authors did not describe the synthesis method of the liposomes that they used in the study. Also, the physical and chemical characterization of liposomes is lacking such as size, shape and charge. Also, they did not prove the successful delivery of the liposomes/Cas9 in the tumor site. I would suggest authors show evidence of tumoral delivery of Cas9 by IHC or IF.

- the protocol for the synthesis of liposomes has been explained in depth in our previous publication (Wu SH et al, 2009), which was cited here (reference number 16). The synthesis process is complex and would be of limited value if summarized in one paragraph, and therefore the authors opted to cite the original publication which details every step of the preparation. The characteristics of the nanoparticles including N/P ration, size, PDI, and charge were mentioned in discussion section (line 357-360).

While it would be helpful to show the successful delivery of liposomes in the tumour site, it has proven challenging with IHC anti-Cas9 antibody staining (poor affinity and high cross-reactivity). To show the successful delivery of payloads, mCherry or GFP-tagged Cas9 would be ideal to serve this purpose. However, we have previously shown that our PEGylated liposomes were successful to deliver payloads to tumour site after 24 hours of IV injection (Wu SH et al, 2009). In this work, we have shown that the 16E7 targeting consistently halted tumour growth in vivo, and that effect was diminished once the treatment was substituted with control gRNA.

Other points to address

As the paper is focused on the utilization of in-house liposomes, why did not the authors perform the cell transfections with those liposomes instead of lipofectamine 3000? I think the paper will benefit from additional experiments done with their liposomes or an experiment comparing the in vitro transduction efficiency of lipofectamine versus their liposomes in reducing the expression of 16E7.

- we would expect a lower transfection efficiency of pegylated liposomes compared to lipofectamine for in vitro testing due to the effect of PEGylation, which would hamper the uptake of the DNA, and therefore, we opted to use lipofectamine 3000. Also, comparing the efficiency of the two transfection methods was outside the scope of this work.

In Fig 1A, there is a ~25% reduction in cell viability in TC-1 cells transfected with Cas9 only and Cas9+unspecific gRNA. Although the authors explain that is due to unspecific DNA toxicity and is not significant, it looks significant to me. Can you show p values?

- We agree that the effect was marginally significant at (p = 0.047), compared to P0.001 when treated with 16E7 specific treatment. The statement was amended (line 183).

Figure 1A also needs the experimental negative controls for C33A and Caski cells (as TC-1 cells). Similarly, for 1B, do the authors have the negative controls for C33A and Caski colonies? For a better assessment of clonogenicity inhibition, it will also be interesting to show the images of the colony formation assays.

- the effect of 16E7 targeting in CasKi cell line was previously published in (Jubair et al 2019), reference number 6, and therefore we only showed the 16E7 treatment group. For the HPV -ve (C33A) cell line, it was included as a biological control and thus we showed the full treatment had no significant effect on its viability. We did not include all the controls for the negative control as it can get too confusing to read. The full controls for C33A cell line can be added as a supplementary figure if required. The same applies to fig 1B.

In Figure 2B, the Y axis annotation should be changed as it´s not natural survival of mice bearing tumors but percentage mice not reaching the ethical culling point. The same in 4D.

- the definition of survival was clarified in the in vivo testing section as tumours reaching 1000 mm3 to be culled, and therefore it reflects the number of mice with tumours smaller than this cut-off. Percent survival, or survival (%), is therefore widely accepted in medical literature.

In the in vivo experiments, how were the tumors measured? What was the formula used to determine the tumor volumes?

- tumour volume was measured with digital caliper and the volume was calculated using this formula: volume= 1/2 x L x W x H, where L: length, W: width, H: height.

This was done according to a published analysis of various formulas and methods (Mary M et al, 1989)

It would be good to provide a TUNEL assay of the tumor biopsies or another additional technique that detect apoptotic cell death to further prove existence of apoptosis.

- There are many methods to detect apoptosis. In our study, we used cleaved-Caspase 3 as caspases are crucial mediators of apoptosis, particularly caspase-3 which catalyzes the cleavage of many key cellular proteins. Therefore, it is a very reliable marker for apoptosis, particularly in cancer cell lines. On the other hand, TUNEL assay detects apoptosis by labelling the 3’-hydroxyl termini in the double-stranded breaks generated during apoptosis. In our work, we used CRISPR to generate double-stranded breaks, which we hypothesized to have caused cell death via apoptosis. If TUNEL assay is used to measure apoptosis, it is possible it may overestimate apoptosis by quantifying any CRISPR induced DNA damage toward apoptotic cell death, regardless of the actual mechanism of death.

As a non-specialist in immunology or pathology, can the authors point in the HE images the “minimal leukocytic recruitment” and also the “splenic reactive follicular hyperplasia” in the slides presented? Can the authors mention where/how the slides were analyzed? In a pathology service?

- The slides were processed and stained by pathology department at Gold Coast University Hospital, and analysed by senior pathologist, Dr Alfred Lam (co-authored this work). The slides were read and analysed using OlyVIA software. Arrows were added to show the reactive follicular hyperplasia.

Figure 3C lacks a protein loading control for the Western blot.

- protein loading added

Line 292, substitute “indeal” for “ideal”.

- corrected

Reviewer #2: This is a very elegant paper describing well performed experiments and paving the way towards CRISPR/Cas9 treatment in cancer processes.

Three errors shoud be corrected:

Line 75 should say "humoral" instead of "humeral"

-corrected

line 292 should say "ideal" instead of "indeal"

-corrected

The inside legend of fig 2D (countings) should say "16E" instead of "18E"

-corrected

The first group of experiments demonstrate that in vitro targeting of HPV 16E7 with CRISPR/Cas9 in the mouse 180 HPV transformed cell line, TC-1, would results in changes in cell growth, inhibiting proliferation, via enhanced expression of Rb protein. The authors mention that this occurs with 16E7-targeting gRNA and that this effect was specific to HPV 16 +ve cell lines, TC1 and CasKi, while HPV -ve C33A cells were not affected. ¿Could the authors mention this again in the discussion and explain why this last line had different behaviour?

- in our work, we targeted 16E7 gene which is crucial for the survival of cancer cell. In HPV +ve cell lines (TC1, CasKi), the treatment knocked out the expression of this gene, and thus resulted in cell death. On the other hand, C33A is HPV -ve, and thus does not rely on 16E7 gene for survival, and therefore the treatment had no effect on cell viability. This proves the specificity of targeting to HPV 16E7 gene.

The second group of experiments demonstrate that the systemic delivery of Cas9/16E7 targeting gRNA packaged in stealth liposomes effectively clears tumour xenografts in immunocompetent mouse model with minimal inflammation via apoptosis. The countings of cleaved-caspase 3 in fig 2D however do not reflect well what is shown in image 2C right hand side. One would expect to see many more immunostained cells. I suggest showing a better photomicrograph, to document the countings..

- To improve the accuracy of counting, the number of apoptotic cells was counted using ImageJ software that screened the entire tumour specimen. Given that the tumour specimens were large, low magnification would be required to show more apoptotic cells, however, that would affect the quality of the image (less clear apoptotic cells at very low magnification). Nevertheless, the presented shots clearly show significant difference in the number of apoptotic cells even at high magnification (50 micro).

Decision Letter 1

Valentin Ceña

2 Nov 2020

CRISPR/Cas9-loaded stealth liposomes effectively clear established HPV16-driven tumours in syngeneic mice.

PONE-D-19-24737R1

Dear Dr. McMillan,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Valentin Ceña

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Acceptance letter

Valentin Ceña

29 Dec 2020

PONE-D-19-24737R1

CRISPR/Cas9-loaded stealth liposomes effectively cleared established HPV16-driven tumours in syngeneic mice.

Dear Dr. McMillan:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Valentin Ceña

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Raw images

    (PDF)

    Data Availability Statement

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


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES