Method Article
Homologous recombination techniques greatly advance Drosophila genetics by enabling the creation of molecularly precise mutations. The recent adoption of recombineering allows one to manipulate large pieces of DNA and transform them into Drosophila6. The methods presented here combine these techniques to rapidly generate large homologous recombination vectors.
The continued development of techniques for fast, large-scale manipulation of endogenous gene loci will broaden the use of Drosophila melanogaster as a genetic model organism for human-disease related research. Recent years have seen technical advancements like homologous recombination and recombineering. However, generating unequivocal null mutations or tagging endogenous proteins remains a substantial effort for most genes. Here, we describe and demonstrate techniques for using recombineering-based cloning methods to generate vectors that can be used to target and manipulate endogenous loci in vivo. Specifically, we have established a combination of three technologies: (1) BAC transgenesis/recombineering, (2) ends-out homologous recombination and (3) Gateway technology to provide a robust, efficient and flexible method for manipulating endogenous genomic loci. In this protocol, we provide step-by-step details about how to (1) design individual vectors, (2) how to clone large fragments of genomic DNA into the homologous recombination vector using gap repair, and (3) how to replace or tag genes of interest within these vectors using a second round of recombineering. Finally, we will also provide a protocol for how to mobilize these cassettes in vivo to generate a knockout, or a tagged gene via knock-in. These methods can easily be adopted for multiple targets in parallel and provide a means for manipulating the Drosophila genome in a timely and efficient manner.
Clean molecularly-defined manipulations of single genes at their endogenous loci offer an invaluable tool to study a myriad of questions relevant to eukaryotic biology. Drosophila reverse genetic techniques for generating loss-of-function alleles had proven to be challenging until Golic and colleagues introduced in vivo gene targeting using homologous recombination to Drosophila 1-3. They demonstrated that specific genomic loci could be targeted using a linear fragment of DNA from an integrated transgenic construct. This linear "donor" DNA is generated in vivo through FRT-mediated recombination (to excise the DNA from the chromosome as a circular molecule) followed by linearization with the meganuclease I-SceI. Although this methodology has been successfully used to generate a variety of defined lesions, the technique has not been easily scalable for the manipulation of numerous genes in parallel because each individual knockout construct requires distinct and custom design. For example, difficulties in seamlessly manipulating large fragments of DNA (>5 kb) in vitro using classical restriction enzyme/ligation cloning or PCR, as well as the size limitations of traditional in vivo transformation vectors often interfere with the rapid creation of homologous recombination targeting vectors. To overcome these limitations, we combined the recombineering/transgenesis P[acman] system, which allows the sub-cloning and transgenesis of up to 100 kb of DNA, with the ends-out gene targeting methodology to establish an efficient and relatively rapid platform that facilitates Drosophila gene targeting.
Recombination-mediated genetic engineering (recombineering) is a powerful homologous recombination-based cloning technology 4,5. In contrast to conventional restriction enzyme/ligase cloning, recombineering is not limited by the sequence or size of the manipulated DNA. Recombineering uses a special E. coli strain that harbors recombination machinery provided by a defective λ prophage 4. This technique has recently been adopted for use in Drosophila 6,7. Recombineering in Drosophila relies on a modified conditionally amplifiable bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) vector called P[acman] 6,7. This vector carries two origins of replication: OriV, which produces high-copy number upon chemical induction for the purification of large quantities of DNA required for sequencing and embryo injection and OriS, which maintains low-copy number under basal conditions. Additionally, the P[acman] vector is equipped with a bacterial attachment (attB) site. The attB site serves as a substrate for ΦC31 integrase-mediated transgenesis that allows incorporation of large DNA fragments into a predetermined landing site within the Drosophila genome 8,9.
We have generated a P[acman] vector (referred to as P[acman]-KO 1.0) that can be used as a targeting vector for ends-out homologous recombination 10,11. To incorporate ends-out gene targeting technology into the system, we added two FRT and two I-SceI sites. We have also included a Gateway cassette within this modified vector to streamline the process of incorporating the homology arms into P[acman]-KO 1.0. This provides a rapid and simple way to introduce virtually any genomic region of interest into the targeting vector. In this protocol we will describe how to engineer a targeting vector using P[acman]-KO 1.0, and how to mobilize this vector in vivo to target the endogenous locus. For the purpose of this protocol we will use the RFP/Kan cassette to replace a gene of interest, but a variety of cassettes that contain an antibiotic selection marker can be used with this protocol. We have designed and successfully used a set of cassettes for gene replacement and tagging 10,11.
1. Selection of BAC and Region to Target
2. Insert the Homology Arms into P[acman]-KO 1.0
1 μl | DNA from dirty miniprep from step 1.2 of Bac |
0.25 μl Each | 20 μM Primer |
2.5 μl | 10X PfuUltra II Buffer |
0.75 μl | 10mM(each) dNTP |
0.5 μl | PfuUltra II Fusion HotStart DNA Polymerase |
19.75 μl | Water |
25 μl | Total Volume |
Step1 | 95 °C 2 min to activate enzyme |
Step2 | 95 °C 20 sec denature |
Step3 | 60 °C 20 sec annealing |
Step4 | 72 °C 20 sec extension |
Step5 | Go To step 2 and repeat 29 cycles |
Step6 | 4 °C Hold |
0.5 μl each | LA and RA purified PCR product approximately 10-30 ng |
0.25 μl each | 20 μM Primer |
2.5 μl | 10X PfuUltra II Buffer |
0.75 μl | 10mM(each) dNTP |
0.5 μl | PfuUltra II Fusion HotStart DNA Polymerase |
19.25 μl | Water |
25 μl | Total Volume |
Step1 | 95 °C 2 min to activate enzyme |
Step2 | 95 °C 20 sec denature |
Step3 | 55 °C 20 sec annealing (Lower temp. to allow for arms to anneal) |
Step4 | 72 °C 20 sec extension |
Step5 | Go To step 2 and repeat 1 cycle |
Step6 | 95 °C 20 sec denature |
Step7 | 60 °C 20 sec annealing |
Step8 | 72 °C 20 sec extension |
Step9 | Go To step 2 and repeat 27 cycles |
Step10 | 4 °C Hold |
3. Recombining the Genomic Region of Interest into P[acman]-KO 1.0
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
4. Replacing the Genomic Region with the Targeting Cassette
Day 4
Day 5
Day 6
Day 7
Day 8
5. Injecting Flies and Mobilizing Cassette In vivo
Amplification of the LA and RA homology arms should produce 500 bp products and the PCR-SOE reaction should yield a 1.0 kb product (Sections 2.1-2.4; Figure 2). The BP reaction performed in section 2.5 is typically very efficient and bacterial transformation of the product yields 5-100 colonies on average. Nearly all the colonies tested with PCR check show the expected PCR product.
During the first round of recombineering (Section 3) expect to get 20-40 colonies after transformation of the digested P[acman]-KO-1.0 containing the LA and RA arms into SW102 cells. 40-60% of these clones will carry the desired recombination product. The non-heat shock control should contain very few if any colonies as compared to the heat-shocked cells. The appearance of the same number of colonies on both sample and control plates usually indicates the presence of uncut plasmid or some other contaminant. In this case, the experiment should be discarded and repeated, this time digesting the P[acman]-KO-1.0 carrying the LA and RA arms to completion following the instruction described in step 3.2. An example of a PCR check for retrieval of genomic region of interest into P[acman]-KO 1.0 in which ≈60 colonies were obtained is shown in Figure 3. Here 60% of the colonies tested carried the desired recombination product.Care must be taken that the observed PCR products run at the predicted size, since aberrant PCR bands usually indicate incorrect recombineering events.
Occasionally no colonies will grow after the first round of recombineering. Using cells with sub-optimal efficiency represents the most common cause for a failed recombineering reaction. Keeping the cells cold at all times during their preparation and gentle handling during the washes (NEVER vortex) is critical for obtaining high quality competent cells. Try to always use freshly digested/purified P[acman]-KO-1.0 DNA to obtain the highest efficiency.
Sometimes the first round of the recombineering yields colonies but those colonies do not pass the PCR check assay. This usually indicates incorrect recombineering products but such a result may also indicate potential problems with one of the primer sets. To validate the PCR-Check-LA primer, set up a PCR reaction in combination with the attB1-I-SceI-LA-F. To verify PCR-check-RA set up a PCR reaction with the attB2-I-SceI-RA-R. In both cases use the original BAC as a template. These PCR reactions should yield products of the expected size, which will vary depending on the sequence of the check primers. Positive results from this control experiment will rule out the possibility that an inability to detect positive clones is due to primer inefficiency.
If you have tried the first round of recombineering several times following the above protocol without any success and have performed all the suggested controls, we recommend choosing a new pair of 500 bp homology arms. For reasons that are not clear at the present time, some genomic regions are highly resistant to DNA recombination. Simply designing new homology arms and moving them towards or away from the gene of interest sometimes solves these problems.
The second round of recombineering (section 4) is typically much more efficient. Normally 30-50 colonies are observed after transformation, with 90-95% of these containing the desired construct. The most common problem at this step is obtaining false-positive colonies. Figure 4 shows examples of true and false positive clones after second round of recombineering (section 4).
Figure 1. Schematic of the process to generate a P[acman]-KO 1.0 targeting vector. Modified from Chan, et al., (2012). Click here to view larger figure.
Figure 2. Schematic of splicing by overlapping PCR (PCR SOE) performed on step 2.3. Click here to view larger figure.
Figure 3. PCR-check gel showing efficiency of first recombineering event. Each lane represents a single colony. A: Colonies tested for left arm integration using T7 and LA-check primers. B: The same colonies as A, tested for right arm integration using T3 and RA-check primers.1 kb Plus DNA Ladder was used as a molecular weight marker. NOTE: Due to poor priming of T3 primer relative to T7, the bands of the right arm check were significantly darker. This should be taken into account when viewing the gel.
Figure 4. DNA agarose gel showing high molecular weight plasmids (P[acman]) and low molecular weight plasmid (undigested template) isolated from potential positive clones after second round of recombineering. DNA was isolated from 4 potential positive clones and ran on a 1% agarose gel stained with ethidium bromide. Clones 1,3 and 4 are true positive clones. Clone 2 is a false positive one as noted by the all the forms of a plasmid that runs bellow 12 kb (the largest size band in DNA ladder lane). 1 kb Plus DNA Ladder was used as a molecular weight marker.
Figure 5. Test for desired recombination event by restriction enzyme digest. In the example above is shown a computer-predicted banding pattern of the P[acman]-KO CG32095 before and after the second round of recombineering. Four different enzymes were used: PacI, AscI, AatII and BamHI. Correctly recombined product will have the same bands as its parental P[acman]-KO CG32095 except for the intended change (arrowheads). NEBcutter V2.0 was used to predict the band pattern.
Figure 6. Schematic describing the mobilization of a targeting cassette in vivo. Click here to view larger figure.
Table 1. Primers. Click here to view larger table.
The power of genetic model organisms in biomedical research is largely based on the tools available for genetic manipulation. The small models C. elegans and Drosophila in particular allow for inexpensive and fast molecular genetic analyses of complete pathways and gene families implicated in multicellular development or function. Recent years have seen significant advances in tool development for manipulating genes in Drosophila 14,15. For example, recombineering, which is widely used in mouse genetics to manipulate Bac DNA constructs, was recently adapted for Drosophila, through the use of the P[acman] vector and ΦC31-mediated transgenesis 6. Different selection cassettes allow for the insertion or deletion of specific sequences anywhere within a construct using recombination competent bacteria 4,13. We have modified the original P[acman] vector so that it can be used for constructing in vivo homologous recombination vectors that target endogenous loci in Drosophila. This new vector enables one to generate targeting cassettes with larger homology arms than those that can be easily made using cut and paste cloning methods. Furthermore, a Gateway-cloning cassette has also been incorporated into this vector, allowing one to rapidly and efficiently introduce new genomic DNA into the system.
Although most of the methodology described here is straightforward, there are several steps we have found critical for the success of the technique. Due to the size of the manipulated DNA (>15 kb), the first round of recombineering reaction (section 3) poses a significant technical hurdle. Hence, this round of recombineering requires a very efficient recombination protocol. Seemingly minor protocol adjustments, like growing the cells to lower density, washing the cells three times instead of two and with 10% glycerol instead of dH2O 13, have greatly improved the transformation efficiency of our recombineering competent cells. In addition, taking care to make sure the LA/RA containing P[acman] is cut to completion with BamHI (Step 3.1) eliminates many false positives.
Undesirable recombination events represent another fairly common problem during recombineering. For example, we have observed cases of duplications and translocations within various constructs. These events can lead to multiple problems during Drosophila transformation and in vivo gene targeting. PCR verification and sequencing analysis cannot detect all of these events. Hence, a restriction enzyme analysis must be performed on the final cloned product before injection of DNA into embryos. This final check has proven critical and has allowed us to avoid injecting constructs that contain undesired aberrations.
Maxi-prepping the targeting vector just before injection and never freezing the DNA greatly improves the transformation efficiency of these large constructs into Drosophila. In short, small details make a big difference in the success of these techniques. The protocols outlined and demonstrated here represent insights from a number of different sources and our own experience.
While we hope the protocol presented here helps others to adopt recombineering methods in their own laboratories, we believe further improvements and refinements to the methodology are still possible. Occasionally, specific genomic fragments are difficult to manipulate using recombineering for reasons that are not entirely obvious. Furthermore, despite our best efforts to eliminate unwanted background, we still find that certain pieces of genomic DNA tend to produce incorrectly recombineered end-products. A deeper understanding of the recombineering process may yield more optimal protocols in the future and open discussion of recombineering failures and success stories will foster the successful use of these powerful techniques by the broader research community.
The authors do not have any competing interests in regards to the techniques outlined here.
We would like to thank Hugo Bellen and the Bloomington Stock Center for reagents. We further thank Koen Venken, Hugo Bellen and all members of the Buszczak and Hiesinger labs for helpful discussions. This work was supported by grants from the National Institute of Health to ACR (T32GM083831), PRH (RO1EY018884) and to MB (RO1GM086647), a grant by the Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas to MB and PRH (RP100516), and the Welch Foundation (I-1657) to PRH. MB is an E.E. and Greer Garson Fogelson Scholar in Biomedical Research and PRH is a Eugene McDermott Scholar in Biomedical Research at UT Southwestern Medical Center.
Name | Company | Catalog Number | Comments |
Name of the reagent | Company | Catalogue number | Comments (optional) |
SW102 Recombination competent bacteria | NCI-Frederick | Recombination Bacteria (SW102, SW105 and SW106) | http://ncifrederick.cancer.gov/research/brb/logon.aspx |
TransforMax EPI300 electrocopmpetent E. coli | Epicentre | EC300110 | Includes CopyControl induction solution |
PfuUltra II Fusion HS DNA Polymerase | Aligent Technology Inc. | 600670 | |
BamHI-HF | New England Biolabs | R3136S | |
Zymoclean Gel DNA Recovery Kit | Zymo Research | D4001 | |
Use Gateway BP ClonaseII Enzyme kit | Invitrogen | 11789-020 | |
P[acman]KO1.010 | Buszczak and Hiesinger Labs | Upon request | |
pENTR RFP-Kan11 | Buszczak and Hiesinger Labs | Upon request | |
Flystocks | Bloomington stock center | Stock numbers: 25680, 25679 | y1 w*/Dp(2;Y)G, P{hs-hid}Y; P{70FLP}11 P{70I-SceI}2B snaSco/CyO, P{hs-hid}4 y1 w*/Dp(2;Y)G, P{hs-hid}Y; P{70FLP}23 P{70I-SceI}4A/TM3, P{hs-hid}14, Sb1 |
Electroporation machine | Biorad GenePulser Xcell with PC module | 165-2662 | |
Cuvettes | Fisher Brand | #FB101 |
Request permission to reuse the text or figures of this JoVE article
Request PermissionThis article has been published
Video Coming Soon
Copyright © 2025 MyJoVE Corporation. All rights reserved