$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
Nanoblades allow for rapid and dose-dependent delivery of the Cas9/sgRNA RNP complex in cell lines and primary cells. In contrast to classical transfection and other viral delivery vectors, but like protein electroporation, Nanoblades have the advantage of transient delivery of the Cas9/sgRNA RNP in a transgene-free manner. Nanoblades offer a highly versatile, simple, and inexpensive platform for protein delivery that can be easily and rapidly adapted to the ever-expanding family of CRISPR variants. Nanoblades can be produced in the HEK293T cell line or its derivatives. HEK293T cell lines used here have been developed to maximize retroviral and lentiviral particle production (see the Table of Materials). However, although other sources of HEK293T cells may be suitable, users must test and compare HEK293T cells from different sources as major differences in particle production have been observed depending on the HEK293T cell-source. Cells have also to be checked for Mycoplasma contamination frequently and passaged every three days (classically ⅛ dilution) to avoid overconfluence, which has a negative impact on particle production.
Cells should not be maintained for over 20 passages. DMEM supplemented with glucose, penicillin/streptomycin, glutamine, and 10% decomplemented fetal bovine serum was used for cell culture. As serum origin may affect the quality of the Nanoblade preparation, different batches of serum should be tested before large-scale production. Nanoblades can be efficiently produced in other media such as RPMI or serum-free modifications of minimum essential medium that can replace DMEM on the day after transfection. As indicated below, although medium replacement after transfection with some DNA-transfection reagents is optional, it may be beneficial to modify the medium into which the VLPs are released, especially to limit serum traces in the particle preparation. However, cultivation of cells in reduced-serum minimum essential medium on the day before transfection has not yet been attempted.
As mentioned, Nanoblades are produced upon overexpression of a mixture of plasmids in producer cells. The overexpression appears to be required for optimal production. Indeed, this laboratory developed a producer cell line where the Gag-Pol-expressing construct was stabilized by antibiotic selection; however, this system failed to produce significant amounts of Nanoblades. A similar observation was made when the sgRNA-coding construct was stably integrated into the genome of producer cells. As described for other particle production systems, a stable cell line expressing at least some constructs involved in Nanoblades production may be useful; however, this would certainly require the processing of large volumes of supernatant and an appropriate technique to purify particles. The above protocol outlines the preferred procedure to produce Nanoblades that exploits specific transfection reagents (see the Table of Materials).
Although transfection reagents from other manufacturers have also been tested with success, the vast majority of this group's results with Nanoblades follow the procedure described herein. Low-cost transfection can be achieved using calcium phosphate reagents and yield good production efficiency; however, this method absolutely requires the replacement of transfection medium on the day after transfection and may leave calcium phosphate residues in the sedimented particle preparation. Consistent with the necessity of high expression levels for Nanoblade components within producer cells is the observation that the amount of sgRNAs associated with the Cas9 protein can be a limiting factor for efficient genome-editing. To improve sgRNA loading, two technical approaches have been recently developed by independent groups using protein delivery vectors similar to Nanoblades. These rely on the use of T7 polymerase-dependent cytoplasmic expression of sgRNA6 or through the addition of a retroviral encapsidation signal to the sgRNA sequence to mediate binding to the Gag polyprotein6. These approaches could indeed improve sgRNA loading within Nanoblades although they have not been tested yet.
Transduction of target cells is a critical step in the procedure. In most immortalized cell lines, transduction with Nanoblades has little or no cytopathic effect. However, in primary cells, toxicity can be an issue. Transduction has therefore to be optimized for each cell type. Specifically, the exposure time to Nanoblades is an important factor to modify when optimizing the transduction protocol. For sensitive cells such as primary neurons or bone marrow cells, 4-6 h of incubation with Nanoblades before replacing the medium allows for efficient delivery of the Cas9 protein while minimizing cell toxicity. Furthermore, adjuvants such as cationic polymers, among others, can significantly improve the efficiency of transduction in some cells (see the Table of Materials). It is important to note that Nanoblades are VLPs and can induce an immunogenic response. This can be a limitation if working with certain types of primary cells, such as macrophages or dendritic cells, in which incubation with Nanoblades could induce important changes in gene expression and the phenotype of the cells. If macrophages and dendritic cells are derived from hematopoietic stem cell precursors (such as mouse bone marrow cells), it is preferable to transduce cells with the Nanoblades before they are fully differentiated to avoid inducing a cellular response against the Nanoblades. Otherwise, Cas9 protein electroporation could represent a viable alternative when working with differentiated immune cells.
Nanoblades can be used in vivo to transduce mouse zygotes or embryos to generate transgenic animals. Similar to classical retroviral or lentiviral vectors, they can also be injected directly into tissues from adult animals. However, Nanoblades (similar to retroviral and lentiviral vectors) can be inactivated by the immune response of the host animal; hence, the dose to be injected has to be optimized for each application. This immune response can also limit the distribution of functional VLPs to tissues close to the injection site. Finally, unlike lentiviral vectors, Nanoblades are transgene-free and deliver the Cas9 in a restricted timeframe. Therefore, they cannot be used to perform genome-wide functional screenings that require high-throughput sequencing of sgRNAs upon selection of cells. Nanoblades are useful when rapid, dose-dependent, and transgene-free genome-editing is required20. Furthermore, similar to protein electroporation, Nanoblades lead to fewer off-target effects than prolonged expression of Cas9/sgRNA through DNA transfection or classical viral vectors3. Future development of Nanoblades is focused on incorporating Cas9 variants for different technological applications such as base-editing and RNA targeting.