Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2022 May 6;17(5):e0268099. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0268099

A programmable DNA roadblock system using dCas9 and multivalent target sites

Emily K Matozel 1, Stephen Parziale 2, Allen C Price 3,*
Editor: Michael R Volkert4
PMCID: PMC9075669  PMID: 35522691

Abstract

A protein roadblock forms when a protein binds DNA and hinders translocation of other DNA binding proteins. These roadblocks can have significant effects on gene expression and regulation as well as DNA binding. Experimental methods for studying the effects of such roadblocks often target endogenous sites or introduce non-variable specific sites into DNAs to create binding sites for artificially introduced protein roadblocks. In this work, we describe a method to create programmable roadblocks using dCas9, a cleavage deficient mutant of the CRISPR effector nuclease Cas9. The programmability allows us to custom design target sites in a synthetic gene intended for in vitro studies. These target sites can be coded with multivalency—in our case, internal restriction sites which can be used in validation studies to verify complete binding of the roadblock. We provide full protocols and sequences and demonstrate how to use the internal restriction sites to verify complete binding of the roadblock. We also provide example results of the effect of DNA roadblocks on the translocation of the restriction endonuclease NdeI, which searches for its cognate site using one dimensional diffusion along DNA.

1. Introduction

Translocating DNA binding proteins (DBPs) face a landscape crowded with numerous other competing DBPs—some mobile, others static—which can interfere with one dimensional (1D) motion. For example, in euchromatin histone complexes separate strands of "naked" DNA, one to a few hundred base pairs in length, along which translocation is limited in the absence of hopping or other mechanism allowing for roadblock bypass. Other biologically relevant examples of DNA roadblocks include nucleic acid polymerases, transcription factors as well as repressor proteins. Such roadblocks can have significant biological consequences. For example, blocking DNA replication by Cascade is an important contributor to genomic instability of foreign DNA under attack by CRISPR [1]. In the case of DNA mismatch repair, specific mechanisms have evolved to allow repair proteins to bypass roadblocks [2].

In many investigations artificially introduced roadblocks have been used to probe protein-DNA interactions. In some cases, naturally occurring binding sites for DBPs have been used for placing roadblocks. For example, the ability of RecBCD to displace roadblocks was investigated using endogenous binding sites in the λ phage genome for RNA polymerase, LacI, nucleosomes and a cleavage deficient mutant of the restriction endonuclease EcoRI [3]. Studies of translocation by the DNA repair enzyme MutL made use of RNA polymerase as well as dCas9 to target pre-existing sites in DNAs derived from phage DNA [4]. DNA replication has been shown to be blocked by dCas9 targeting naturally occurring sites both in vitro in substrates derived from plasmid DNA [5], and in vivo in yeast [6]. In other techniques artificially introduced binding sites have been used to strategically place roadblocks. These have included another study of the protein MutL, in which an EcoRI site was introduced into phage DNA using mutagenesis [7], and an in vivo study of DNA target search by LacI, in which TetR sites were engineered into the E. Coli genome to block 1D diffusion [8]. Other methods explored have employed the bacterial Ter/Tus replication fork barrier system [9] and covalent protein-DNA complexes [10].

The RNA guided nucleases, such as Cas9 and Cas12, have revolutionized genetic science by providing programmable "scissors" for modifying genetic information in a specific manner. Cleavage deficient mutants, such as dCas9, have allowed design of targeted DBPs either lacking or with alternate enzymatic function. Due to its high specificity and programmability, this system is a natural choice for a targeted artificial roadblock.

In this work, we show a method for creating a programmable dCas9 roadblock intended for use in interfering with translocation by DBPs in vitro. The method uses a synthetic gene which contains an artificial sequence targeted by dCas9 that is activated with a complementary sgRNA. We make use of the programmability of dCas9 to encode a multivalent roadblock site. In this case, the target sequence is designed with internal restriction sites to allow for direct validation of complete binding by the roadblock—a crucial requirement for effectiveness. We provide complete protocols and sequences, as well as sample validation and experimental data. For the sample data, we use a single molecule DNA tethering method we have previously used to measure the Brownian motion of DNA [11], DNA replication [12], as well as DNA target search [13] that provides single molecule resolution.

2. Materials and methods

The protocol for producing roadblocked DNA substrates described in this peer-reviewed article, including all sequences, is published on protocols.io (https://www.protocols.io/view/a-programmable-dna-roadblock-system-using-dcas9-an-36wgq422kvk5/v2) and is included for printing as S1 File with this article. All data presented in this work can be downloaded from https://github.com/priceal/roadblocks-dCas9-data.

Roadblocks were tested using a single molecule kinetic assay for site specific DNA cleavage described in detail elsewhere [14, 15]. Here we briefly describe the main steps. In the PCR described in the protocol, all forward primers were labeled with digoxigenin and reverse primers with biotin. Either roadblocked or naked DNA (without roadblocks) was used to tether 1 μm magnetic beads in a microfluidic channel (Fig 2A). The DNA-tethered beads were observed under low magnification and dark field imaging. Typically, several hundred beads were visible in a single experiment. A magnet was used to apply a small force (~50 fN) to the beads, which were pulled out of focus as the DNA was cleaved. Samples containing enzyme were injected in reaction buffer (20 mM Tris-HCl, 20–100 mM NaCl, 1 mg/mL β-casein, 1 mg/mL Pluronic F-127, 2 mM MgCl2). The number of beads in each image was counted to determine fractions of uncleaved DNA and quantitative analysis was done as described elsewhere [16].

Fig 2. Complete binding of roadblock.

Fig 2

(A) Schematic showing DNA tethers with the locations of NdeI cognate and roadblock sites indicated. BtgI sites are contained within the roadblock sites. (B) Plot of fraction of uncleaved DNA versus time after injection of BtgI is shown. Purple curve is naked DNA without roadblocks. Rapid decrease at 180s is due to cleavage of the internal BtgI site contained in the roadblock sequence. Green curve is DNA with roadblocks. No cleavage is observed after injection of BtgI (180s). The gradual decrease over time is due to DNA tethered beads detaching from the surface non-specifically, and not due to DNA cleavage.

Gel based assays were utilized to confirm the specificity of prepared sgRNA. Cas9 was activated with the sgRNA and reacted with DNA in the same method as described in the protocol for dCas9, with the exception that Cas9 was used in the reaction mix instead of dCas9. After the cleavage reaction and prior to the addition of loading dye, the mixture was treated with Proteinase K for 10 minutes at 25°C in order to degrade any remaining Cas9 bound to the cleaved DNA.

3. Expected results

3.1. Specificity of roadblock

The specificity of the dCas9 roadblock is determined by the sgRNA sequence. We verified this specificity by activating cleavage competent Cas9 with our sgRNAs and incubating the activated Cas9 with our substrate DNA. If the sgRNA is specific for our roadblock sites, then the substrate will be cleaved at positions 400 and 600 in the 1000 bp DNA, resulting in fragments of length 400 and 200 bp. Experimental results, shown in Fig 1 confirm this pattern.

Fig 1. Specificity of roadblock.

Fig 1

Lane 1 is the DNA ladder (size in base pairs indicated at left). Lane 2 shows the result of cleavage of DNA with activated Cas9. Lane 3 shows DNA without Cas9 present. Note, section of image showing irrelevant lanes between ladder and Cas9 sample (lane 2) has been removed (see S1 Fig for complete gel image).

3.2. Complete binding of roadblock

In order to be effective, the roadblock must bind 100% of targeted sites among all substrate DNA molecules. This can be verified by making use of the BtgI site which is encoded in the sequence targeted by the sgRNA. Upon complete binding of the roadblock, no cleavage by BtgI should be possible. We verified this with a parallel high throughput single molecule kinetic assay [15]. Substrate DNAs, measuring 1000 bp and containing two roadblock sites at positions 400 bp from either terminus, were used to tether microbeads (diameter 1μm) in a microfluidic cell (Fig 2A). Injection of BtgI resulted in immediate cleavage of naked DNA, while no cleavage was observed when DNA bound with roadblocks was used (Fig 2B). Any incomplete binding by roadblocks would lead to a rapid drop in bead count upon injection of BtgI (at roughly 180s) in the roadblocked DNA, which was not observed.

3.3. Blocking DNA translocation

In order to perform the intended function, a roadblock must interfere with protein translocation along DNA. We demonstrated this by observing the kinetics of cleavage by NdeI under diffusion controlled conditions ([NdeI] = 20 pM) in the presence and absence of roadblocks. The DNA target search strategy of NdeI, like that of many restriction endonucleases, relies on one dimensional diffusion along DNA [13, 17]. Therefore, effective roadblocks are predicted to slow the target search kinetics when the diffusion length of the protein along the DNA is at least as great as the distance from the NdeI cognate site to the roadblock. We demonstrated this slowing by measuring the DNA cleavage kinetics of a centrally located NdeI recognition site in the presence and absence of roadblocks on either side of the NdeI site. Roadblocks significantly slow target search in 20 mM NaCl (Fig 3A) where the target search is known to depend strongly on 1D diffusion. However, in 80 mM NaCl (Fig 3B) where the target search is controlled by 3D diffusion, there is little effect. This increase in search time is due to the blockage of paths that would lead to the cognate site in the absence of the roadblocks, hence demonstrating the utility of dCas9 to block 1D translocation along DNA.

Fig 3. Effect of roadblocks on DNA translocation.

Fig 3

Cleavage by NdeI under target search limiting conditions for both naked (dashed green curve) and roadblocked (solid purple) DNA is shown. (A) 20 mM NaCl. Target search relies on extensive translocation events and roadblocks have significant effect. (B) 80 mM NaCl. Target search makes use of short translocation events and roadblocks have no effect. Data is scaled in each case so that the uncleaved fraction is one at time of NdeI injection (180s).

3.4. Non-specific binding by apo-dCas9 is not observed

Several studies have indicated that unactivated (apo-Cas9), that is, Cas9 that is not bound to sgRNA, can bind non-specifically to DNA. Non-specific binding could potentially lead to non-specific "roadblocking" of translocation. We tested for the presence of this non-specific binding by first incubating our DNAs with apo-dCas9 extensively before tethering. After this incubation, tethering and injection of NdeI were carried out as described above. The results for NdeI cleavage after apo-dCas9 incubation, compared to control experiments in the absence of apo-dCas9 are shown in Fig 4. Both low salt (40 mM) where significant translocation is known to occur, and high salt (100 mM) conditions were tested. The lack of difference between the results with the naked and roadblocked DNA supports the conclusion that non-specific binding of apo-dCas9 is not significant in these experiments.

Fig 4. Non-specific binding by apo-dCas9 is not observed.

Fig 4

Cleavage by NdeI under target search limiting conditions with both naked (control, dashed green curve) and DNA incubated with apo-dCas9 (apo-dCas9, purple solid curve) is shown. (A) 40 mM NaCl. (B) 100 mM NaCl.

4. Discussion

Although the method described here is intended for use in vitro, it can be extended to in vivo applications with appropriate modifications. For example, gene editing could be used to introduce the custom target site into a genome. Specificity of the roadblocks could be verified using Chromatin Immunoprecipitation (ChIP).

Supporting information

S1 File

(PDF)

S1 Fig

(PDF)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Emma E. Stevens, Van T. Nguyen and Jaqueline R. Ferreira for useful discussions on manuscript.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files or available for download from https://github.com/priceal/roadblocks-dCas9-data.

Funding Statement

ACP received grant # MCB-2120878 from the National Science Foundation (www.nsf.gov). The funders have not had and will not have a role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Killelea Tom, Hawkins Michelle, Jamieson L Howard Peter McGlynn, and Bolt Edward L, "DNA replication roadblocks caused by Cascade interference complexes are alleviated by RecG DNA repair helicase," RNA biology 16 (4), 543–548 (2019). doi: 10.1080/15476286.2018.1496773 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Brown Maxwell W, Kim Yoori, Williams Gregory M, Huck John D, Surtees Jennifer A, and Finkelstein Ilya J, "Dynamic DNA binding licenses a repair factor to bypass roadblocks in search of DNA lesions," Nature communications 7 (1), 1–12 (2016). doi: 10.1038/ncomms10607 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Ilya J Finkelstein Mari-Liis Visnapuu, and Greene Eric C, "Single-molecule imaging reveals mechanisms of protein disruption by a DNA translocase," Nature 468 (7326), 983–987 (2010). doi: 10.1038/nature09561 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Mardenborough Yannicka SN, Nitsenko Katerina, Charlie Laffeber, Duboc Camille, Sahin Enes, Audrey Quessada-Vial, et al., "The unstructured linker arms of MutL enable GATC site incision beyond roadblocks during initiation of DNA mismatch repair," Nucleic acids research 47 (22), 11667–11680 (2019). doi: 10.1093/nar/gkz834 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Whinn Kelsey S, Gurleen Kaur, Lewis Jacob S, Schauer Grant D, Mueller Stefan H, Slobodan Jergic, et al. , "Nuclease dead Cas9 is a programmable roadblock for DNA replication," Scientific reports 9 (1), 1–9 (2019). doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-37186-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Doi Goro, Okada Satoshi, Yasukawa Takehiro, Sugiyama Yuki, Bala Siqin, Miyazaki Shintaro, et al., "Catalytically inactive Cas9 impairs DNA replication fork progression to induce focal genomic instability," Nucleic acids research 49 (2), 954–968 (2021). doi: 10.1093/nar/gkaa1241 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Pluciennik Anna and Modrich Paul, "Protein roadblocks and helix discontinuities are barriers to the initiation of mismatch repair," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104 (31), 12709–12713 (2007). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Hammar Petter, Leroy Prune, Mahmutovic Anel, Marklund Erik G, Berg Otto G, and Elf Johan, "The lac repressor displays facilitated diffusion in living cells," Science 336 (6088), 1595–1598 (2012). doi: 10.1126/science.1221648 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Panday Arvind, Nicholas A Willis Rajula Elango, Menghi Francesca, Duffey Erin E, Liu Edison T, et al., "FANCM regulates repair pathway choice at stalled replication forks," Molecular cell 81 (11), 2428–2444. e2426 (2021). doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2021.03.044 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Ji Shaofei, Fu Iwen, Naldiga Spandana, Shao Hongzhao, Basu Ashis K, Broyde Suse, et al., "5-Formylcytosine mediated DNA–protein cross-links block DNA replication and induce mutations in human cells," Nucleic acids research 46 (13), 6455–6469 (2018). doi: 10.1093/nar/gky444 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Song Dan, Mousley Briana, Gambino Stefano, Helou Elsie, Loparo Joseph, and Price Allen C., "Tethered particle motion with single DNA molecules," American Journal of Physics 83 (5), 418–426 (2015). [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Williams Kelly, Grafe Brendan, Kathryn M Burke Nathan Tanner, van Oijen Antoine M, Loparo Joseph, et al., "A single molecule DNA flow stretching microscope for undergraduates," American Journal of Physics 79 (11), 1112–1120 (2011). [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Ferreira Raquel M, Ware Anna D, Matozel Emily, and Price Allen C, "Salt concentration modulates the DNA target search strategy of NdeI," Biochemical and biophysical research communications 534, 1059–1063 (2020). doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2020.10.036 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Gambino Stefano, Mousley Briana, Cathcart Lindsay, Winship Janelle, Loparo Joseph J, and Price Allen C, "A single molecule assay for measuring site-specific DNA cleavage," Analytical Biochemistry 495, 3–5 (2016). doi: 10.1016/j.ab.2015.11.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Emily K Matozel Nathaniel Dale, and Price Allen C, "Parallel High Throughput Single Molecule Kinetic Assay for Site-Specific DNA Cleavage," Journal of Visualized Experiments: Jove (159) (2020). doi: 10.3791/61236 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Piatt Sadie and Price Allen C, "Analyzing dwell times with the Generalized Method of Moments," PloS one 14 (1), e0197726 (2019). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0197726 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Piatt Sadie C, Loparo Joseph J, and Price Allen C, "The Role of Noncognate Sites in the 1D Search Mechanism of EcoRI," Biophysical journal 116 (12), 2367–2377 (2019). doi: 10.1016/j.bpj.2019.04.035 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Michael R Volkert

18 Mar 2022

PONE-D-22-04792A programmable DNA roadblock system using dCas9 and multivalent target sitesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Price,

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 addresses the points raised during the review process.

The criticisms of the two reviewers are relatively minor and can be easily addressed. I too reviewed this manuscript and do not have additional points of criticism  beyond those of the reviewers. Including the recommended revisions in the revised manuscript will improve it.  The addition of schematic presentations of the protocols would greatly enhance a readers understanding of the details of the protocols. Please respond to all of the criticisms in your response to the editors, either indicating how you have addressed them or, if you do not agree to the revisions, a rebuttal to the reviewers comments.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 02 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're 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.

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). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. 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.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Michael R Volkert, Ph.D.

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 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please 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 rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

3. Please update your submission to use the PLOS LaTeX template. The template and more information on our requirements for LaTeX submissions can be found at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/latex.

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 

"This work was supported by National Science Foundation grant MCB-2120878. The authors would like to thank Emma E. Stevens, Van T. Nguyen and Jaqueline R. Ferreira for useful discussions on manuscript."

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. 

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: 

"ACP received grant # MCB-2120878 from the National Science Foundation (www.nsf.gov). The funders have not had and will not have a 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.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript report a protocol which is of utility to the research community and adds value to the published literature?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the protocol been described in sufficient detail?

Descriptions of methods and reagents contained in the step-by-step protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample sizes and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Does the protocol describe a validated method?

The manuscript must demonstrate that the protocol achieves its intended purpose: either by containing appropriate validation data, or referencing at least one original research article in which the protocol was used to generate data.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. If the manuscript contains new data, have the authors made this data 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

**********

5. Is the article 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 highlight any specific errors that need correcting in the box below.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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: In this manuscript, Matozel et al describe a protocol to create in vitro roadblocks using deadcas9. This is an important area to study DNA protein barrier-related DNA metabolism including DNA repair and transcription. I have a few comments:

(1) In the Introduction, please cite novel work from Scully lab where they used bacteria system Tus/Ter to create DNA- protein block in a mammalian system and studied how DNA translocase protein FANCM regulate repair pathway choice at DNA protein barrier (Panday et al, Molecular Cell 2021). Please also cite the work from Natalia Y Tretyakova lab on using 5- Formylcytosine mediated DNA- Protein block Shaofei Ji et al Nucleic Acids research 2018. Also Goro Doi et al Nucleic acids research 2021 where they used dcas9 to impair fork progression.

(2) Optional: Author Could use Chromatin Immunoprecipitation (CHIP) to study the specificity of roadblocks. If authors cannot do that experiment, please mention this in the discussion section as another way to confirm specificity.

(3) Please mention the Sg sequence and highlight PAM sequence.

Reviewer #2: In this work, Matozel et al describe a detailed protocol to investigate programmable binding of dCas9 on double stranded DNA substrates and consequent blocking of diffusing/translocating molecules occupying the DNA. Understanding how multiple proteins simultaneously navigate/process DNA is an important question, and the use of a programmable roadblock as a model system lends itself to future investigation. The protocols are detailed and the accompanying experiments are robust, and their interpretation is sensible. The manuscript is well written and is very easy to follow. Overall, this is work that would benefit others in the field to answer mechanistic questions in protein-DNA interactions.

I only have one major comment which is that all figures should be accompanied by 'schematics' of the experimental setup (even if they have been described elsewhere). Without these schematics, naive readers may not be able to sufficiently visualize the experiment, and contextualize the results.

**********

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

[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.]

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 PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 May 6;17(5):e0268099. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0268099.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


15 Apr 2022

Please see attached Response to Reviewers document.

I have deposited all data in a publicly accessible database as requested. I have added an additional line to the first paragraph of the materials and methods sections that reads "All data presented in this work can be downloaded from https://github.com/priceal/roadblocks-dCas9-data ."

I have also added labels A and B to figure 3 panels.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Michael R Volkert

22 Apr 2022

A programmable DNA roadblock system using dCas9 and multivalent target sites

PONE-D-22-04792R1

Dear Dr. Price,

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,

Michael R Volkert, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Michael R Volkert

27 Apr 2022

PONE-D-22-04792R1

A programmable DNA roadblock system using dCas9 and multivalent target sites

Dear Dr. Price:

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

Prof. Michael R Volkert

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 File

    (PDF)

    S1 Fig

    (PDF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files or available for download from https://github.com/priceal/roadblocks-dCas9-data.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES