Animal models, both in vertebrates and invertebrates, have been instrumental to examining the pathophysiology of human conditions such as Alzheimer's disease1,2. They are also invaluable tools to search for disease modifiers and to ultimately develop novel treatment strategies in the hope of a cure. Although each model has intrinsic limitations, the use of animals as entire systemic models is vital to biomedical research. This is because the metabolic and complex physiological environment cannot be entirely simulated in tissue culture.
To date, the mouse remains the most common mammalian species used for genetic manipulation because it features several advantages. The physiological processes and genes associated with diseases are highly conserved between mice and humans. The mouse was the first mammal to have its full genome sequenced (2002), one year before the human genome (2003). Aside from this wealth of genetic information, the mouse has good breeding capacities, a fast development cycle (6 weeks from fertilization to weaning), and a reasonable size. All these advantages, coupled with physiological indicators, such as distinct coat colors (required for crossing strategies), made the mouse an attractive model for genetic manipulation. Notably, in the very early age of modern genetics, Gregor Mendel started working on mice before moving to plants3.
Gene transfer techniques resulted in the generation of the first transgenic mouse over three decades ago4, initially created using viral delivery. However, researchers soon realized that one of the main challenges of mouse transgenesis was the inability to control the fate of the exogenous DNA. Because the viral delivery of transgenes into mouse oocytes resulted in multiple copies integrated randomly into the genome, the possibility of establishing subsequent transgenic lines was limited.
One such limitation was overcome when Gordon et al. generated the first transgenic mouse line by microinjection5,6. This began the era of recombinant DNA technology, and the parameters influencing the outcome of a microinjection session have been widely studied7. Although microinjection does not allow for control over the integration site of the transgene (which eventually results in specific expression levels for each founder mouse), the main advantage of pronuclear microinjection remains the formation of concatemers (i.e., arrays of multiple copies of the transgene, linked in series) before genomic integration5. This characteristic has been used over the years to establish thousands of transgenic mouse lines that overexpress a gene of interest. Since then, transgenesis, the artificial modification of an organism's genome, has been extensively used to identify the role of single genes in the occurrence of diseases.
A further key achievement in manipulating the mouse genome was reached when Mario Capecchi successfully disrupted a single gene in the mouse, opening the era of gene targeting8. However, major drawbacks quickly emerged from ES cell-based gene targeting, including the challenges of culturing ES cells, the somewhat variable degree of chimerism, and the length of the process (i.e., 12-18 months, minimum, to obtain the mouse).
Recently, advances in new technologies, such as engineered endonucleases (e.g., zinc finger nucleases (ZFN), transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALEN), and clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR/Cas9)) have emerged as alternative methods to accelerate the process of gene targeting in mice9,10. These endonucleases can readily be injected into mouse oocytes by microinjection, allowing for the generation of gene-targeted mice in as little as 6 weeks.
Since the first report on the use of CRISPR for genome editing11, this bacterial adaptive immune system has superseded ZFN and TALEN because of its many advantages, including the ease of synthesis and the ability to target multiple loci at once (referred to as "multiplexing"). CRISPR was first used for gene targeting in mice12 and has since been applied to countless species, from plants to humans13,14. To date, there is no report of a single species resistant to CRISPR genome editing.
The two main limiting steps of the generation of transgenic mice are the injection of oocytes and the reimplantation of these oocytes into pseudo-pregnant females. Although this technique has been described by us15 and others16, recent technical improvements in mouse embryology and gene transfer techniques have revolutionized the process of generating genetically modified mice. These improvements will be described herein.