CRISPR-Cas9 Editing Chimerism in Saccharomyces Cerevisiae: Regulation by Cell Cycle and Its Implications for Microbial Metabolic Engineering

Authors

  • Zimo Hou

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54097/kz71eh27

Keywords:

CRISPR-Cas9, chimerism, cell cycle, chromatin accessibility.

Abstract

CRISPR-Cas9 editing often produces chimeric cell populations where edited and unedited cells coexist, undermining yield and reproducibility in industrial microbial processes. Modulation of the cell cycle can reduce chimerism and improve editing fidelity. The review summarizes definitions and detection methods for chimeric populations including flow cytometry and single cell sequencing and highlights representative cases from Bacillus subtilis cellulase production and Escherichia coli isobutanol synthesis that show how partial editing lowers titers and increases byproducts. Evidence is presented that chromatin accessibility and DNA repair pathway choice change across G1, S, G2 and M phases and thereby determine Cas9 cleavage efficiency and repair outcomes. S phase is associated with higher chromatin accessibility and increased homology directed repair activity that favor precise edits. G1 and M phases either favor non homologous end joining or restrict cutting, leading to higher chimerism. Practical strategies such as population synchronization, timed delivery of repair templates and integrated molecular monitoring are evaluated for their potential to reduce population heterogeneity during strain engineering and fermentation. This review aims to clarify the molecular mechanisms by which Saccharomyces cerevisiae cell cycle modulates CRISPR editing chimerism and to provide guidance for optimizing industrial genome engineering.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] Woolston B M, Edgar S, Stephanopoulos G. Metabolic engineering past and future. Annual Review of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, 2013, 4: 259-288.

[2] Ro D K, Paradise E M, Ouellet M, et al. Production of the antimalarial drug precursor artemisinic acid in engineered yeast. Nature, 2006, 440 (7086): 940-943.

[3] Layfield J B, Vann L R, Sheppard J D. A novel method of inducing and retaining cell cycle synchronization in cultures of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Journal of the American Society of Brewing Chemists, 2014, 72 (2): 102-109.

[4] DiCarlo J E, Norville J E, Mali P, et al. Genome engineering in Saccharomyces cerevisiae using CRISPR-Cas systems. Nucleic Acids Research, 2013, 41 (7): 4336-4343.

[5] Taubmann A. Untersuchung der DNA-Doppelstrangbruch-Reparatur über Homologe Rekombination am Übergang von der G2-Phase in die Mitose. Darmstadt, Technische Universität Darmstadt, 2015.

[6] Hartwell L H, Weinert T A. Checkpoints, controls that ensure the order of cell cycle events. Science, 1989, 246 (4930): 629-634.

[7] Diffley J F. Regulation of early events in chromosome replication. Current Biology, 2004, 14 (18): R778-R786.

[8] Weinert T A, Hartwell L H. The RAD9 gene controls the cell cycle response to DNA damage in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Science, 1988, 241 (4863): 317-322.

[9] Murray A W, Kirschner M W. Dominoes and clocks, the union of two views of the cell cycle. Science, 1989, 246 (4930): 614-621.

[10] Jinek M, Chylinski K, Fonfara I, et al. A programmable dual-RNA-guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity. Science, 2012, 337 (6096): 816-821.

[11] Doench J G, Hartenian E, Graham D B, et al. Rational design of highly active single guide RNAs for CRISPR-Cas9-mediated gene inactivation. Nature Biotechnology, 2014, 32 (12): 1262-1267.

[12] Sternberg S H, Redding S, Jinek M, et al. DNA interrogation by the CRISPR RNA-guided endonuclease Cas9. Biophysical Journal, 2014, 106 (2): 695a.

[13] Moore D P, Haber J E. Cell-cycle-regulated double-strand break repair in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genetics, 1996, 144 (3): 1399-1409.

[14] Li X, Heyer W-D. Homologous recombination in DNA repair and DNA damage tolerance. Cell Research, 2008, 18 (1): 99-113.

[15] Lawrimore J, Bloom K S, Salmon E. Point centromeres contain more than a single centromere-specific Cse4 (CENP-A) nucleosome. Journal of Cell Biology, 2011, 195 (4): 573-582.

[16] Sun T L, Huang M Z, Liu B, et al. Advances in microbial genome reduction and optimization based on synthetic biology. Science and Technology of Food Industry, 2025, 46 (1): 394-402.

[17] Bassalo M C, Garst A D, Halweg-Edwards A L, et al. Rapid and efficient one-step metabolic pathway integration in Escherichia coli. ACS Synthetic Biology, 2016, 5 (7): 561-568.

[18] Gavin A-C, Bösche M, Krause R, et al. Functional organization of the yeast proteome by systematic analysis of protein complexes. Nature, 2002, 415 (6868): 141-147.

[19] Juanes M A. Methods of synchronization of yeast cells for the analysis of cell cycle progression. The Mitotic Exit Network, Methods and Protocols, 2017, 1505: 19-34.

[20] San Filippo J, Sung P, Klein H. Mechanism of eukaryotic homologous recombination. Annual Review of Biochemistry, 2008, 77 (1): 229-257.

Downloads

Published

10-02-2026

Issue

Section

Articles