The increasing availability of high quality, fully assembled genomes and transcriptomes has greatly improved the ability to study a wide variety of biological processes in an array of organisms1. This is true of both model species as well as non-model species, many of which may offer a more diverse understanding of biological processes. These kinds of data can be used for gene discovery, the identification of transcription networks and both whole genome and transcriptome comparisons, each of which come with their own set of applications. However, while genes are being predicted, annotated and putatively linked to different functional pathways at a never-before-seen rate, the functional characterization of these genes remains behind, limited by the molecular toolkits available for many species. This is particularly the case for the non-model species, where genomic data is relatively easy to generate but where further molecular characterization has been near impossible1,2.
Partial characterization of the functions of specific genes important to the biology of fungal species can be achieved by either knockout or knockin experiments followed by phenotypic analysis of the mutant strains3. These two systems rely entirely on the availability of genetic engineering protocols, including, at minimum, a transformation system and a genetic editing system. There are a number of different transformation systems that have been developed in a variety of filamentous fungi4. Physical systems like those that rely on biolistics and electroporation have been developed in Trichoderma harzianum5 and Aspergillus niger6, respectively. Systems that utilize chemicals such as calcium chloride or lithium acetate have been developed in Neurospora crassa7. Lastly, biological systems that rely on the use of Agrobacterium tumefaciens for transformation have been successfully used in Ceratocystis albifundus8.
In contrast to the availability of different transformation protocols, genome editing systems are less abundant. Many of the traditional functional characterization experiments conducted in filamentous fungi utilized a split marker knockout construct in the form of a selectable marker flanked by regions of homology to the target region or gene in the genome3. The method relies on homology directed (HR) DNA repair, which facilities homologous recombination between the knockout construct and the region of interest. This recombination event results in the replacement of the gene of interest with the sequence of the selectable marker. Unfortunately, while this was successful in many species including Cercospora nicotianae10, Aspergillus fumigatus11 and Grosmannia clavigera12, the rates of homologous recombination are highly variable across different fungal species, making this an inefficient and sometimes unusable protocol in certain species3.
Other genome editing systems, including those that make use of zinc-finger nucleases (ZFNs) and transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALENs) represented a great improvement on the older systems, particularly given their abilities to make specific and targeted changes13. Both ZFNs and TALENs are comprised of a nuclease protein and a protein that is capable of recognizing specific nucleotide sequences13. Upon recognition, the nuclease induces a double stranded DNA break that can facilitate the introduction of specific mutations. In order to bring about genome changes, the protein region that recognizes the nucleotide sequence needs to be specifically designed for each experiment. Because of this reliance on protein-nucleic acid interactions to guide the editing, designing and producing the targeting molecules for each knockout or knockin experiment is difficult and labor intensive14,15. Illustrative of these challenges, very few filamentous fungi have been subjected to genome editing using these systems. One example is the TALENs-based system that was developed in the rice blast fungus, Magnaporthe oryzae16.
Arguably the greatest revolution to the field of genome editing was the discovery and subsequent development of the CRISPR-Cas9 system- a genome editor that allows for the targeted cleavage of a sequence of interest by an endonuclease that is guided by an RNA molecule. This was a huge improvement on the previously developed genome editors that relied on protein-nucleic acid interactions as the major advantage of the CRISPR-Cas9 system is that it relies on an RNA molecule to target the region of interest. This means that the system relies on an RNA-DNA interaction and thus standard base pairing rules can be exploited when designing each experiment15.
The CRISPR-Cas9 system as detailed here is comprised of three major components: a single guide RNA (sgRNA), the Cas9 enzyme and a donor DNA (dDNA)17. The sgRNA is composed of a 20 nucleotide region called the protospacer as well as a longer region called the scaffold18. The protospacer region is used to guide the editing system to the target region and is thus redesigned for each experiment. The scaffold is the region of RNA that physically binds to the Cas9 enzyme to form the ribonucleoprotein (RNP) and is thus identical regardless of the region to be targeted. The Cas9 enzyme physically facilitates the cleavage of the target DNA, using the protospacer as a guide to identify this region19. The last component, the dDNA, is optional and its use depends on the particular experiment20. The dDNA harbors the sequence that should specifically be inserted into the region being cut by the Cas9 enzyme, and is thus ideal for gene knockin experiments where a gene is being introduced into the genome or for gene knockout experiments where an antibiotic resistance gene or other selectable marker is being introduced to replace the gene of interest. The dDNA can also be designed in such a way as to introduce novel sequences into the genome. For example, as detailed below, it is possible to introduce an in-frame stop codon into a particular region in the gene of interest when a gene truncation is required21. Other applications include the mutation of specific regions of the gene, such as a functional domain22, or the introduction of a tagging sequence23.
A major benefit of using the CRISPR-Cas9 system is its versatility24. One example of this adaptability is that the Cas9 enzyme can be introduced into the host cell in one of its three forms- DNA, RNA or protein- depending on the particular transformation system being used. When introduced in DNA form, the cas9 gene is often included on a plasmid along with a selectable marker, a cassette to express the sgRNA and, if necessary, a cassette encoding the dDNA sequence25. The primary advantage of this system is that only a single construct needs to be transformed into the cell and successful transformation ensures that all the necessary components for CRISRP-Cas9-mediated genome editing are present. However, this method relies on the availability of an expression system for the host species. For Cas9 to successfully induce DNA damage, it needs to be expressed at high levels, and thus, a suitable and potentially specific-specific promoter is required. For non-model species where such promoters have not yet been developed, this may be a detracting factor and thus the ability to introduce Cas9 in RNA or protein form may be a more attractive option. The introduction of RNA into the cell brings its own challenges- particularly in that RNA is unstable and may not survive the transformation process. Furthermore, when introduced in either DNA or RNA form, the Cas9 gene sequence may need to be codon-optimized for use in the particular host system17. For example, the cas9 gene from Streptococcus pyogenes may not work in a mammalian host cell and a cas9 gene that has been codon-optimized for use in a mammalian cell may not work in a plant cell. All of these challenges can be overcome using the protein form of Cas9, which, together with the sgRNA, can be assembled into an RNP and transformed into the host cell26,27. This system does not rely on any endogenous expression system or codon optimization and should thus work in the majority of non-model species. The disadvantage of the protein-based system is that it is not compatible with DNA-based transformation systems like Agrobacterium-mediated transfer. Thus, for the protein-based method to work, a transformation protocol such as those that rely on protoplasts or biolistics needs to be available. This RNP-based system has been successfully used in the filamentous fungi, Fusarium oxysporum26 and Mucor circinelloides27.
Huntiella omanensis, a member of the Ceratocystidaceae family, is a cosmopolitan fungus often found on freshly wounded woody plants28. While high quality genome and transcriptome data are available for this species28,29,30, no transformation or genome editing protocols have been developed. To date, research on H. omanensis has focused on the underlying genetic components of its sexual cycle29,31. This fungus exhibits a typical heterothallic sexual cycle, with sexual reproduction occurring exclusively between isolates of the MAT1-1 and MAT1-2 mating types31. In contrast, MAT1-2 isolates of the closely related Huntiella moniliformis are capable of independent sexual reproduction and complete a sexual cycle in the absence of a MAT1-1 partner31. This difference in sexual capabilities is thought to be, at least partly, due to a major difference in the mating gene, MAT1-2-7, where H. omanensis harbors a full length and intact copy, while the gene is severely truncated in H. moniliformis29,31. To further characterize the role of this gene in sexual reproduction, the MAT1-2-7 gene of H. omanensis was truncated to mimic the truncation seen in H. moniliformis21.
The protocol below details the transformation of H. omanensis and the truncation of the MAT1-2-7 gene using a protein-based version of the CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing system. This protocol was developed after the approaches of homologous recombination-based gene replacement and plasmid-based CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing were unsuccessful.