Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2022 Sep 16;17(9):e0271011. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0271011

Single- and duplex TaqMan-quantitative PCR for determining the copy numbers of integrated selection markers during site-specific mutagenesis in Toxoplasma gondii by CRISPR-Cas9

Kai Pascal Alexander Hänggeli 1,2, Andrew Hemphill 1,*, Norbert Müller 1, Bernd Schimanski 3, Philipp Olias 4, Joachim Müller 1, Ghalia Boubaker 1,*
Editor: Yong Qi5
PMCID: PMC9481009  PMID: 36112587

Abstract

Herein, we developed a single and a duplex TaqMan quantitative PCR (qPCR) for absolute quantification of copy numbers of integrated dihydrofolate reductase-thymidylate synthase (mdhfr-ts) drug selectable marker for pyrimethamine resistance in Toxoplasma gondii knockouts (KOs). The single TaqMan qPCR amplifies a 174 bp DNA fragment of the inserted mdhfr-ts and of the wild-type (WT) dhfr-ts (wtdhfr-ts) which is present as single copy gene in Toxoplasma and encodes a sensitive enzyme to pyrimethamine. Thus, the copy number of the dhfr-ts fragment in a given DNA quantity from KO parasites with a single site-specific integration should be twice the number of dhfr-ts copies recorded in the same DNA quantity from WT parasites. The duplex TaqMan qPCR allows simultaneous amplification of the 174 bp dhfr-ts fragment and the T. gondii 529-bp repeat element. Accordingly, for a WT DNA sample, the determined number of tachyzoites given by dhfr-ts amplification is equal to the number of tachyzoites determined by amplification of the Toxoplasma 529-bp, resulting thus in a ratio of 1. However, for a KO clone having a single site-specific integration of mdhfr-ts, the calculated ratio is 2. We then applied both approaches to test T. gondii RH mutants in which the major surface antigen (SAG1) was disrupted through insertion of mdhfr-ts using CRISPR-Cas9. Results from both assays were in correlation showing a high accuracy in detecting KOs with multiple integrated mdhfr-ts. Southern blot analyses using BsaBI and DraIII confirmed qPCRs results. Both TaqMan qPCRs are needed for reliable diagnostic of T. gondii KOs following CRISPR-Cas9-mediated mutagenesis, particularly with respect to off-target effects resulting from multiple insertions of mdhfr-ts. The principle of the duplex TaqMan qPCR is applicable for other selectable markers in Toxoplasma. TaqMan qPCR tools may contribute to more frequent use of WT Toxoplasma strains during functional genomics.

Introduction

Toxoplasma gondii is an apicomplexan parasite that causes diseases in farm animals with an enormous global economic impact and a high zoonotic potential [1]. In immunocompetent hosts, infection does not have serious consequences, and proliferative tachyzoites differentiate into tissue cyst-forming bradyzoites, which can persist over many years to lifelong without causing any clinical symptoms. However, T. gondii is an opportunistic pathogen, and primary infection in pregnant animals and also women can lead to vertical transmission, and result in fetal malformations and/or abortion. In patients undergoing immunosuppression, either by disease or through medical treatment, reactivation of bradyzoites from tissue cysts and re-differentiation into tachyzoites frequently causes serious pathology. Current drugs for toxoplasmosis treatment typically include antifolates using a combination of pyrimethamine–sulfadiazine or trimethoprim–sulfamethoxazole, and pyrimethamine can also be combined with clindamycin, azithromycin, or atovaquone. These treatments are unspecific, frequently result in adverse effects, and clinical failures have been reported [2, 3]. To date, more than 110 years after the first discovery of T. gondii [4], there is still a need for identifying drug targets and vaccine candidates, which could be exploited for the development of better preventive or therapeutic options for the management of toxoplasmosis [5, 6]. In this context, functional genomics plays a major role, and gene knockout (KO) in protozoan parasites is the most commonly applied approach [7]. Toxoplasma is highly amenable to genetic manipulation and has thus emerged as one of the major apicomplexan model parasites [8].

Gene KO and gene replacement strategies rely on double crossover homologous recombination (HR) using type I or II T. gondii KU80 mutants (Δku80s) as parental strain [9]. The Δku80 parasites are deficient in the non-homologous end-joining (NHEJ) pathway required for repairing DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) [10, 11]. Genetic manipulation of T. gondii WT strains is hindered by the presence of a predominant NHEJ as main DSB repair mechanism [12], which results in enhanced random integration of exogenous genes. Despite the fact that Δku80 background increases the efficiency of targeted mutagenesis in T. gondii by HR, defective NHEJ might render parasites prone to accumulate chromosomal aberrations [13] causing genomic instability [14], in particular since T. gondii tachyzoites are usually maintained in vitro through excessive cycles of proliferation and DNA replication.

For positive selection of T. gondii mutant or transgenic strains that have successfully integrated an exogenous DNA coding for a modified dihydrofolate reductase-thymidylate synthase (mDHFR-TS), pyrimethamine (Pyr) is the drug of choice [1519], since mDHFR-TS confers resistance to Pyr [20]. In the genome of WT T. gondii, a single-copy gene coding for DHFR-TS (WT-DHFR-TS) is expressed, but the enzyme is sensitive to Pyr [21]. The mDHFR-TS differs from WT- DHFR-TS by three amino acid substitutions, with two being located in exon 1 (Ser TCT → Arg CGT and Thr ACC → Asn AAC) and one in exon 3 (Phe TTT → Ser TCC) [2022].

Based on the original method of CRISPR-Cas9 that was successfully implemented for genome editing in T. gondii in 2014 [23, 24], many alternative protocols have been developed [9] rendering genetic manipulation of WT strains feasible. This advance was possible because in CRISPR-Cas9 formation of a DSB at a specified genomic site is ensured by the 20-nucleotide guide RNA (gRNA) that binds and guides the Cas9 endonuclease to the defined location [25]. Then, the CRISPR-Cas9-mediated DNA break can be repaired through NHEJ or homology-directed repair (HDR) pathways [9]. Options for delivering CRISPR-Cas9 components into the cell as one- or two-vector or cloning-free approaches are now available [26].

Although CRISPR-Cas9 has significantly improved the efficiency of targeted mutagenesis and/or site-specific insertion of selectable markers in Toxoplasma WT strains, the Δku80 parasites have remained the first choice for functional genetic studies [9, 2729]. For Δku80 strains, CRISPR-Cas9 has allowed to considerably reduce the length of homologous flanking DNA to 40 bps [23]. This has rendered the task of template DNA preparation more simple, since these short homology flanking regions of 40 bps can be incorporated into primers designed for the amplification of the selectable marker [26].

A crucial step during CRISPR-Cas9 is the verification of the KO and the validation of gene edits, which must be carried out prior to further functional investigations. Following the selection of mutant clones by drug treatments, PCR and/or Sanger sequencing are used to verify the DNA sequence of the targeted locus [23, 26]. Subsequently, Western blotting and/ or immunostaining are applied to confirm the loss of gene expression [23]. Nonetheless, off-target effects (OTEs) of CRISPR-Cas9 are often not considered. OTEs resulting from non-specific cleavage by a non-complexed Cas9 are of low probability, since endonuclease activity of Cas9 is dependent on the interaction with the gRNA [30] as revealed by crystallographic studies [3135]. However, a gRNA-independent endonuclease activity by Cas9 in the presence of manganese ions was reported [36]. Overall, the gRNA and the protospacer adjacent motif (PAM) next to the targeted genomic sequence play a crucial role in determining the specificity of gene targeting by CRISPR-Cas9 [37]. For example, the Streptococcus pyogenes Cas9 (SpCas9) binds optimally to a consensus NGG canonical PAM [3840], but it can also interact, albeit with less affinity, with other non-canonical PAMs [41] mostly NAG and NGA [42, 43]. Furthermore, Cas9 can unspecifically cleave a DNA sequence with up to seven mismatch base pairs in the PAM proximal region of the gRNA sequence known as "seed sequence" [44, 45]. In addition, in the mammalian genome, DNA or RNA bulges, caused by small insertions or deletions, were identified as potential off-target sites [46]. The incidence of off-target mutations by CRISPR-Cas9 widely varies between cell types and species [37], particularly in cells with defective DSB repair pathways [47]. Substantial efforts have been made to develop in silico systems for optimal gRNA design. However, prediction and scoring by the algorithms employed are mostly based on DNA-binding rather than cleavage, and even more significant factors such as PAMs, DNA/RNA bulges and experimental conditions are excluded [48].

Whole genome sequencing (WGS) is the only unbiased and direct approach allowing a comprehensive analysis of OTEs including single-nucleotide polymorphisms, indels and other structural differences. However, this approach is costly and time consuming, thus cannot be applied as a first-line testing strategy [37]. Moreover, when the designed strategy to achieve gene KO by CRISPR-Cas9 consists in disrupting the targeted sequence followed by insertion of a selectable marker, it is important to check KO cells for unintended additional integration events. For that, Southern blotting (SB) can be applied, which allows to determine the copy number of inserted exogenous DNA. However, SB requires a relatively large amount of DNA, special equipment, and is relatively time-consuming when many clones have to be analyzed. In addition, the accuracy of SB depends largely on the use of appropriate restriction enzymes.

An alternative strategy to determine single or multiple transgene integration events caused by CRISPR-Cas9 is real-time PCR-based quantification (RT-qPCR), which allows a more high-throughput determination of transgene copy numbers and respective integration patterns (single or multiple insertions) [4952].

In this study, we aimed at improving the selection protocol for T. gondii KO transfectants generated by CRISPR-Cas9, with regard to the identification of OTEs resulting from multiple insertion of selectable marker by developing two TaqMan qPCR-based approaches.

Materials and methods

Parasite and cell culture

Tachyzoites of T. gondii type I RH strain were maintained in vitro in human foreskin fibroblasts (HFF) as previously described [53].

CRISPR-Cas9 compounds and mdhfr-ts selection cassette

The DNA sequence coding for T. gondii RH SAG1 was retrieved from GenBank under the accession number GQ253075.1 and used for the design of the 23-nt gRNA (Table 1).

Table 1. Sequence of primers and probes used in this study.

Label Sequence 5’-3’
gRNA GGCAGTGAGACGCGCCGTCACGG
Q5 mutagenesis_P926
F-primer GGCAGTGAGACGCGCCGTCAGTTTTAGAGCTAGAAATAGC
R-primer AACTTGACATCCCCATTTAC
Amplification of mDHFR-TS
F-primer TCCGTAGATCTAAGCTTCGCCA
R-primer AGTGAGCTGATACCGGAAT
sag1 –genotyping PCR
GBtg12 F TGTCACATGTGTCATTGTCG
GBtg13 R CAGGTGACAACTTGATTGGCA
SouthernBlot_dhfr probe
dhfr probe F ACATCGAGACCAGGTGTG
dhfr probe R ACGATGTTCAATCTGTCCA
Q-PCR
dhfr-F ATCGGCATCAACAACG
dhfr-R GAATCTCTT GCCGACTGA
*DHFRQ-P Cy5- GTGACAAAAACGACGCCCG -BHQ.
529rpe-F AGGAGAGATATCAGGACTGTAG
529rpe-R GCGTCGTCTCGTCTAGATCG
529rpeQ-P FAM-GAGTCGGAGAGGGAGAAGATGTT-BHQ

(*) TaqMan probes designed in this study.

The plasmid P926 encodes a GFP-tagged Cas9 endonuclease and a pre-existing gRNA. The expression of Cas9 is under the control of the bacterial T7 promotor while transcription of the gRNA is driven by the T. gondii U6 promotor [23]. The pre-existing gRNA in the plasmid P926 was replaced a by the newly designed 23 nucleotide DNA sequence using site-directed mutagenesis (New England Biolabs, M0491S). Primers are listed in Table 1. The modified P926 plasmid was then amplified in NEB 5-alpha competent Escherichia coli (E. coli), purified using ZymoPURE Plasmid Miniprep Kit (Zymo Research) and sequenced. The template plasmid P972 was used for amplification of the selectable marker mdhfr-ts.

Transfection and selection

The transfection procedure was adapted from Sidik et al. [23]. Briefly, the electroporation reaction was prepared in a final volume of 300 μL cytomix buffer containing 7.5 μg P926, 1.5 μg of mdhfr-ts, 0.112 x 107 T. gondii RH WT tachyzoites, 2 μM adenosine triphosphate (ATP) and 5 μM L-glutathione in 4 mm gap cuvettes (Axonlab, Baden, Switzerland). Cells were than electroporated with a pulse generator (ECM830, BTX Harvard Apparatus, Holliston, MA) by applying the following protocol: 1700 V, 176 μs of pulse length, two pulses with 100 ms interval. Transfected tachyzoites were transferred immediately into T25 flasks with confluent HFFs, which were placed in a humidified incubator at 37°C / 5% CO2. After 24 h cultures were subjected to drug selection by the addition of 3 μM Pyr to the culture medium. Clones were isolated by limiting dilution (0.5 tachyzoites/150 μL medium) and allowed to grow in 96 well plates for 10 days.

PCR and Sanger sequencing

Genomic DNA from thirty-three clones and WT tachyzoites was extracted using the NucleoSpin DNA RapidLyse kit (Macherey-Nagel) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. We further examined the SAG1 locus of the thirty-three clones and the WT parasites by PCR. Amplicons of the WT SAG1 locus were ~216 bp, however, for KO clones with one insertion of the complete MDHFR-TS sequence, the expected amplicon length was 3379 bp (~3400 bp). The diagnostic PCR was performed in 50 μL final volume containing 0.2 mM dNTPs, 0.5 μM of each forward (GBtg12) and reverse primers (GBTg13), Q5 high-fidelity DNA polymerase (1 unit) and Q5 high GC enhancer (1x), and 80 ng of template DNA. The GBtg12 F/ GBtg13 R primer sequences are shown in Table 1. Conditions were as follows: initial denaturation at 98°C for 3 min, 25 cycles of denaturation at 98°C for 30 sec, annealing at 58°C for 30 sec, and elongation at 72°C for 2 min. The final cycle was followed by extension at 72°C for 2 min. PCR products were purified using Zymo DNA Clean and Concentrator kit (Zymo Research), 20 ng of purified PCR products were submitted to Sanger sequencing.

Immunofluorescence assay (IFA)

Immunofluorescence microscopy was done as described previously [54, 55]. Briefly, freshly egressed tachyzoites were isolated from infected HFF cultures, fixed in suspension in PBS / 3% paraformaldehyde, and were allowed to attach to poly-L-lysine-coated coverslips for 20 min at room temperature. To permeabilize cells, coverslips were incubated with pre-cooled methanol / acetone (1:1) solution for 20 min at −20°C. Then samples were rehydrated and incubated overnight at 4°C in PBS / 3% bovine serum albumin (BSA) solution to block unspecific binding sites. SAG1 expression was assessed by using anti-SAG1 monoclonal antibody (1:1000) and anti-mouse fluorescein-isothiocyanate (FITC) (1:300). For double stainings, SAG1 labelled parasites were further incubated in polyclonal rabbit anti-Inner Membrane Complex 1 (IMC1) antibody (1:500), and a secondary anti-rabbit tetramethyl-rhodamine-isothiocyanate (TRITC) (1:300). Finally, coverslips were mounted onto glass slides using Vectashield mounting medium containing 4, 6-diamidino-2-phenylindole (DAPI).

SDS-PAGE and Western blotting

Pellets corresponding to equal numbers of WT or Δsag1 tachyzoites were prepared and dissolved in Laemmli SDS sample buffer, which contains β-mercaptoethanol. Cell lysates were then separated by SDS-PAGE. Two SDS-PAGEs were made simultaneously; after electrophoresis, one gel was stained with Coomassie and proteins on the other gel were transferred to nitrocellulose filters. The blot was saturated with blocking solution (5% skimmed milk powder and 0.3% Tween 20 in PBS) for 2 hours at room temperature and then incubated with T. gondii anti-SAG1 monoclonal antibody (1:500) overnight at 4°C. After washing, nitrocellulose membrane was incubated with an alkaline-phosphatase conjugated anti-mouse IgG antibody (1:1000). Lastly, reactive bands were visualized by immersion of the blot in 5-bromo-4-chloro-3-indolyl phosphate (BCIP)/nitro blue tetrazolium (NBT) detection solution.

Single TaqMan-qPCR

To determine the copy numbers of the inserted mdhfr-ts selectable marker in the genome of KO clones, we designed a single TaqMan-qPCR taking advantage of the fact that WT T. gondii tachyzoites have a single copy of dhfr-ts in their genome (wt dhfr-ts). Specific dhfr forward and reverse primers (Table 1) were designed to yield a 174 bp fragment of the MDHFR-TS or WT DHFR-TS gene. The TaqMan probe DHFRQ-P (Table 1) contained the Cyanine 5 (Cy5) reporter dye at the 5′ end and Black Hole Quencher (BHQ) fluorescent quencher at the 3′ end.

Freshly egressed tachyzoites from infected cultures were filtered through a 3 μM pore-sized polycarbonate membrane, counted and 106 tachyzoites were used for DNA extraction by NucleoSpin DNA RapidLyse Kit according to the instructions provided by the manufacturer. From each tested WT or KO clone, 3 ng DNA were used as template. DNA quantifications were performed by QuantiFluor double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) system (Promega, Madison, WI, USA). PCR amplification was performed in a total reaction mixture of 10 μL containing 1x SensiFast master mix (Bioline, Meridian Bioscience), 0.5 μM of reverse and forward primers, 0.1 μM of DHFRQ-P probe, 0.3 mM dUTP, and one unit of heat-labile Uracil DNA Glycosylase (UDG) [56].

A Bio-Rad CFX 96 QPCR instrument (Biorad) was used with the following thermal profile: (1) initial incubation of 10 min at 42°C, followed by (2) denaturation step of 5min at 95°C and (3) 50 cycles of two-step amplification (10 s at 95°C and 20 s at 62°C). Samples were tested in triplicates and a negative control with double-distilled water was included for each experiment. For quantification, two standard curves were made: one was based on the use of a 10-fold serial dilution of the plasmid P972 ranging from 1.29 x 109 to 1.29 copies / 3 μl, and the other one was based on a 10-fold serial dilution of DNA from WT T. gondii RH, with tachyzoite numbers ranging from 7.5 x 105 to 75 per 3 μL [57].

Duplex TaqMan-qPCR

In this assay, the number of tachyzoites corresponding to 3 ng DNA and the copy number of the DHFR-TS DNA fragment were assessed simultaneously. Quantification of tachyzoites was achieved by preparation of a T. gondii standard curve using 10-fold serial dilutions with parasite concentrations ranging from 7.5 x 105 to 75 and amplification of a 162 bp region of the T. gondii 529 bp repeat element [58]. Amplifications were carried-out in total volume of 10 μL containing 1 x SensiFast master mix (Bioline, Meridian Bioscience), 0.5 μM of each primer set (dhfr-F/R and 529rpe-F/R), 0.1 μM of each probe (DHFRQ-P and 529rpeQ-P), 0.3 mM dUTP, and one unit of heat-labile uracil DNA glycosylase (UDG). From each sample, three ng of DNA were used in the reaction mix. All reactions were run in triplicates and amplifications were carried-out under the same thermal profile used for the single TaqMan-qPCR. The cycle threshold values (CT) were plotted as mean of triplicates against the standard curve values to determine the number of tachyzoites. Parasite concentrations were determined after the calculation of the linear regression equation (y = ax + b), where y = CT; a = curve slope (slope); x = parasite number; and b = where the curve intersects y-axis (y intercept).

Southern blot

Two Southern hybridizations were carried out on seven Δsag1 clones and the WT strain that were tested by qPCRs. One μg of each genomic DNA-sample was digested with the restriction enzymes BsaBI or DraIII for 6 h at 60°C or 37°C, respectively. Reaction mixtures were then separated by 0.8% agarose gel electrophoresis containing ethidium bromide. Gels were subjected to depurination (15 min in 0.25 M HCl), denaturation (30 min in 1 M NaCl / 0.5 M NaOH) and neutralization (1 hour in 1 M Tris-HCl, pH 7.5/ 3 M NaCl). Separated DNA fragments were then transferred onto Hybond membrane (Amersham) by capillary transfer and subsequently stably fixed by UV crosslinking for 10 seconds. For blocking non-specific binding sites, membranes were pre-incubated in hybridization buffer (0.5 M Na2HPO4, 60 mM H3PO4, 7% SDS, 1% BSA, 0.9 mM EDTA) for 2 hours at 65°C.

The DHFR probe was generated from the plasmid P972 by PCR with DHFR forward and reverse primers listed in Table 1, gel-purified and radioactively labelled with α-P32-dCTP using the Amersham Megaprime DNA Labeling System. The labeled probe was heat-denatured at 95°C for 3 min and added directly to the pre-hybridized membranes. After overnight incubation at 65°C the membranes were washed 15 minutes each in 1 x SSC, 0.1% SDS and 0.5 x SSC, 0.1% SDS and eventually exposed to Phosphoimager screens for 20 hours.

Results

Generation of T. gondii RH Δsag1 clones by CRISPR/Cas9

After transfection and 10 days in vitro culture under Pyr treatment, thirty-three clones, together with WT parasites were genotyped by PCR. As shown in Fig 1, the WT locus produced the expected PCR product of ~216 bp. Five clones, namely T. gondii RH Δsag1 C18, 23, 30, 31 and 33 exhibited a PCR product in the expected size of more than 3 kb, indicating integration of the selection marker. In other clones such as in T. gondii RH Δsag1 C6 and C7, PCR amplified a product of ≤ 1000 bp. Thus overall, the efficiency of sag1 disruption through insertion of the mdhfr-ts selectable marker in sag1 without homology arms was about 15% (5 / 33).

Fig 1. SAG1 gene disruption in T. gondii RH by CRISPR-Cas9 technology.

Fig 1

(A) Schematic representation of the strategy used to disrupt sag1 by inserting the pyrimethamine-resistance gene MDHFR-TS. (B) Diagnostic PCR revealing integration of a complete mdhfr-ts sequence into sag1 in four clones (C18, C23, C30 and C33) compared with the parental strain RH. The KO clone C31 showed a smaller band, clones C6 and 7 exhibited a band ≤ 1000 bp. The WT locus produced the expected PCR product (~ 216 bp).

Direct Sanger sequencing of the obtained PCR products revealed that in T. gondii RH Δsag1 C18, 23, 30 and 33, sag1 was disrupted by insertion of complete mdhfr-ts sequence, while clone C31 had incorporated a truncated mdhfr-ts into sag1. For clone C6 and 7, the DSB in the SAG1 gene generated by CRISPR-Cas9 was repaired through NHEJ by insertion of short DNA sequence (mostly derived from the plasmid P926), while the actual selection marker mdhfr-ts was most likely integrated elsewhere in the genome. As shown in Fig 2, Western blot analysis as well as IFA confirmed the absence of TgSAG1 expression in tachyzoites of T. gondii RH Δsag1 C6, 7, 18, 23, 30, 31 and 33 (Fig 2).

Fig 2. Loss of sag1 expression in T. gondii RH SAG1 knockouts by (A) Western blot analysis and (B) immunofluorescence.

Fig 2

Single TaqMan-qPCR

As shown in Fig 3, this single TaqMan-qPCR aimed to determine whether random integration in T. gondii RH Δsag1 C18, 23, 30, 31 and 33 occurred elsewhere in the genome beside the detected site-specific integration of mdhfr-ts in sag1. The principle is based on the fact that the copy number of the dhfr-ts fragment in a given DNA quantity of KO parasites with a single site-specific integration should be twice the number of dhfr-ts copies recorded in the same DNA quantity from WT parasites (Fig 3).

Fig 3. Principle and potential outcomes of the single TaqMan-qPCR.

Fig 3

As shown in Fig 4A and 4B, comparable linear calibrator curves were obtained using serial 10-fold dilutions of mdhfr-ts plasmid or T. gondii genomic DNA (range 7.5 x 105 to 75 genome equivalents), indicating thus similar amplification efficiency of dhfr-ts from both sources (Fig 4A and 4B).

Fig 4. Single TaqMan-qPCR for determining the copy number of integrated mdhfr-ts selectable marker.

Fig 4

Standard curves were made through a triplicate test of 10-fold serial dilutions of (A) P972 or (B) T. gondii RH DNA. (C) For each WT or KO clone, the number of existing dhfr-ts in the genome was determined according to the plasmid based standard curve (black bars) and the T. gondii RH DNA-based calibrator (grey bars). Since in the T. gondii genome the wtdhfr-ts is a single copy gene, the following equation was used: one WT tachyzoite = one-copy dhfr-ts, for the calculation based on T. gondii RH DNA based calibrator curve (grey bars). Error bars indicate standard deviation of triplicates for each sample. In (D), the number of inserted mdhfr-ts in each KO clone is defined by subtracting the dhfr-ts copy number found in the WT from the dhfr-ts copy number in the KO (black bars) or by subtracting the tachyzoite numbers determined for the WT from tachyzoite numbers corresponding the KO clone (grey bars). The optimal result of 1 indicates a single integration event of the mdhfr-ts into sag1.

As shown in Fig 4C, for clones T. gondii RH Δsag1 C6, 7, 18, 23, 31 and 33, the determined number of dhfr-ts copies in the three ng of DNA was almost the double of that number calculated for the WT parasites, independently of the standard curve. The calculated number of inserted mdhfr-ts selectable marker was almost equal to 1 for the following clones: T. gondii RH Δsag1 C6, 7, 18, 23, 31 and 33, as shown in Fig 4D.

Duplex TaqMan-qPCR

In this assay, quantitative amplification of the dhfr-ts and of the T. gondii 529-bp repeat element were combined into one reaction (Fig 5).

Fig 5. Principle and potential outcome of the duplex TaqMan-qPCR.

Fig 5

According to the principle of the duplex TaqMan-qPCR, for WT DNA, the ratio of the number of tachyzoites determined by amplification of dhfr-ts to the number of tachyzoites determined by amplification of T. gondii 529 bp repeat element is equal to 1. This ratio is equal to 2 or greater than 2 in case of single or multiple insertion of mdhfr-ts selection marker, respectively.

The standard curve was made from a 10-fold serial dilution of T. gondii RH DNA, with parasite concentrations ranging from 7.5 x 105 to 75 (Fig 6A). The two primer pairs in the duplex TaqMan-qPCR enabled similar amplification efficiencies (R2 = 0.99%) for their respective targets (Fig 6A).

Fig 6. Duplex TaqMan-qPCR for determining copy numbers of integrated mdhfr-ts selectable marker.

Fig 6

(A) Standard curve was made by using a 10-fold serial dilution of T. gondii RH DNA, with tachyzoites numbers ranging from 75 to 7.5 x 105 parasites. (B) For each WT or KO clone, the numbers of tachyzoites in the 3 ng DNA was determined according to amplification of dhfr-ts (black bars) and to the T. gondii 529 bp repeat element (grey bars). In (C), the number of inserted mdhfr-ts is given by the ratio of the number of tachyzoites as determined by dhfr-ts amplification and the number of tachyzoites determined by using the T. gondii 529 bp repeat element. A ratio equal to 2 indicates a single integration event of the mdhfr-ts in sag1. Error bars indicate standard deviations of triplicates for each sample.

For the wild type DNA sample, the determined number of tachyzoites given by dhfr-ts amplification is equal to the number of tachyzoites determined by amplification of the Toxoplasma 529 bp sequence (Fig 6B), resulting thus in a ratio of 1 (Fig 6C). For a T. gondii RH Δsag1 clone having a single insertion of the mdhfr-ts within sag1, the calculated ratio is estimated to be 2, as it is the case for clone C6, 7, 18, 23, 31 and 33 (Fig 6C). For T. gondii RH Δsag1 C30, the number of tachyzoites given by dhfr-ts quantification was more than three times higher than the number of tachyzoites obtained by amplification of the Toxoplasma 529 bp repeat element (ratio > 3), which is indicative for multiple insertions of the mdhfr-ts fragment into the genome (Fig 6C).

Southern blot analysis

To validate the results from both single and duplex TaqMan-qPCRs concerning the numbers of integrated mdhfr-ts fragments into the genome, Southern blot analysis of genomic DNA digested with BsaBI and DraIII was carried out (Fig 7). In the case of BsaBI digestion, (Fig 7A) the labeled probe recognized a 14.177-kb fragment in the wt dhfr-ts gene and a 4.999-kb fragment in the mdhfr-ts selectable marker integrated into sag1, such that the integrated fragment is easily identified in sag1 KO parasites (Fig 7A). For genomic DNA digested with DraIII, the wt dhfr-ts is present in all clones at 5.164 kb, and the integrated mdhfr-ts fragment within sag1 is found at 4.351 kb (Fig 7B).

Fig 7. Southern blot analysis for determining the number of mdhfr-ts integration events into the T. gondii RH genome.

Fig 7

(A) and (B) Schematic drawing of hybridization probe and restriction sites of BsaBI and DraIII in the WT T. gondii RH dhfr-ts gene and in the WT and mutant sag1 locus. (C) Southern blot of genomic DNA digested with BsaBI and (D) with DraIII. M indicates the size of the fragments separated by gel electrophoresis.

SB showed that WT T. gondii RH, as well as all seven KO clones, exhibited a single band corresponding to the wt dhfr-ts gene, migrating at 14.17 kb in BsaBI-digested DNA and at 4.99 kb in DraIII-digested DNA. Clones T. gondii RH Δsag1 C18, 23 31 and 33 exhibited a two-band pattern after digestion with BsaBI or DraIII, confirming thus a single integration event of the mdhfr-ts selection marker in the genome (Fig 7C and 7D). The band hybridizing with the probe in DNA of clone T. gondii RH Δsag1 C31 was at a lower position than the one observed for C18, 23 and 33. Thus, in agreement with the sequencing analysis, the inserted selectable marker within sag1 in clone C31 is a truncated version of mdhfr-ts. For T. gondii RH Δsag1 C6, SB also revealed an integration of only one mdhfr-ts copy into the genome, but at another position than the sag1 gene. This was also the case for T. gondii RH Δsag1 C7, with the exception that after genomic DNA digestion with DraIII, three bands were found to be hybridizing with the probe. Concerning the clone T. gondii RH Δsag1 C30, additional hybridizations were detected after digestion with BsaBI (two bands) or DraIII (four bands) besides the expected wt dhfr-ts and mdhfr-ts bands, indicating random and multiple integrations of mdhfr-ts into the T. gondii RH genome.

Discussion

In this study, we have established a single- and duplex TaqMan-qPCR assay for determination of copy numbers of integrated mdhfr-ts selectable marker to evaluate of T. gondii RH KO parasites generated by CRISPR-Cas9 as exemplified by using the major tachyzoite surface antigen TgSAG1 as KO target gene. T. gondii RH Δsag1 clones lacking the expression of TgSAG1 generated through CRISPR-Cas9-mediated KO were selected by treatment with Pyr, and the lack of TgSAG1 expression was ascertained by IFA and WB. Considering the risks of OTEs and thus the random integration of gene fragments into the genome, the sag1 locus in different clones was amplified by PCR and respective fragments were sequenced to assess integration of the mdhfr-ts selection marker. A single- and duplex Taq Man qPCR for determination of the copy numbers of mdhfr-ts in T. gondii RH Δsag1 tachyzoites was developed, and was validated by SB.

Efficiency of gene editing in WT Toxoplasma using CRISPR-Cas9 (15%) was higher comparing to a frequency of 2 x 10−5 obtained by non-homologous recombination [59]. The efficiency (15%) obtained herein can be considered satisfactory since WT Toxoplasma strains are significantly more relevant for studying gene function than most commonly used NHEJ-deficient Δku80 strains. So far, frequency, severity, and the types of DNA sequence changes that might occur in association with the lack of NHEJ in Δku80 parasites remains largely unknown. In apicomplexan parasites particularly Theileria parva, Cryptosporidium spp. and Plasmodium spp., loss of the classical NHEJ (C-NHEJ) pathway over genome evolution is suggested to be associated with reduced genome size (8–23 megabytes), this in comparison to the T. gondii genome (87 megabytes) that encodes the three main components of the C-NHEJ namely Ku70, Ku80 and DNA ligase IV [60]. In eukaryotic cells, impaired DNA-DSB repair pathways contributes to significant stress-induced effects and causes genomic instability [13, 14, 61]. Moreover, the use of Δku80 strains for functional genomics does not prevent hazardous insertion of exogenous donor DNA. For example, cases of random integration into the genome were reported during reverse genetics in malaria parasites [62] naturally lacking key NHEJ compounds [63, 64].

For CRISPR-Cas9, OTEs resulting from non-targeted DNA mutations (base substitutions, deletions and insertions) are of low probability; in hematopoietic stem- and progenitor cells, the rates of insertion–deletion mutations did not differ between Cas9-treated and non-Cas9-treated cells [65]. These results were reported from two independent experiments targeting two different genes located in different chromosomes [65]. Thus, for reliable transgenesis and genome editing in Toxoplasma using selectable markers, selection protocols of engineered cells must include a step for determining whether an unintended integration of exogenous DNA has occurred.

Despite Southern blot analysis is ranked second after the WGS as the most unambiguous method for estimation of copy number in transgenic unicellular protozoan parasites, it has also significant disadvantages. Particularly, it is unsuitable for automation since the choice of restriction enzymes and probes are experiment-specific. Furthermore, digestion with restriction enzymes may result in DNA fragments larger than 15 kb, which are inefficiently blotted, leading thus to an underestimated copy number.

In contrast to SB, qPCR can be used to scan the entire genome for the presence of a selectable marker independently of the genomic location, and this can be done at higher throughput and in a wide dynamic range, which in turn allows simultaneous testing large numbers of samples in a short time frame. Consequently, qPCR was successfully implemented as an alternative to SB for characterization of transgene copy number and integration site in many different transgenic plant and animal cells [66, 67]. In this study, the strong evidence in line with this recommendation is T. gondii RH Δsag1 C30, which would have been taken for a correct mutant without further evaluation by single- and duplex TaqMan-qPCR, which detected multiple insertions. In addition, results for T. gondii RH Δsag1 C6 and C7 clearly demonstrate that both TaqMan-qPCRs can provide an absolute quantification of the inserted selection marker, independently of its location in the genome. This was in line with PCR-Sequencing and SB findings, demonstrating a single copy integration of mdhfr-ts elsewhere in the genome for both T. gondii RH Δsag1 C6 and C7.

Concerning KO C7, the appearance of two bands in SB upon digestion with DraIII, but not with the BsaBI restriction enzyme, together with the results of the qPCRs, strongly suggest that the insertion of the single copy mdhfr-ts in an unknown genomic location has generated a new cutting site for DraIII.

Regarding the quantification of inserted mdhfr-ts copies in the examined clones, results obtained with the single TaqMan-qPCR were in correlation with those resulting from duplex TaqMan-qPCR. Thus, both single and duplex TaqMan-qPCR protocols can be applied as described herein each time mdhfr-ts is chosen as a selection marker in Toxoplasma gene KO experiments. So far, mdhfr-ts has been the most commonly used selection marker for transgenic T. gondii and P. falciparum [20, 68].

The duplex TaqMan-qPCR presented here can also be employed in case other selection markers are chosen. In such cases, primers and probes specific to the amplification of the Toxoplasma 529 bp repeat element can be used as reported here, however new primers and a TaqMan probe specific to the exogenous DNA needs to be designed. Subsequently, two important aspects need to be considered: (i) both primer sets must result in similar amplification efficiency and (ii) the standard curves must be made using Toxoplasma parasites as reference that have only one copy of the designed selection marker. Positive selection strategies based on drug resistance are limited in T. gondii, thus besides the mdhfr resistance gene [20] choices are almost restricted to E. coli chloramphenicol acetyl transferase (cat) [69, 70] or Streptoalloteichus ble (ble) [71] genes, which confer resistance to chloramphenicol or phleomycin, respectively. In order to ensure the maximum accuracy of single and duplex TaqMan-qPCR results, standardized protocols for cell-culture, tachyzoite purification, DNA extraction and quantification should be applied to all tested mutants / clones.

In conclusion, we have developed and validated sensitive, rapid and reliable single and duplex TaqMan qPCR methods for measuring mdhfr-ts copy numbers during CRISPR-Cas9 mediated gene editing in Toxoplasma. A significant advantage of these quantitative assays, particularly the duplex TaqMan qPCR, is that they can be easily applied for any selection cassette other than mdhfr-ts. Therefore, both qPCR techniques could become methods of choice for characterizing transgenic T. gondii cell-lines in term of integration pattern of the used exogenous DNA. Furthermore, by providing such a versatile molecular tool for quantitative detection of the integrated selection cassette, WT T. gondii stains can now be more frequently used instead of ku80 KO strains.

Supporting information

S1 Raw images

(PDF)

S1 Raw data

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

Anti-SAG1 and anti-IMC1 antibodies used in this study were a kind gift from Prof. Dominique Soldati-Favre, University of Geneva.

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

- AH: Swiss National Science Foundation (grant No. 310030_184662) www.snf.ch - AH: Uniscientia Foundation. www.interadvice.li The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Matta SK, Rinkenberger N, Dunay IR, Sibley LD. Toxoplasma gondii infection and its implications within the central nervous system. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2021;19: 467–480. doi: 10.1038/s41579-021-00518-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Alday PH, Doggett JS. Drugs in development for toxoplasmosis: advances, challenges, and current status. Drug Des Devel Ther. 2017;11: 273–293. doi: 10.2147/DDDT.S60973 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Dunay IR, Gajurel K, Dhakal R, Liesenfeld O, Montoya JG. Treatment of Toxoplasmosis: Historical Perspective, Animal Models, and Current Clinical Practice. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2018;31: e00057–17. doi: 10.1128/CMR.00057-17 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Nicolle C, Manceaux LH. On a leishman body infection (or related organisms) of the gondi. 1908. Int J Parasitol. 2009;39: 863–864. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpara.2009.02.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Blader I, Coleman B, Chen C-T, Gubbels M-J. The lytic cycle of Toxoplasma gondii: 15 years later. Annu Rev Microbiol. 2015;69: 463–485. doi: 10.1146/annurev-micro-091014-104100 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Sidik SM, Huet D, Ganesan SM, Huynh M-H, Wang T, Nasamu AS, et al. A Genome-wide CRISPR Screen in Toxoplasma Identifies Essential Apicomplexan Genes. Cell. 2016;166: 1423–1435.e12. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2016.08.019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Ren B, Gupta N. Taming Parasites by Tailoring Them. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2017;7: 292. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2017.00292 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Oberstaller J, Otto TD, Rayner JC, Adams JH. Essential Genes of the Parasitic Apicomplexa. Trends Parasitol. 2021;37: 304–316. doi: 10.1016/j.pt.2020.11.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Di Cristina M, Carruthers VB. New and emerging uses of CRISPR/Cas9 to genetically manipulate apicomplexan parasites. Parasitology. 2018;145: 1119–1126. doi: 10.1017/S003118201800001X [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Fox BA, Ristuccia JG, Gigley JP, Bzik DJ. Efficient gene replacements in Toxoplasma gondii strains deficient for nonhomologous end joining. Eukaryot Cell. 2009;8: 520–529. doi: 10.1128/EC.00357-08 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Fox BA, Falla A, Rommereim LM, Tomita T, Gigley JP, Mercier C, et al. Type II Toxoplasma gondii KU80 Knockout Strains Enable Functional Analysis of Genes Required for Cyst Development and Latent Infection. Eukaryot Cell. 2011. [cited 5 Jan 2022]. doi: 10.1128/EC.00297-10 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Fenoy IM, Bogado SS, Contreras SM, Gottifredi V, Angel SO. The Knowns Unknowns: Exploring the Homologous Recombination Repair Pathway in Toxoplasma gondii. Front Microbiol. 2016;7: 627. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2016.00627 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Difilippantonio MJ, Zhu J, Chen HT, Meffre E, Nussenzweig MC, Max EE, et al. DNA repair protein Ku80 suppresses chromosomal aberrations and malignant transformation. Nature. 2000;404: 510–514. doi: 10.1038/35006670 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Nussenzweig A, Sokol K, Burgman P, Li L, Li GC. Hypersensitivity of Ku80-deficient cell lines and mice to DNA damage: The effects of ionizing radiation on growth, survival, and development. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 1997;94: 13588–13593. doi: 10.1073/pnas.94.25.13588 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Wang L, Tang D, Yang C, Yang J, Fang R. Toxoplasma gondiiADSL Knockout Provides Excellent Immune Protection against a Variety of Strains. Vaccines. 2020;8: 16. doi: 10.3390/vaccines8010016 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Ma Z, Yan K, Jiang R, Guan J, Yang L, Huang Y, et al. A Novel wx2 Gene of Toxoplasma gondii Inhibits the Parasitic Invasion and Proliferation in vitro and Attenuates Virulence in vivo via Immune Response Modulation. Front Microbiol. 2020;11: 399. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2020.00399 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Zheng J, Cheng Z, Jia H, Zheng Y. Characterization of aspartyl aminopeptidase from Toxoplasma gondii. Sci Rep. 2016;6: 34448. doi: 10.1038/srep34448 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Yang W-B, Wang J-L, Gui Q, Zou Y, Chen K, Liu Q, et al. Immunization With a Live-Attenuated RH:ΔNPT1 Strain of Toxoplasma gondii Induces Strong Protective Immunity Against Toxoplasmosis in Mice. Front Microbiol. 2019;10: 1875. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.01875 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Li M, Liu J, Wu Y, Wu Y, Sun X, Fu Y, et al. Requirement of Toxoplasma gondii metacaspases for IMC1 maturation, endodyogeny and virulence in mice. Parasit Vectors. 2021;14: 400. doi: 10.1186/s13071-021-04878-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Donald RG, Roos DS. Stable molecular transformation of Toxoplasma gondii: a selectable dihydrofolate reductase-thymidylate synthase marker based on drug-resistance mutations in malaria. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1993;90: 11703–11707. doi: 10.1073/pnas.90.24.11703 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Roos DS. Primary structure of the dihydrofolate reductase-thymidylate synthase gene from Toxoplasma gondii. J Biol Chem. 1993;268: 6269–6280. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Sharma H, Landau MJ, Vargo MA, Spasov KA, Anderson KS. First Three-Dimensional Structure of Toxoplasma gondii Thymidylate Synthase–Dihydrofolate Reductase: Insights for Catalysis, Interdomain Interactions, and Substrate Channeling. Biochemistry. 2013;52: 7305–7317. doi: 10.1021/bi400576t [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Sidik SM, Hackett CG, Tran F, Westwood NJ, Lourido S. Efficient genome engineering of Toxoplasma gondii using CRISPR/Cas9. PloS One. 2014;9: e100450. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0100450 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Shen B, Brown KM, Lee TD, Sibley LD. Efficient gene disruption in diverse strains of Toxoplasma gondii using CRISPR/CAS9. mBio. 2014;5: e01114–01114. doi: 10.1128/mBio.01114-14 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Ran FA, Hsu PD, Wright J, Agarwala V, Scott DA, Zhang F. Genome engineering using the CRISPR-Cas9 system. Nat Protoc. 2013;8: 2281–2308. doi: 10.1038/nprot.2013.143 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Winiger RR, Hehl AB. A streamlined CRISPR/Cas9 approach for fast genome editing in Toxoplasma gondii and Besnoitia besnoiti. J Biol Methods. 2020;7: e140. doi: 10.14440/jbm.2020.343 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Wang J, Tan Q, Chen J, Liu X, Di Z, Xiao Q, et al. Alkyl Hydroperoxide Reductase as a Determinant of Parasite Antiperoxide Response in Toxoplasma gondii. Oxid Med Cell Longev. 2021;2021: 1675652. doi: 10.1155/2021/1675652 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Pieperhoff MS, Pall GS, Jiménez-Ruiz E, Das S, Melatti C, Gow M, et al. Conditional U1 Gene Silencing in Toxoplasma gondii. PLOS ONE. 2015;10: e0130356. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0130356 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.O’Shaughnessy WJ, Hu X, Beraki T, McDougal M, Reese ML. Loss of a conserved MAPK causes catastrophic failure in assembly of a specialized cilium-like structure in Toxoplasma gondii. Mol Biol Cell. 2020;31: 881–888. doi: 10.1091/mbc.E19-11-0607 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Briner AE, Donohoue PD, Gomaa AA, Selle K, Slorach EM, Nye CH, et al. Guide RNA Functional Modules Direct Cas9 Activity and Orthogonality. Mol Cell. 2014;56: 333–339. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2014.09.019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Anders C, Niewoehner O, Duerst A, Jinek M. Structural basis of PAM-dependent target DNA recognition by the Cas9 endonuclease. Nature. 2014;513: 569–573. doi: 10.1038/nature13579 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Jinek M, Jiang F, Taylor DW, Sternberg SH, Kaya E, Ma E, et al. Structures of Cas9 Endonucleases Reveal RNA-Mediated Conformational Activation. Science. 2014;343: 1247997. doi: 10.1126/science.1247997 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Nishimasu H, Ran FA, Hsu PD, Konermann S, Shehata SI, Dohmae N, et al. Crystal structure of Cas9 in complex with guide RNA and target DNA. Cell. 2014;156: 935–949. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2014.02.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Jiang F, Zhou K, Ma L, Gressel S, Doudna JA. STRUCTURAL BIOLOGY. A Cas9-guide RNA complex preorganized for target DNA recognition. Science. 2015;348: 1477–1481. doi: 10.1126/science.aab1452 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Jiang F, Taylor DW, Chen JS, Kornfeld JE, Zhou K, Thompson AJ, et al. Structures of a CRISPR-Cas9 R-loop complex primed for DNA cleavage. Science. 2016;351: 867–871. doi: 10.1126/science.aad8282 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Sundaresan R, Parameshwaran HP, Yogesha SD, Keilbarth MW, Rajan R. RNA-Independent DNA Cleavage Activities of Cas9 and Cas12a. Cell Rep. 2017;21: 3728–3739. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2017.11.100 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Zhang X-H, Tee LY, Wang X-G, Huang Q-S, Yang S-H. Off-target Effects in CRISPR/Cas9-mediated Genome Engineering. Mol Ther Nucleic Acids. 2015;4: e264. doi: 10.1038/mtna.2015.37 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Hu JH, Miller SM, Geurts MH, Tang W, Chen L, Sun N, et al. Evolved Cas9 variants with broad PAM compatibility and high DNA specificity. Nature. 2018;556: 57–63. doi: 10.1038/nature26155 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Nishimasu H, Shi X, Ishiguro S, Gao L, Hirano S, Okazaki S, et al. Engineered CRISPR-Cas9 nuclease with expanded targeting space. Science. 2018;361: 1259–1262. doi: 10.1126/science.aas9129 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Walton RT, Christie KA, Whittaker MN, Kleinstiver BP. Unconstrained genome targeting with near-PAMless engineered CRISPR-Cas9 variants. Science. 2020;368: 290–296. doi: 10.1126/science.aba8853 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Collias D, Leenay RT, Slotkowski RA, Zuo Z, Collins SP, McGirr BA, et al. A positive, growth-based PAM screen identifies noncanonical motifs recognized by the S. pyogenes Cas9. Sci Adv. 2020;6: eabb4054. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abb4054 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Zhang Y, Ge X, Yang F, Zhang L, Zheng J, Tan X, et al. Comparison of non-canonical PAMs for CRISPR/Cas9-mediated DNA cleavage in human cells. Sci Rep. 2014;4: 5405. doi: 10.1038/srep05405 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Jiang W, Bikard D, Cox D, Zhang F, Marraffini LA. CRISPR-assisted editing of bacterial genomes. Nat Biotechnol. 2013;31: 233–239. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Jinek M, Chylinski K, Fonfara I, Hauer M, Doudna JA, Charpentier E. A programmable dual-RNA-guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity. Science. 2012;337: 816–821. doi: 10.1126/science.1225829 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Wu X, Kriz AJ, Sharp PA. Target specificity of the CRISPR-Cas9 system. Quant Biol. 2014;2: 59–70. doi: 10.1007/s40484-014-0030-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Lin Y, Cradick TJ, Brown MT, Deshmukh H, Ranjan P, Sarode N, et al. CRISPR/Cas9 systems have off-target activity with insertions or deletions between target DNA and guide RNA sequences. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014;42: 7473–7485. doi: 10.1093/nar/gku402 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Duan J, Lu G, Xie Z, Lou M, Luo J, Guo L, et al. Genome-wide identification of CRISPR/Cas9 off-targets in human genome. Cell Res. 2014;24: 1009–1012. doi: 10.1038/cr.2014.87 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Alkan F, Wenzel A, Anthon C, Havgaard JH, Gorodkin J. CRISPR-Cas9 off-targeting assessment with nucleic acid duplex energy parameters. Genome Biol. 2018;19: 177. doi: 10.1186/s13059-018-1534-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Li B, Ren N, Yang L, Liu J, Huang Q. A qPCR method for genome editing efficiency determination and single-cell clone screening in human cells. Sci Rep. 2019;9: 18877. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-55463-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Li R, Ba Y, Song Y, Cui J, Zhang X, Zhang D, et al. Rapid and sensitive screening and identification of CRISPR/Cas9 edited rice plants using quantitative real-time PCR coupled with high resolution melting analysis. Food Control. 2020;112: 107088. doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2020.107088 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Lee JS, Kallehauge TB, Pedersen LE, Kildegaard HF. Site-specific integration in CHO cells mediated by CRISPR/Cas9 and homology-directed DNA repair pathway. Sci Rep. 2015;5: 8572. doi: 10.1038/srep08572 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Mancini C, Messana E, Turco E, Brussino A, Brusco A. Gene-targeted embryonic stem cells: real-time PCR assay for estimation of the number of neomycin selection cassettes. Biol Proced Online. 2011;13: 10. doi: 10.1186/1480-9222-13-10 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Winzer P, Müller J, Aguado-Martínez A, Rahman M, Balmer V, Manser V, et al. In Vitro and In Vivo Effects of the Bumped Kinase Inhibitor 1294 in the Related Cyst-Forming Apicomplexans Toxoplasma gondii and Neospora caninum. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2015;59: 6361–6374. doi: 10.1128/AAC.01236-15 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Imhof D, Anghel N, Winzer P, Balmer V, Ramseier J, Hänggeli K, et al. In vitro activity, safety and in vivo efficacy of the novel bumped kinase inhibitor BKI-1748 in non-pregnant and pregnant mice experimentally infected with Neospora caninum tachyzoites and Toxoplasma gondii oocysts. Int J Parasitol Drugs Drug Resist. 2021;16: 90–101. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpddr.2021.05.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Winzer P, Anghel N, Imhof D, Balmer V, Ortega-Mora L-M, Ojo KK, et al. Neospora caninum: Structure and Fate of Multinucleated Complexes Induced by the Bumped Kinase Inhibitor BKI-1294. Pathog Basel Switz. 2020;9: E382. doi: 10.3390/pathogens9050382 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Longo MC, Berninger MS, Hartley JL. Use of uracil DNA glycosylase to control carry-over contamination in polymerase chain reactions. Gene. 1990;93: 125–128. doi: 10.1016/0378-1119(90)90145-h [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Costa J-M, Pautas C, Ernault P, Foulet F, Cordonnier C, Bretagne S. Real-Time PCR for Diagnosis and Follow-Up of Toxoplasma Reactivation after Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation Using Fluorescence Resonance Energy Transfer Hybridization Probes. J Clin Microbiol. 2000;38: 2929–2932. doi: 10.1128/JCM.38.8.2929-2932.2000 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Reischl U, Bretagne S, Krüger D, Ernault P, Costa J-M. Comparison of two DNA targets for the diagnosis of Toxoplasmosis by real-time PCR using fluorescence resonance energy transfer hybridization probes. BMC Infect Dis. 2003;3: 7. doi: 10.1186/1471-2334-3-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Donald RG, Roos DS. Insertional mutagenesis and marker rescue in a protozoan parasite: cloning of the uracil phosphoribosyltransferase locus from Toxoplasma gondii. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 1995;92: 5749–5753. doi: 10.1073/pnas.92.12.5749 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Nenarokova A, Záhonová K, Krasilnikova M, Gahura O, McCulloch R, Zíková A, et al. Causes and Effects of Loss of Classical Nonhomologous End Joining Pathway in Parasitic Eukaryotes. mBio. 2019;10: e01541–19. doi: 10.1128/mBio.01541-19 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Li Z, Zhang W, Chen Y, Guo W, Zhang J, Tang H, et al. Impaired DNA double-strand break repair contributes to the age-associated rise of genomic instability in humans. Cell Death Differ. 2016;23: 1765–1777. doi: 10.1038/cdd.2016.65 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Günther S, Matuschewski K, Müller S. Knockout Studies Reveal an Important Role of Plasmodium Lipoic Acid Protein Ligase A1 for Asexual Blood Stage Parasite Survival. PLoS ONE. 2009;4: e5510. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0005510 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Aravind L, Iyer LM, Wellems TE, Miller LH. Plasmodium biology: genomic gleanings. Cell. 2003;115: 771–785. doi: 10.1016/s0092-8674(03)01023-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Gardner MJ, Hall N, Fung E, White O, Berriman M, Hyman RW, et al. Genome sequence of the human malaria parasite Plasmodium falciparum. Nature. 2002;419: 498–511. doi: 10.1038/nature01097 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Smith RH, Chen Y-C, Seifuddin F, Hupalo D, Alba C, Reger R, et al. Genome-Wide Analysis of Off-Target CRISPR/Cas9 Activity in Single-Cell-Derived Human Hematopoietic Stem and Progenitor Cell Clones. Genes. 2020;11: E1501. doi: 10.3390/genes11121501 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Hoebeeck J, Speleman F, Vandesompele J. Real-time quantitative PCR as an alternative to Southern blot or fluorescence in situ hybridization for detection of gene copy number changes. Methods Mol Biol Clifton NJ. 2007;353: 205–226. doi: 10.1385/1-59745-229-7:205 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Stefano B, Patrizia B, Matteo C, Massimo G. Inverse PCR and Quantitative PCR as Alternative Methods to Southern Blotting Analysis to Assess Transgene Copy Number and Characterize the Integration Site in Transgenic Woody Plants. Biochem Genet. 2016;54: 291–305. doi: 10.1007/s10528-016-9719-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Tran PN, Tate CJ, Ridgway MC, Saliba KJ, Kirk K, Maier AG. Human dihydrofolate reductase influences the sensitivity of the malaria parasite Plasmodium falciparum to ketotifen–A cautionary tale in screening transgenic parasites. Int J Parasitol Drugs Drug Resist. 2016;6: 179–183. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpddr.2016.09.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Kim K, Boothroyd JC. Toxoplasma gondii: stable complementation of sag1 (p30) mutants using SAG1 transfection and fluorescence-activated cell sorting. Exp Parasitol. 1995;80: 46–53. doi: 10.1006/expr.1995.1006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Soldati D, Boothroyd JC. Transient transfection and expression in the obligate intracellular parasite Toxoplasma gondii. Science. 1993;260: 349–352. doi: 10.1126/science.8469986 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Messina M, Niesman I, Mercier C, Sibley LD. Stable DNA transformation of Toxoplasma gondii using phleomycin selection. Gene. 1995;165: 213–217. doi: 10.1016/0378-1119(95)00548-k [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Yong Qi

26 Jul 2022

PONE-D-22-17694Single- and duplex TaqMan-quantitative PCR for determining the copy numbers of integrated selection markers during site-specific mutagenesis in Toxoplasma gondii by CRISPR-Cas9PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hemphill,

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.

Minor revision is needed.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 09 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,

Yong Qi

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. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

3. PLOS ONE now requires that submissions reporting blots or gels include original, uncropped blot/gel image data as a supplement or in a public repository. This is in addition to complying with our image preparation guidelines described at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements. These requirements apply both to the main figures and to cropped blot/gel images included in Supporting Information. If the manuscript is positively reviewed, we will ask the authors to provide any missing raw image data for blot/gel results when they submit their first revision. As part of your review, please ensure that figures reporting blot or gel images comply with the journal’s image preparation guidelines and that the original data are provided following the journal’s request.  If you have any questions or concerns about blot/gel figures or data for this submission, please email us at plosone@plos.org before issuing a decision letter.

4. 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.

[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: N/A

**********

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: No

**********

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: The authors described a methodology to follow the mutations generated by CRIS Cas 9, for this they invalidated the Toxoplasma SAG1 gene and then used qPCR duplex to demonstrate the insertion of mutations. In general, the authors describe appropriately their methodology and results. The results are convincing, and they discuss the reach and limits of the method. I have only some minor suggestions to improve clarity for readers:

- They put in discussion something that should be described in results: the rate of success of mutated clones achieved in 5 of 33 clones (15%)

- One of the most critical and important results is the demonstration that SAG1 expression was invalidated as it was showed by western blot and IFAT experiments, this should NOT be supplementary material, please include as Figure 1

- The formula showed in Figure 4 please show as text in the section of results

Reviewer #2: The work by Haenggeli et al aims to describe single or duplex qPCR for the quantification of a mutated version of DHFR integrated as a drug marker during CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing in Toxoplasma gondii.

The manuscript is well written and scientifically sound. The authors developed a technique that estimates in an accurate manner if a commonly used drug marker for positive selection during genetic depletions in the Toxoplasma model is correctly inserted in the intended genomic locus, as well as if there were any off target insertions of multiple drug markers.

The insertion of multiple drug markers is a rare event nowadays, specially due to a highly efficient and targeted CRISPR/Cas9 double stranded break - as shown by the authors, which yielded a single clone with that caveat out of 33 analyzed. Also, although multiple off target insertions are not desired, it usually does not have a phenotypic impact on the parasites, unless multiple other genomic editions are planned - and, still, it is unlikely to alter the planned outcome.

Nonetheless, the protocols described are truly useful for researchers of the area that may be concerned with such ‘side effects’ of genomic editing.

Minor comments:

- The authors write several lines on how Ku80 strains have positively impacted the field, allowing and increment in transfection efficiency in Toxoplasma. However, they use wild type RH strain tachyzoites in their study. They even argument that, with their technique, WT parasites could be used more frequently in genomic editing protocols instead of base strains with genomic depletion of the ku80 gene. Why? Are WT parasites known to generate multiple off target incorporations of the drug markers? To my knowledge, the advantage of transfecting ku80 KO parasites is the increased efficiency of the incorporation of foreign DNA, not avoiding multiple insertions of drug markers. Please indicate/discuss with proper references on those affirmatives or remove them from the text.

- Minor revision of the text is desirable to eliminate certain formatting errors (e.g. references on line 58; lack of an additional espace on line 231; parenthesis on line 329; and so on…)

- Lines 282-288: Paragraph should be revised for clarity: Sanger sequencing is not demonstrated; insertion of “short DNA sequence” or integration of mDHFR-ts elsewhere also is not proven properly.

**********

**********

[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.

Decision Letter 1

Yong Qi

25 Aug 2022

PONE-D-22-17694R1Single- and duplex TaqMan-quantitative PCR for determining the copy numbers of integrated selection markers  during site-specific mutagenesis in Toxoplasma gondii by CRISPR-Cas9PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hemphill,

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.

==============================Too many language errors exist in the manuscript.The manuscript can't be accepted until these errors are revised.e.g.line 20, "quantitative qPCR";line 78, ";";lines 146-148;line 159  "0.112 x 107", "2μM", "5μM";line 162;line 165;line 169 "tachyzoites extracted" ;line 171-173;... ...==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 09 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,

Yong Qi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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.

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

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: All comments have been addressed

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: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

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: Yes

**********

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: 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: (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: Yes: Jorge Gomez-Marin

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 Sep 16;17(9):e0271011. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0271011.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


30 Aug 2022

Thank you for your comments.

We have gone over the manuscript and eliminated all typos. Changes are marked in yellow in the corresponding manuscript file.

Many thanks and best regards

Andrew Hemphill

Decision Letter 2

Yong Qi

4 Sep 2022

Single- and duplex TaqMan-quantitative PCR for determining the copy numbers of integrated selection markers  during site-specific mutagenesis in Toxoplasma gondii by CRISPR-Cas9

PONE-D-22-17694R2

Dear Dr. Hemphill,

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,

Yong Qi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Yong Qi

8 Sep 2022

PONE-D-22-17694R2

Single- and duplex TaqMan-quantitative PCR for determining the copy numbers of integrated selection markers during site-specific mutagenesis in Toxoplasma gondii by CRISPR-Cas9

Dear Dr. Hemphill:

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. Yong Qi

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)

    S1 Raw data

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: response letter.docx

    Data Availability Statement

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


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES