Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Nov 25;58(48):17399-17405.
doi: 10.1002/anie.201910772. Epub 2019 Oct 17.

Exploring the Trans-Cleavage Activity of CRISPR-Cas12a (cpf1) for the Development of a Universal Electrochemical Biosensor

Affiliations

Exploring the Trans-Cleavage Activity of CRISPR-Cas12a (cpf1) for the Development of a Universal Electrochemical Biosensor

Yifan Dai et al. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl. .

Abstract

An accurate, rapid, and cost-effective biosensor for the quantification of disease biomarkers is vital for the development of early-diagnostic point-of-care systems. The recent discovery of the trans-cleavage property of CRISPR type V effectors makes CRISPR a potential high-accuracy bio-recognition tool. Herein, a CRISPR-Cas12a (cpf1) based electrochemical biosensor (E-CRISPR) is reported, which is more cost-effective and portable than optical-transduction-based biosensors. Through optimizing the in vitro trans-cleavage activity of Cas12a, E-CRIPSR was used to detect viral nucleic acids, including human papillomavirus 16 (HPV-16) and parvovirus B19 (PB-19), with a picomolar sensitivity. An aptamer-based E-CRISPR cascade was further designed for the detection of transforming growth factor β1 (TGF-β1) protein in clinical samples. As demonstrated, E-CRISPR could enable the development of portable, accurate, and cost-effective point-of-care diagnostic systems.

Keywords: CRISPR Cas12a (cpf1); bioanalytical chemistry; biosensor; electrochemistry; trans-acting cleavage.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.. Principle of E-CRISPR.
A) Cas12a (cpf1) performs crRNA guided cis-cleavage (specific target) initiated trans-cleavage activity (nonspecific ssDNA). B) Nonspecific ssDNA reporter with methylene blue tag immobilized on the gold electrode. C) With the presence of the target, Cas12a-crRNA would initiate the trans-cleavage activity on nonspecific ssDNA reporter, resulting a low electrochemical current of methylene blue. D) Without the presence of the target, Cas12a-crRNA would not initiate the trans-cleavage activity on nonspecific ssDNA reporter, resulting a high electrochemical current of methylene blue. E) A representation of electrochemical current outputs based on the without & with target conditions.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.. Optimization of on-chip trans-cleavage activity.
A) Representation of square wave voltammetry (SWV) evaluation of E-CRISPR in response to HPV-16. Red curve represents the background signal of 50 nM of Cas12a-crRNA duplex. Black curve represents the signal generated by the 50 nM of Cas12a-crRNA-target induced trans-cleavage activity. B) Evaluation of 50 nM of Cas12a orthologs from Lachnospiraceae bacterium and Acidaminococcus sp on its activity for on-chip trans-cleavage activity based on the change of current between background signal and target-mediated signal. ΔI%=Background signalTarget signalBackground signal. (Red line- LbCas12a; Black line- AsCas12a) C) Evaluation of trans-cleavage activity using 50 nM of LbCas12a-crRNA-target triplex. D) Evaluation of the effect of the concentration of divalent metal ions on the trans-cleavage activity of RuvC domain based on 50 nM of LbCas12a-crRNA-target triplex. E) & F) & G) SWV graphs of different lengths of surface ssDNA reporters based on 30 nM of LbCas12a-crRNA-target triplex. H) Comparison of signal change from different lengths of surface ssDNA reporters. SWV graphs in these figures present the result of a single test. Error bars in figures present the standard error (SE) based on at least three individual trails using at least three different sensors.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.. E-CRISPR analysis of HPV-16.
A) Dose-response curve of the detection of HPV-16 in different matrixes (green line-10 mM Tris buffer containing 50 mM NaCl and 15 mM MgCl2; purple line-100% human serum). B) Selectivity study through comparison of the signal changes based on non-target nucleic acids (500 nM) with that of 1 nM of HPV-16 (n=3, *P<0.01, target signal vs. non-target signal). C) Target strands with mismatches at different positions, including PAM region and crRNA complement at different positions: 1, 6, 11, 16. D) Evaluation of the influence of mismatches at different positions on the E-CRISPR signal. A target concentration of 1 nM was applied for all the targets (wild type (WT) and mismatched targets).
Figure 4.
Figure 4.. E-CRISPR cascade for protein detection.
A) Sample containing protein target of interest is firstly treated by a fixed concentration of target specific aptamer (ssDNA). B) A E-CRISPR system is specifically designed for the recognition of the aptamer. The remaining concentration of aptamer is analyzed by E-CRISPR. C) A representation of SWV results based on the with target and without target condition. D) Linear calibration curve of TGF-β1 protein detection with an equation of Y=0.91X+1.79 and R-square value of 0.99 (n=3, SE=1.54%). E) Selectivity study through comparison of the signal outputs based on non-target proteins (10 nM) with that of 10 nM of TGF-β1 (n=3, **P<0.01 versus different interference substances). F) Concentration-dependent signals observed within conditioned medium harvested at two time-points during the chondrogenic differentiation program of human mesenchymal stem cells (hMSCs) containing TGF-β1. The samples were analyzed by three sets of individual experiments using three different sensors (n=3, ***P<0.05, Day 28 vs. Day 2). The horizontal black dashed line represents the average signal variation (n=3) based on the presence of blank conditioned medium.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Kelley SO, Mirkin CA, Walt DR, Ismagilov RF, Toner M, Sargent EH, Nature nanotechnology 2014, 9, 969; - PMC - PubMed
    2. Yang Y, Gao W, Chemical Society Reviews 2019, 48, 1465–1491; - PubMed
    3. Kim J, Campbell AS, de Ávila BE-F, Wang J, Nature Biotechnology 2019, 37, 389–406; - PMC - PubMed
    4. Dai Y, Liu CC, Angewandte Chemie International Edition 2019, 58, 12355–12368; - PubMed
    5. Wu Y, Tilley RD, Gooding JJ, Journal of the American Chemical Society 2019, 141, 1162–1170; - PubMed
    6. Furst AL, Francis MB, Chemical Reviews 2019, 119, 700–726; - PubMed
    7. Zwang TJ, Tse ECM, Barton JK, ACS Chemical Biology 2018, 13, 1799–1809; - PMC - PubMed
    8. Lubin AA, Plaxco KW, Accounts of Chemical Research 2010, 43, 496–505; - PMC - PubMed
    9. Yang F, Li Q, Wang L, Zhang G-J, Fan C, ACS Sensors 2018, 3, 903–919. - PubMed
    1. Gootenberg JS, Abudayyeh OO, Lee JW, Essletzbichler P, Dy AJ, Joung J, Verdine V, Donghia N, Daringer NM, Freije CA, Science 2017, 356, 438–442; - PMC - PubMed
    2. Li Y, Li S, Wang J, Liu G, Trends Biotechnol 2019, 37, 730–743; - PubMed
    3. Leung K, Krishnan Y, ACS Central Science 2019, 5, 1111–1113; - PMC - PubMed
    4. Cong L, Ran FA, Cox D, Lin S, Barretto R, Habib N, Hsu PD, Wu X, Jiang W, Marraffini LA, Science 2013, 339, 819–823; - PMC - PubMed
    5. Huang TP, Zhao KT, Miller SM, Gaudelli NM, Oakes BL, Fellmann C, Savage DF, Liu DR, Nature Biotechnology 2019, 37, 626–631; - PMC - PubMed
    6. Hu JH, Miller SM, Geurts MH, Tang W, Chen L, Sun N, Zeina CM, Gao X, Rees HA, Lin Z, Liu DR, Nature 2018, 556, 57; - PMC - PubMed
    7. Yin H, Song C-Q, Suresh S, Kwan S-Y, Wu Q, Walsh S, Ding J, Bogorad RL, Zhu LJ, Wolfe SA, Koteliansky V, Xue W, Langer R, Anderson DG, Nature Chemical Biology 2018, 14, 311. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Chen JS, Ma E, Harrington LB, Da Costa M, Tian X, Palefsky JM, Doudna JA, Science 2018, 360, 436–439; - PMC - PubMed
    2. Gootenberg JS, Abudayyeh OO, Kellner MJ, Joung J, Collins JJ, Zhang F, Science 2018, 360, 439–444; - PMC - PubMed
    3. Li S-Y, Cheng Q-X, Wang J-M, Li X-Y, Zhang Z-L, Gao S, Cao R-B, Zhao G-P, Wang J, Cell Discovery 2018, 4, 20; - PMC - PubMed
    4. Li S-Y, Cheng Q-X, Liu J-K, Nie X-Q, Zhao G-P, Wang J, Cell research 2018, 28, 491. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Dai Y, Wang C, Chiu L-Y, Abbasi K, Tolbert BS, Sauvé G, Yen Y, Liu C-C, Biosensors and Bioelectronics 2018, 117, 60–67; - PMC - PubMed
    2. Dai Y, Abbasi K, Bandyopadhyay S, Liu CC, ACS Sensors 2019, 4, 1980–1985. - PubMed
    1. Chen JS, Doudna JA, Nature Reviews Chemistry 2017, 1, 0078;
    2. Murugan K, Babu K, Sundaresan R, Rajan R, Sashital DG, Molecular cell 2017, 68, 15–25. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types