==== Front FEBS Open Bio FEBS Open Bio 10.1002/(ISSN)2211-5463 FEB4 FEBS Open Bio 2211-5463 John Wiley and Sons Inc. Hoboken 36815235 10.1002/2211-5463.13581 FEB413581 FEBSOPEN-22-0742.R1 Genetic Engineering Biotechnology and Method Development Review Reviews Genetic manipulation and targeted protein degradation in mammalian systems: practical considerations, tips and tricks for discovery research Genetic perturbation approaches for mammalian systems S. L. Giandomenico and E. M. Schuman Giandomenico Stefano L. https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4235-8353 1 stefano.giandomenico@brain.mpg.de Schuman Erin M. 1 erin.schuman@brain.mpg.de 1 Max Planck Institute for Brain Research Frankfurt am Main Germany * Correspondence S. L. Giandomenico, Max Planck Institute for Brain Research, Max‐von‐Laue Strasse 4, 60438, Frankfurt am Main, Germany Tel: +49 69 850 033 1033 E‐mail: stefano.giandomenico@brain.mpg.de E. M. Schuman, Max Planck Institute for Brain Research, Max‐von‐Laue Strasse 4, 60438, Frankfurt am Main, Germany Tel: +49 69 850 033 1001 E‐mail: erin.schuman@brain.mpg.de 08 3 2023 7 2023 13 7 10.1002/feb4.v13.7 In the Limelight: FEBS Fellows 11641176 13 1 2023 01 10 2022 21 2 2023 © 2023 The Authors. FEBS Open Bio published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Federation of European Biochemical Societies. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Gaining a mechanistic understanding of the molecular pathways underpinning cellular and organismal physiology invariably relies on the perturbation of an experimental system to infer causality. This can be achieved either by genetic manipulation or by pharmacological treatment. Generally, the former approach is applicable to a wider range of targets, is more precise, and can address more nuanced functional aspects. Despite such apparent advantages, genetic manipulation (i.e., knock‐down, knock‐out, mutation, and tagging) in mammalian systems can be challenging due to problems with delivery, low rates of homologous recombination, and epigenetic silencing. The advent of CRISPR‐Cas9 in combination with the development of robust differentiation protocols that can efficiently generate a variety of different cell types in vitro has accelerated our ability to probe gene function in a more physiological setting. Often, the main obstacle in this path of enquiry is to achieve the desired genetic modification. In this short review, we will focus on gene perturbation in mammalian cells and how editing and differentiation of pluripotent stem cells can complement more traditional approaches. Additionally, we introduce novel targeted protein degradation approaches as an alternative to DNA/RNA‐based manipulation. Our aim is to present a broad overview of recent approaches and in vitro systems to study mammalian cell biology. Due to space limitations, we limit ourselves to providing the inexperienced reader with a conceptual framework on how to use these tools, and for more in‐depth information, we will provide specific references throughout. This article explores how to gain an understanding of the molecular pathways that control cell and organismal function through genetic manipulation. We discuss the use of different CRISPR‐Cas technologies, targeted protein degradation, and pluripotent stem cells to interrogate gene function. Our aim is to provide a broad and practical overview of available approaches and model systems to study mammalian biology. CRISPR delivery differentiation neuroscience TPD Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft 10.13039/501100001659 CRC 1080 Federation of European Biochemical Societies 10.13039/100012623 H2020 European Research Council 10.13039/100010663 101054512 Hessisches Ministerium für Wissenschaft und Kunst 10.13039/501100003495 Max‐Planck‐Gesellschaft 10.13039/501100004189 source-schema-version-number2.0 cover-dateJuly 2023 details-of-publishers-convertorConverter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.3.0 mode:remove_FC converted:03.07.2023 ==== Body pmcAbbreviations AAV adeno‐associated virus AbTAC antibody‐based PROTAC AID auxin‐inducible degron aTAG Achilles TAG ATTEC autophagosome‐targeting chimera AUTAC autophagy‐targeting chimera CAKE conditional activation of knock‐in expression Cas CRISPR‐associated (protein) Cas9 CRISPR‐associated protein 9 Cas9n Cas9 nickase CBP CREB‐binding protein CDS coding sequence CRISPIE CRISPR‐mediated insertion of exon CRISPR clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats CRISPRa CRISPR activation CRISPRi CRISPR interference dCas9 deactivated Cas9 DD‐Cas9 destabilizing domain Cas9 DMT3A DNA (cytosine‐5)‐methyltransferase 3A dTAG degradation tag EBNA1 Epstein–Barr nuclear antigen‐1 FACS fluorescent activated cell sorting FKBP12 FK506‐binding protein (FKBP)12 GFP green fluorescent protein GOF gain‐of‐function HDR homology‐directed repair HITI homology independent targeted integration HiUGE homology‐independent universal genome engineering hPSCs human pluripotent stem cells KRAB Kruppel‐associated box LOF loss‐of‐function LYTAC lysosomal targeting chimera M‐CREATE multiplexed‐Cre‐recombination‐based AAV targeted evolution mESCs mouse embryonic stem cells MMEJ microhomology‐mediated end joining NHEJ nonhomologous end joining ORANGE open resource for the application of neuronal genome editing ORF open reading frame p300 histone acetyltransferase p300 PAM protospacer adjacent motif POI protein of interest PROTAC proteolysis targeting chimera PSCs pluripotent stem cells RNAi RNA interference RNP ribonucleoprotein (complex) S/MAR scaffold/matrix attachment region sgRNA single‐guide RNA SID SIN3‐interacting domain ssODNs single‐stranded oligo donors SunTag supernova tag TALEN transcription activator‐like effector nuclease TKIT targeted knock‐in with two (guides) TPD targeted protein degradation UPS ubiquitin‐proteasome system WT wild‐type Our question and how to best tackle it—models, manipulation, and read‐out Transient vs. stable modifications Molecular biology offers a number of tools and approaches for genetic manipulation and one should carefully consider their advantages and disadvantages before choosing a specific one. For example, if the experimental question under investigation can be addressed in an immortalized cell line that benefits from rapid growth and high transfection efficiency (e.g., HEK293, HeLa) then transient transfection of plasmids and siRNA/shRNAs might be sufficient to answer our questions [1]. However, this is not always possible. For example, it may be that the genes that make up the pathway of interest are not expressed in such cells. It could also be the case that the cell lines available cannot be efficiently transfected [2], or alternatively, the perturbation of the process investigated may require sustained construct expression, which exceeds the capabilities of a transient expression system [3] (Fig. 1). Fig. 1 Genetic manipulation and TPD approaches, delivery methods, and model systems. The top table summarizes the different genetic manipulation approaches and TPD strategies available, and lists their advantages and limitations. The schematic below reports the different delivery methodologies and how well‐suited they are for the different model systems, the solid color indicates the method is well‐suited for the model system, and the fading color indicates decreased suitability. Broadly speaking, with increased complexity of the system, the associated costs and labor increase. Stable plasmid transfection and viral transduction with lentiviruses or AAVs, in combination with selection by fluorescence or antibiotic resistance, are straightforward approaches to overcome these limitations. In mitotically active cells, sustained transgene expression can be achieved either by integration of the expression cassette into the host genome or by delivery of an episomal vector that can replicate autonomously and get passed on to daughter cells through successive rounds of cell division [4]. Integration into the genome of cells can be achieved in a number of ways. For example, in certain transformed cell lines and in mouse embryonic stem cells (mESCs) delivery of a construct containing an antibiotic resistance cassette followed by selection is sufficient to achieve random genomic integration [5]. In our experience, the success rates of this approach vary greatly across cell lines and, for example, in human pluripotent stem cells (hPSCs), lentiviral or transposon‐mediated integrations are considerably more efficient [6]. However, one should consider that, to varying degrees, all three integration methods (i.e., spontaneous random integration, transposon‐ and virus‐mediated) can lead to disruption of actively transcribed genes and suffer from position effects [7, 8, 9], meaning that their expression will be strongly influenced by the chromatin surrounding the integration site [10] (Fig. 1). Position effects and epigenetic silencing processes are especially relevant when the genetic manipulation is performed in a precursor cell line that will then be differentiated into a specific cell type. In fact, during the process of differentiation changes in chromatin organization and epigenetic marks [11] can lead to the progressive silencing of transgenes [12]. Such effects can only be partially mitigated by the introduction of insulator sequences flanking our expression cassette [13, 14]. For such applications, the use of an episomal system containing the EBV‐encoded nuclear antigen‐1 (EBNA1) and oriP elements [15], minicircles [16], or S/MAR vectors [17, 18] viral delivery with adeno‐associated virus (AAV) [19, 20] or Sendai virus [21, 22, 23] particles may be advantageous, as they remain extrachromosomal but allow for sustained and long‐term transgene expression (Fig. 1). It is important to point out that, because their stability and retention are often limited in time and species‐dependent, episomal plasmids (e.g., EBNA‐based, S/MAR and minicircles) are not commonly used in standard laboratory practice. However, recently developed S/MAR vectors [24, 25] with improved retention and more robust expression might become a useful addition to the array of tools available for gene manipulation, especially where integrating and viral approaches are under very strict health and safety regulations. Stable expression and delivery methods Sustained and steady transgene expression allows one to capture phenotypic changes requiring several days to manifest, which are typically difficult to observe by transient expression approaches. For example, siRNA knock‐down with a very efficient construct usually leads to a ~ 70–90% target reduction after 24–48 h, and beyond this point, the effects of the knock‐down will gradually decrease due to progressive dilution and clearance of the siRNA [26]. In the case of a very stable protein with a half‐life in the order of days, we would expect to see a sizable effect on the target protein levels only after 2–3 days, around the time that the effects of RNAi begin to wane. Therefore, in order to achieve robust knock‐down and capture any downstream phenotypic effects deriving from the loss of the target protein, two consecutive transfections may be employed [27]. Alternatively, one might choose to use any of the aforementioned systems for the sustained transgene expression of shRNAs against the target of interest. This is not the case in postmitotic cells, such as neurons, where plasmids and RNAs are not progressively diluted out through successive rounds of cell division, and transfection of standard plasmids yields long‐lasting transgene expression [28]. In this case, the main limitation is that the transfection efficiency of neurons, and generally primary cells, is very low, thus limiting the range of downstream analyses at one's disposal. In addition, transfection can be quite toxic to cells [28]. Alternative approaches are nucleofection and electroporation, which can be used to increase the delivery efficiency of naked DNA constructs, RNA, and ribonucleoprotein complexes (RNPs) [28, 29]. A clear advantage of electroporation over liposome transfection (i.e., lipofection) is the lower toxicity and the fact that it can be employed for delivery into tissues [30]: both in vitro differentiated from PSCs [22, 23], in acute preparations and slice cultures [31], or directly in vivo, to organs such as the brain [32], the vasculature, and lungs [33]. Nevertheless, using electroporation the delivery efficiency is usually not sufficient to perform bulk‐type analyses, such as biochemistry, proteomics, and genomics. Transduction with AAVs or lentiviruses can be employed to achieve more efficient delivery of constructs and perform bulk‐type analyses. An additional advantage of using viruses, and specifically AAVs, is that the capsid type is an important determinant of tissue tropism [34]. Recently, using a multiplexed Cre‐recombination‐based AAV targeted evolution (M‐CREATE) platform, researchers were able to generate a range of capsid types that enable exquisite cell‐type‐specific expression of GFP under the control of a constitutive promoter [35]. The ability to encode such a high degree of cell‐type selectivity in the AAV capsid represents a substantial advance in the field of gene delivery and transgenesis and might aid in reducing the size of the promoter element required for expression in specific cell types. Nevertheless, the relatively small packaging limit (~ 4 kb) remains one of the main limitations of AAVs. For the delivery of larger inserts (i.e., up to ~ 10 kb), lentiviruses can be employed; although, they do not have serotypes with different tissue tropisms [36] (Fig. 1). Genome editing—beyond transgenesis The limitations of overexpression and knock‐down approaches The approaches discussed so far are ideal for gain‐ and loss‐of‐function experiments where one can either overexpress or knock‐down a target gene via delivery of overexpression or RNAi constructs. Albeit very powerful for probing gene function, these approaches are relatively coarse, in that, ultimately, they only allow one to increase or reduce the levels of a given target and can produce nonspecific effects. For instance, RNAi can have off‐target effects due to nonspecific antisense binding to other cellular RNAs, and in some cases, RNAi has been reported to activate an interferon response [37] and alter endogenous miRNA pathways [38]. Therefore, the use of a complete set of controls, which includes nontargeting constructs and a non‐RNAi transfection control, is essential to discern genuine phenotypes. Albeit more challenging in terms of delivery, an alternative to RNAi is the use of morpholino oligos, which have higher specificity and do not engage the endogenous RNAi machinery but act by blocking the translation of the target RNA [39]. Beyond nonspecific effects, it is important to note that transient manipulations of target genes can lead to expression levels well outside a physiological range, which in itself might lead to artefactual phenotypes. For example, in the case where one may be interested in the function of a specific domain or set of amino acids in a protein, or a nucleotide sequence in a regulatory RNA species. The simplest and most common approach to tackle these questions is to overexpress a mutant construct in a wild‐type background and attempt to override the system to see the effects produced by the mutant protein or RNA species. However, by doing this, we are not simply changing the species present, we are also grossly altering overall target protein/RNA levels and this might give rise to artefactual dominant‐negative effects. A more informative approach is to replace the species in question with its alternative form; one way of doing so is to knock‐down or ‐out the endogenous copies of the gene‐of‐interest and then introduce a transgene encoding the mutant variant [40]. However, by this strategy the transgene introduced will not be under the control of the endogenous regulatory elements and its net expression dynamics might differ considerably from those of the endogenous gene. A direct handle on gene expression A more elegant and powerful way of performing this type of replacement experiment, but also query the function of specific cis‐regulatory elements [41] and introduce expression cassettes at precise sites within the genome [42], is to use CRISPR‐Cas genome editing. This is a two‐component system comprising a CRISPR‐associated nuclease (Cas) and a guide RNA sequence (sgRNA), which targets the nuclease to a specific site in the genome [43, 44, 45]. After cleavage, the cells will try to repair the double‐strand break via different endogenous repair pathways and these can be exploited to introduce different types of mutations. Generally, gene knock‐out is achieved by the introduction of out‐of‐frame indels into the open reading frame (ORF) or excision of a critical exon by the nonhomologous end joining (NHEJ) repair pathway, while knock‐in is achieved by hijacking the endogenous homology‐directed repair (HDR) pathway to insert the desired repair template. The advantage of CRISPR‐Cas9 over zinc‐finger nucleases and TALENs [46] is its ease of programming. In fact, the sgRNA is a short synthetic RNA species comprising a scaffold, necessary for Cas binding, and a ~ 20 bp spacer sequence that specifies the genomic target site. For a sequence to act as a spacer it needs to be unique within the organism's genome and be directly adjacent to a protospacer adjacent motif (PAM)—in the case of Cas9 this is 5′‐NGG‐3′ [43, 44], while for Cas12a/Cpf1, a different CRISPR‐associated nuclease, the PAM site is TTTA/C/G [47]. There is a wealth of resources for sgRNA design that provide both an on‐target score, indicative of the efficiency of target site cleavage, and off‐target score, which reports on the likelihood of hitting unrelated genomic loci [48]. One way to limit potential off‐target effects is to use a mutated version of Cas9, Cas9 nickase (Cas9n), which can only introduce a single‐strand break or nick within the genome [49]. The rationale is that while off‐target nicks are efficiently repaired in mammalian cells, two sgRNAs targeting Cas9n to two genomic sites in close proximity will produce a double‐strand break (DSB) that can then be repaired by the cellular NHEJ or HDR pathways [49]. The increased specificity of nickase has been confirmed experimentally [50]; however, their main limitation is that activity can be strongly reduced compared with wild‐type Cas9 [50]. One aspect to consider is that inefficient editing will produce only few rare clones within a population of cells and their isolation, irrespective of any selection one might use, will inevitably require extended culture and sub‐pooling or single‐cell‐cloning steps. Because cells in culture spontaneously accumulate mutations [51, 52, 53], this might lead to genetic drift and the emergence of background mutations producing confounding artefactual phenotypes. In general, it is advisable to follow the simplest and most efficient editing strategy and to implement appropriate controls to identify genuine phenotypes. For instance, if one is interested in modeling the effects of complete or partial loss of a given gene, one valid strategy would be to use wild‐type Cas9 and, separately, three different sgRNAs to introduce indels within the target ORF by NHEJ. Following accurate genotyping, karyotyping, and assessment of target mRNA and protein levels, if the clones generated with the three distinct sgRNA display a similar phenotype, then this would increase the confidence that the gene‐of‐interest had been effectively targeted. In addition, a rescue experiment in which the target CDS is reintroduced by means of plasmid transfection or transduction [54, 55] would add further support to the findings. Rescue experiments can also help to rule out any effects arising from the disruption of enhancer elements at the target locus or from the emergence of a cryptic genetic variation. In addition to nickases, one way to reduce off‐target effects while maintaining high on‐target activity is to use DD‐Cas9, which enables conditional expression and temporal control of Cas9 levels by destabilization of the protein by FKBP12 synthetic ligands [56]. Another way to increase editing specificity is to use precomplexed Cas9 WT ribonucleoprotein complexes (RNPs) [57, 58]. In fact, while plasmid delivery is slow‐acting (i.e., it requires between 24 and 48 h to produce active nuclease complex) and long‐lasting (i.e., expression can last for up to a week), RNPs are active immediately after delivery and are cleared within 24 h [58]. By reducing the window of time cells express Cas9 both approaches reduce the frequency of off‐target effects (Fig. 1). dCas9 for transcriptional and epigenomic modulation The epigenome, the collection of all epigenetic marks in the genome, together with transcription factors, determines the gene expression pattern of individual cells. Early attempts to modify the epigenome involved knock‐down/out and pharmacological inhibition of epigenetic modifiers [59]. These global approaches suffer from pleiotropic effects that do not allow targeted interrogation of the epigenetic state of a specific genomic region. Targeted transcriptional and epigenetic modulation became possible with the development of zinc‐finger proteins [60], TALENs [61], and nuclease‐deactivated Cas9 (dCas9) [62]. dCas9 in particular provides a flexible platform for site‐specific targeting by different modulation modalities including transcriptional blockade [63], gene expression modulation [64], epigenetic editing [65], and labeling of chromosomes for imaging [66]. In its simplest form, dCas9 can be used to interfere with RNA polymerase by steric blockade of transcription initiation or elongation [63, 67]. While this strategy is very effective in prokaryotes, in mammals it produces only modest effects [63]. To increase the potency of modulation in mammals, dCas9 can be fused to either a transcription activator domain (VP64, p65) for transcriptional activation (CRISPRa) or a repressor domain (KRAB, SID) for transcriptional silencing (CRISPRi) [62, 64], and multiple units of each are targeted to nearby genomic sites by using multiple sgRNAs. Modulation can be further enhanced by providing dCas9 with additional motifs, such as the SunTag [68] or RNA aptamers fused to the sgRNAs [69], so as to recruit a higher number of effector domain copies. Transcription repressors and activators modulate the target gene transcription indirectly by recruiting a host of epigenetic modifiers, chromatin remodelers, and secondary transcription factors. By contrast, epigenetic effectors (e.g., the DNA methyltransferase DMT3A, the histone demethylase LSD1, and the histone acetyltransferase p300 and CBP) fused to dCas9 alter the epigenetic state of the target in a direct and more predictable manner [62], without recruiting additional effectors. These approaches are extremely useful when one wants to probe how different epigenetic states affect gene expression, which is highly relevant in the context of development and disease. At the same time, by virtue of their rapid onset, robust effects and reversibility, CRISPRi, and CRISPRa represent alternatives to knock‐out/down and overexpression approaches to interrogate gene function. CRISPR for knock‐ins In addition to loss‐of‐function experiments and epigenetic modulation, CRISPR‐Cas can be used in combination with homology‐directed repair (HDR) to perform scarless genome editing and insert new elements at specific genomic sites [43, 70]. While small (~ 50–200 bp) modifications only necessitate symmetric/asymmetric single‐stranded oligonucleotide donors (ssODNs) with 30–80 bp of homology, larger modifications (> 200 bp) are typically introduced by circular or linearized plasmids containing 500–1000 bp homology arms [43, 71] or with large ssODN derived by in vitro transcription and retrotranscription [72]. The decrease in the costs of gene synthesis and the establishment of ligation‐independent cloning methods, such as Gibson assembly [73] and In‐Fusion [74, 75] cloning, have considerably simplified the generation of large and complex templates for HDR. Importantly, the PAM site or the sgRNA seed sequence in the HDR template should be mutated so as to prevent nuclease cleavage. Additionally, in order to promote HDR over the more common NHEJ repair pathway, pharmacological treatment or a mutant version of Cas9 can be used [76]. An alternative repair pathway to HDR is microhomology‐directed end joining (MMEJ) [77], which is active during the M1 and S phases of the cell cycle, and is error‐prone but has the advantage of requiring only 5–30 bp of homology. Due to their cell‐cycle phase requirements, HDR and MMEJ have limited suitability for genome editing in postmitotic cells such as neurons [76]. HDR has been used successfully to fluorescently tag synaptic proteins in neurons, both at the neural progenitor state [78] and after cell‐cycle exit [79]. However, it should be noted that the HDR pathway is scarcely active in postmitotic cells and successful knock‐in requires neurons derived from Cas9 knock‐in mice and AAV‐mediated delivery of the HDR template. To provide some context, it was estimated that postmitotic neurons require a ~ 100‐fold higher concentration of repair template compared with neural progenitors [79]. For targeted genomic integration directly in neurons, the alternative NHEJ‐based homology‐independent targeting integration (HITI) [80] repair approach was shown to be more efficient (Fig. 1). Unlike HDR, HITI does not yield predictable repairs, as small indels are introduced along with the insert [81]. Systems such as HiUGE [80], ORANGE [82], and CAKE [83] are based on HITI and enable tagging and manipulation of endogenous synaptic proteins in neurons. Editing strategies that can overcome potential problems with out‐of‐frame repair are TKIT [84] and CRISPIE [85], which target intronic regions and thus are less sensitive to frame changes. Whilst these approaches are powerful for microscopy studies, delivery issues combined with the low efficiency of correct repair leading to tagging, complicate the use of such strategies for bulk‐type approaches. Furthermore, it remains difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish between monoallelic vs. biallelic targeting, which complicates the interpretation of the results. All these limitations stem from the fact that postmitotic cells cannot be single‐cell cloned, expanded, and genotyped. Transgenic animals and in vitro differentiation As previously mentioned, immortalized cell lines are a valuable tool for studies of gene function; however, due to the high rates of aneuploidy and spontaneous mutations, observations made using such models should be ultimately tested in systems that more closely capture normal cell physiology. In this regard, the generation of transgenic animals [86] allows for precise genomic manipulations in a more physiologically relevant context. The use of conditional knock‐outs by tissue‐specific recombination [87], engineering of inducible expression cassettes at safe‐harbor loci (i.e., intra‐ and intergenic genomic regions that enable the stable expression of integrated transgenes) [88], precise excision of specific enhancer regions from the germline [41] and the establishment of complex genetic reporter systems for lineage tracing studies [89, 90] are some of the examples that showcase the power of mouse models. Nevertheless, generating a mouse model can be a considerable financial undertaking, it is particularly cumbersome and time‐consuming and ultimately it may not yield the expected results (Fig. 1). An attractive alternative to bridge the gap between standard in vitro preparations and in vivo models are 2D [91, 92, 93] and 3D [94, 95, 96, 97, 98] in vitro differentiated PSC‐derived cultures. These models capture more closely the complex cellular interactions found in tissues [98, 99, 100] and allow the study of both transient and mature cell types. In addition to modeling both normal physiology and pathology with higher fidelity than immortalized cell lines, such differentiation approaches can be easily implemented in a standard laboratory setting in a cost‐effective manner. The fact that PSCs can be derived from several different sources with minimally invasive procedures has led to the establishment of PSC lines from many different species, thus allowing cross‐comparative and functional evo‐devo studies [54, 101, 102, 103]. An important advance for such studies has been the recent development of PSC‐culture media suitable for the culture of cells from different mammalian species [54] and that can significantly improve cell viability under conditions of stress [104, 105], such as those encountered during single‐cell‐cloning procedures for genome editing applications. Although editing human PSCs remains challenging, efficient delivery of WT Cas9 plasmid constructs and RNPs by electroporation or lipofection followed by clonal selection with StemFlex supplemented with RevitaCell [106] on plates coated with rhLaminin‐521 [104, 107] is generally sufficient to isolate NHEJ knock‐out clones from one to two 96 well plates without any enrichment strategy or selection. For more complicated applications involving HDR or MMEJ, antibiotic selection or FACS can greatly expedite the isolation of mutants. However, in many cases, the target gene is not expressed in PSCs and thus fluorescent tagging or fusion to an antibiotic resistance cassette via a self‐cleaving tag are not viable options for enrichment. Another instance in which selection is not possible is in the case of scarless genome editing to generate cells that differ only at the engineered mutation site. In such cases, TaqMan probe‐based assays by ddPCR and sib selection (i.e., a method to isolate clones from a population based on the repeated fractionation and selection of a positive subfraction) [108] can be used to progressively enrich and purify edited clones (Miyaoka et al. [109]). However, it should be noted that these approaches are laborious and time‐consuming, so wherever possible a more ‘quick and dirty’ approach is advisable (Fig. 1). Targeted protein degradation (TPD) for rapid and acute protein removal So far, all the perturbation strategies discussed act at the level of genes and their transcripts. They provide a means to directly manipulate the target when one wants to modify a certain genomic region or RNA species. However, in the case of protein‐coding genes, they affect changes in protein levels indirectly through their DNA or RNA precursor. As a consequence, the efficacy of the modification will depend on the transcript and protein half‐life; compensatory feedback mechanisms might be invoked and, invariably, there will be a lag between the time of perturbation and the time phenotypic changes start to manifest [110]. Such shortcomings are particularly restrictive when we want to explore the consequences of acute protein depletion, which is highly relevant in the case of dynamic and transient processes such as those seen during development and in response to cellular stimuli and insults. Advances in chemical biology have made it possible to use the proteasomal and endo‐lysosomal protein degradation pathways to rapidly destabilize soluble intra‐ and extracellular proteins, as well as membrane proteins with dose tunability, reversibility, and high selectivity (Fig. 1) [110, 111, 112, 113]. Since the array of systems and technologies developed is vast and ever‐expanding, we provide a general conceptual framework and highlight systems that can be easily implemented in a laboratory setting, using off‐the‐shelf reagents, without the need for screening protein binders and synthesizing novel compounds. The idea underlying all TPD approaches is the use of a bifunctional compound or antibodies to bring the protein of interest (POI) into close proximity with an effector that triggers its degradation by either the ubiquitin‐proteasome system (UPS) or the endo‐lysosomal pathway [111, 112]. Approaches for the destabilization of intracellular proteins include proteolysis targeting chimeras (PROTACs), autophagy‐targeting chimeras (AUTACs), and autophagosome tethering compounds (ATTECs; Fig. 1). PROTACs [114] and AUTACs [115] consist of a chemical warhead, which binds the POI, fused via a flexible chemical linker to an E3 ligase ligand or a guanine derivative, respectively. ATTECs [116, 117] are linker compounds that tether the POI to LC3 proteins of the phagophore, during autophagosome formation. Destabilization of extracellular and membrane proteins can be achieved with lysosomal targeting chimeras (LYTACs) or antibody‐based PROTACs (AbTACs) (Fig. 1). While LYTACs [118] comprise a chemical warhead that binds the POI fused to a lysosome targeting receptor ligand, AbTACs [119] are recombinant bispecific antibodies that bind both the POI and the transmembrane E3 ligase RNF43 (Fig. 1). In contrast to PROTACs, which recruit E3 ubiquitin ligases that catalyze K48 polyubiquitination of the POI and engage the UPS, the mechanism of action of AbTACs remains elusive and it is not clear whether RNF43 triggers ubiquitination of the POI to initiate internalization [112]. The development of such tools is a considerable chemical biology undertaking in that it requires the identification of a specific ligand of the POI, optimization of the linker, and identification of an effector able to degrade the POI; all this while maintaining good bioavailability [110]. The investment necessary to develop these reagents is such that at present available TPD tools target only a relatively small set of POIs, many of which are disease‐relevant and of interest to the pharma industry. For discovery biology, an approach to bypass these hurdles is to employ genome editing to fuse the endogenous gene‐of‐interest with a HaloTag [120], a degradation tag (dTAG) [121, 122], an Achilles TAG (aTAG) [123] or the auxin‐inducible degron (AID) [124, 125], among others. These tags endow the POI with ‘standardized’ domains that can be bound by predesigned and commercially available degrader molecules, which recruit different E3 ubiquitin ligases (i.e., VHL, CRBN, OsTIR1(F74G)) to initiate degradation by the UPS (Fig. 1). Albeit conceptually similar, an important difference between the AID and the other TAG systems is that while the former is a plant‐derived system [124, 125] that requires an exogenous E3 ubiquitin ligase (TIR1 or OsTIR1(F74G)), the latter systems hijack the endogenous and ubiquitously expressed E3 ligases VHL or CRBN. These tags are relatively small and they should not impact POI function. The suitability of a given system for POI destabilization will depend on the cell type expression, intracellular localization, and biochemical properties of the POI and E3 ligase pair. Preliminary overexpression of the POI‐TAG fusion in the cell type of choice is essential to identify the optimal destabilization system before performing genome engineering [122]. While UPS‐recruiting TAG systems are now well supported by a range of off‐the‐shelf reagents, this is not the case for TPD systems that rely on the endo‐lysosomal protein degradation pathway. However, spurred by its therapeutic potential, the field of TPD is rapidly growing and we anticipate that more plug‐and‐play systems based on a variety of degradation modalities will make their way into discovery biology in the near future [110]. Lastly, valuable TPD strategies that do not rely on chemical degraders and do not require cumbersome genome editing are antibody‐based approaches such as Trim‐Away [126] and FingR intrabodies‐E3 ligase fusions [127]. Being entirely genetically encodable, the latter tool is particularly powerful as it can be packaged into viruses for efficient delivery and combined with a Tet‐On inducible promoter for tunability. Conclusions and outlook In this short piece, we have discussed some of the technologies and methodologies available to explore target gene function across a range of different mammalian systems. Due to space constrains, we only focused on those that we routinely use in our line of research, but we hope that the breadth of topics covered will serve as a starting point and orient the reader on how to best tackle their scientific question. It should be noted that all approaches and systems come with advantages and disadvantages and these should be weighed carefully. Generally, a sensible strategy is to start from the simplest system in which a given process can be modeled to then expand to more complex and cumbersome ones to address very targeted questions that could not be answered otherwise (Fig. 1). With the discovery of RNAi, CRISPR‐Cas and TPD technologies the past 20 years have witnessed a revolution in the way we can dissect signaling pathways. Now, the development of base editors [128], CRISPR enzymes that enable manipulation of RNA [129, 130, 131], and many other variations [132] promise to take this to the next level. At the same time, the rise of in vitro PSC‐differentiation models has provided an ideal platform to make the most of such approaches [98]. At present, the use of these models cannot replace animal studies, and it is difficult to envisage a future where they will entirely; however, their value is unquestionable and we anticipate that they will increasingly become a powerful complement to animal studies in both basic and translational research. Conflict of interest The authors declare no conflict of interest. Author contributions SLG and EMS wrote the review, and SLG designed the figures. Acknowledgements The authors thank members of the Schuman lab for helpful discussions. EMS is funded by the Max Planck Society, an Advanced Investigator award from the European Research Council (grant 101054512), and the DFG CRC 1080: Molecular and Cellular Mechanisms of Neural Homeostasis. SLG is supported by a FEBS Long‐Term Fellowship and a Hessen Horizon Fellowship. Figure 1 and the graphical abstract were created with BioRender.com. Data accessibility None. ==== Refs References 1 Kim TK and Eberwine JH (2010) Mammalian cell transfection: the present and the future. Anal Bioanal Chem 397 , 3173–3178.20549496 2 Gresch O and Altrogge L (2012) Transfection of difficult‐to‐transfect primary mammalian cells. Methods Mol Biol 801 , 65–74.21987247 3 Khan KH (2013) Gene expression in mammalian cells and its applications. Adv Pharm Bull 3 , 257–263.24312845 4 van Craenenbroeck K , Vanhoenacker P and Haegeman G (2000) Episomal vectors for gene expression in mammalian cells. Eur J Biochem 267 , 5665–5678.10971576 5 Kunert R and Casanova E (2013) Recent advances in recombinant protein production: BAC‐based expression vectors, the bigger the better. Bioengineered 4 , 258–261.23680894 6 Belay E , Dastidar S , VandenDriessche T and Chuah MKL (2011) Transposon‐mediated gene transfer into adult and induced pluripotent stem cells. Curr Gene Ther 11 , 406–413.21864290 7 Feng Y‐Q , Lorincz MC , Fiering S , Greally JM and Bouhassira EE (2001) Position effects are influenced by the orientation of a transgene with respect to flanking chromatin. Mol Cell Biol 21 , 298–309.11113204 8 Pikaart MJ , Recillas‐Targa F and Felsenfeld G (1998) Loss of transcriptional activity of a transgene is accompanied by DNA methylation and histone deacetylation and is prevented by insulators. Genes Dev 12 , 2852–2862.9744862 9 Walters MC , Magis W , Fiering S , Eidemiller J , Scalzo D , Groudine M and Martin DIK (1996) Transcriptional enhancers act in cis to suppress position‐effect variegation. Genes Dev 10 , 185–195.8566752 10 Wang W , Lin C , Lu D , Ning Z , Cox T , Melvin D , Wang X , Bradley A and Liu P (2008) Chromosomal transposition of PiggyBac in mouse embryonic stem cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105 , 9290–9295.18579772 11 Tyler JK and Kadonaga JT (1999) The “dark side” of chromatin remodeling: Repressive effects on transcription. Cell 99 , 443–446.10589670 12 Alhaji SY , Ngai SC and Abdullah S (2019) Silencing of transgene expression in mammalian cells by DNA methylation and histone modifications in gene therapy perspective. Biotechnol Genet Eng Rev 35 , 1–25.30514178 13 Chung JH , Bell AC and Felsenfeld G (1997) Characterization of the chicken β‐globin insulator. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94 , 575–580.9012826 14 Yusufzai TM and Felsenfeld G (2004) The 5′‐HS4 chicken β‐globin insulator is a CTCF‐dependent nuclear matrix‐associated element. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101 , 8620–8624.15169959 15 Hung SC , Kang MS and Kieff E (2001) Maintenance of Epstein‐Barr virus (EBV) oriP‐based episomes requires EBV‐encoded nuclear antigen‐1 chromosome‐binding domains, which can be replaced by high‐mobility group‐I or histone H1. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98 , 1865–1870.11172042 16 Alves CPA , Prazeres DMF and Monteiro GA (2021) Minicircle biopharmaceuticals–an overview of purification strategies. Front Chem Eng 2 , 612594. 17 Piechaczek C , Fetzer C , Baiker A , Bode J and Lipps HJ (1999) A vector based on the SV40 origin of replication and chromosomal S/MARs replicates episomally in CHO cells. Nucleic Acids Res 27 , 426–428.9862961 18 Baiker A , Maercker C , Piechaczek C , Schmidt SBA , Bode J , Benham C and Lipps HJ (2000) Mitotic stability of an episomal vector containing a human scaffold/matrix‐attached region is provided by association with nuclear matrix. Nat Cell Biol 2 , 182–184.10707091 19 Chan KY , Jang MJ , Yoo BB , Greenbaum A , Ravi N , Wu WL , Sánchez‐Guardado L , Lois C , Mazmanian SK , Deverman BE et al. (2017) Engineered AAVs for efficient noninvasive gene delivery to the central and peripheral nervous systems. Nat Neurosci 20 , 1172–1179.28671695 20 Wang D , Tai PWL and Gao G (2019) Adeno‐associated virus vector as a platform for gene therapy delivery. Nat Rev Drug Discov 18 , 358–378.30710128 21 Park A , Hong P , Won ST , Thibault PA , Vigant F , Oguntuyo KY , Taft JD and Lee B (2016) Sendai virus, an RNA virus with no risk of genomic integration, delivers CRISPR/Cas9 for efficient gene editing. Mol Ther Methods Clin Dev 3 , 16057.27606350 22 Giandomenico SL , Sutcliffe M and Lancaster MA (2020) Generation and long‐term culture of advanced cerebral organoids for studying later stages of neural development. Nat Protoc 16 , 579–602.33328611 23 Giandomenico SL , Mierau SB , Gibbons GM , Wenger LMD , Masullo L , Sit T , Sutcliffe M , Boulanger J , Tripodi M , Derivery E et al. (2019) Cerebral organoids at the air–liquid interface generate diverse nerve tracts with functional output. Nat Neurosci 22 , 669–679.30886407 24 Bozza M , Green EW , Espinet E , de Roia A , Klein C , Vogel V , Offringa R , Williams JA , Sprick M and Harbottle RP (2020) Novel non‐integrating DNA Nano‐S/MAR vectors restore gene function in isogenic patient‐derived pancreatic tumor models. Mol Ther Methods Clin Dev 17 , 957–968.32420409 25 Roig‐Merino A , Urban M , Bozza M , Peterson JD , Bullen L , Büchler‐Schäff M , Stäble S , van der Hoeven F , Müller‐Decker K , McKay TR et al. (2022) An episomal DNA vector platform for the persistent genetic modification of pluripotent stem cells and their differentiated progeny. Stem Cell Reports 17 , 143–158.34942088 26 Bartlett DW and Davis ME (2006) Insights into the kinetics of siRNA‐mediated gene silencing from live‐cell and live‐animal bioluminescent imaging. Nucleic Acids Res 34 , 322–333.16410612 27 Ma Y , Jin J , Dong C , Cheng EC , Lin H , Huang Y and Qiu C (2010) High‐efficiency siRNA‐based gene knockdown in human embryonic stem cells. RNA 16 , 2564–2569.20978109 28 Karra D and Dahm R (2010) Transfection techniques for neuronal cells. J Neurosci 30 , 6171–6177.20445041 29 Gärtner A , Collin L and Lalli G (2006) Nucleofection of primary neurons. Methods Enzymol 406 , 374–388.16472671 30 Young JL and Dean DA (2015) Electroporation‐mediated gene delivery. Adv Genet 89 , 49–88.25620008 31 Daza RAM , Englund C and Hevner RF (2007) Organotypic slice culture of embryonic brain tissue. Cold Spring Harb Protoc 2007 , pdb.prot4914. 32 Nomura T , Nishimura Y , Gotoh H and Ono K (2016) Rapid and efficient gene delivery into the adult mouse brain via focal electroporation. Sci Rep 6 , 1–9.28442746 33 Dean DA (2003) Electroporation of the Vasculature and the Lung. DNA Cell Biol 22 , 797–806.14683590 34 Challis RC , Ravindra Kumar S , Chen X , Goertsen D , Coughlin GM , Hori AM , Chuapoco MR , Otis TS , Miles TF and Gradinaru V (2022) Adeno‐associated virus toolkit to target diverse brain cells. Annu Rev Neurosci 45 , 447–469.35440143 35 Ravindra Kumar S , Miles TF , Chen X , Brown D , Dobreva T , Huang Q , Ding X , Luo Y , Einarsson PH , Greenbaum A et al. (2020) Multiplexed Cre‐dependent selection yields systemic AAVs for targeting distinct brain cell types. Nat Methods 17 , 541–550.32313222 36 Parr‐Brownlie LC , Bosch‐Bouju C , Schoderboeck L , Sizemore RJ , Abraham WC and Hughes SM (2015) Lentiviral vectors as tools to understand central nervous system biology in mammalian model organisms. Front Mol Neurosci 8 , 14.26041987 37 Bridge AJ , Pebernard S , Ducraux A , Nicoulaz A‐L and Iggo R (2003) Induction of an interferon response by RNAi vectors in mammalian cells. Nat Genet 34 , 263–264.12796781 38 Baek ST , Kerjan G , Bielas SL , Lee JE , Fenstermaker AG , Novarino G and Gleeson JG (2014) Off‐target effect of doublecortin family shRNA on neuronal migration associated with endogenous microRNA dysregulation. Neuron 82 , 1255–1262.24945770 39 Summerton J (2007) Morpholino, siRNA, and S‐DNA compared: impact of structure and mechanism of action on off‐target effects and sequence specificity. Curr Top Med Chem 7 , 651–660.17430206 40 Li C , Xiao P , Gray SJ , Weinberg MS and Samulski RJ (2011) Combination therapy utilizing shRNA knockdown and an optimized resistant transgene for rescue of diseases caused by misfolded proteins. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108 , 14258–14263.21844342 41 Kvon EZ , Kamneva OK , Melo US , Barozzi I , Osterwalder M , Mannion BJ , Tissières V , Pickle CS , Plajzer‐Frick I , Lee EA et al. (2016) Progressive loss of function in a limb enhancer during snake evolution. Cell 167 , 633–642.e11.27768887 42 Pavani G and Amendola M (2021) Targeted gene delivery: where to land. Front Genome Ed 2 , 609650.34713234 43 Ran FA , Hsu PD , Wright J , Agarwala V , Scott DA and Zhang F (2013) Genome engineering using the CRISPR‐Cas9 system. Nat Protoc 8 , 2281–2308.24157548 44 Doudna JA and Charpentier E (2014) The new frontier of genome engineering with CRISPR‐Cas9. Science 346 , 1258096.25430774 45 Jinek M , Chylinski K , Fonfara I , Hauer M , Doudna JA and Charpentier E (2012) A programmable dual‐RNA‐guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity. Science 337 , 816–821.22745249 46 Gaj T , Gersbach CA and Barbas CF (2013) ZFN, TALEN and CRISPR/Cas‐based methods for genome engineering. Trends Biotechnol 31 , 397–405.23664777 47 Zetsche B , Gootenberg JS , Abudayyeh OO , Slaymaker IM , Makarova KS , Essletzbichler P , Volz SE , Joung J , van der Oost J , Regev A et al. (2015) Cpf1 is a single RNA‐guided endonuclease of a class 2 CRISPR‐Cas system. Cell 163 , 759–771.26422227 48 Cui Y , Xu J , Cheng M , Liao X and Peng S (2018) Review of CRISPR/Cas9 sgRNA design tools. Interdiscip Sci 10 , 455–465.29644494 49 Trevino AE and Zhang F (2014) Genome editing using Cas9 nickases. Methods Enzymol 546 , 161–174.25398340 50 Cho SW , Kim S , Kim Y , Kweon J , Kim HS , Bae S and Kim JS (2014) Analysis of off‐target effects of CRISPR/Cas‐derived RNA‐guided endonucleases and nickases. Genome Res 24 , 132–141.24253446 51 Ben‐David U , Siranosian B , Ha G , Tang H , Oren Y , Hinohara K , Strathdee CA , Dempster J , Lyons NJ , Burns R et al. (2018) Genetic and transcriptional evolution alters cancer cell line drug response. Nature 560 , 325–330.30089904 52 Thompson O , von Meyenn F , Hewitt Z , Alexander J , Wood A , Weightman R , Gregory S , Krueger F , Andrews S , Barbaric I et al. (2020) Low rates of mutation in clinical grade human pluripotent stem cells under different culture conditions. Nat Commun 11 , 1528.32251294 53 Kim M , Rhee JK , Choi H , Kwon A , Kim J , Lee GD , Jekarl DW , Lee S , Kim Y and Kim TM (2017) Passage‐dependent accumulation of somatic mutations in mesenchymal stromal cells during in vitro culture revealed by whole genome sequencing. Sci Rep 7 , 14508.29109420 54 Benito‐Kwiecinski S , Giandomenico SL , Sutcliffe M , Riis ES , Freire‐Pritchett P , Kelava I , Wunderlich S , Martin U , Wray GA , McDole K et al. (2021) An early cell shape transition drives evolutionary expansion of the human forebrain. Cell 184 , 2084–2102.e19.33765444 55 Li Y , Muffat J , Omer A , Bosch I , Lancaster MA , Sur M , Gehrke L , Knoblich JA and Jaenisch R (2017) Induction of expansion and folding in human cerebral organoids. Cell Stem Cell 20 , 385–396.e3.28041895 56 Senturk S , Shirole NH , Nowak DG , Corbo V , Pal D , Vaughan A , Tuveson DA , Trotman LC , Kinney JB and Sordella R (2017) Rapid and tunable method to temporally control gene editing based on conditional Cas9 stabilization. Nat Commun 8 , 14370.28224990 57 Naeem M , Majeed S , Hoque MZ and Ahmad I (2020) Latest developed strategies to minimize the off‐target effects in CRISPR‐Cas‐mediated genome editing. Cell 9 , 1608. 58 Kim S , Kim D , Cho SW , Kim J and Kim JS (2014) Highly efficient RNA‐guided genome editing in human cells via delivery of purified Cas9 ribonucleoproteins. Genome Res 24 , 1012–1019.24696461 59 Webster KE , O'Bryan MK , Fletcher S , Crewther PE , Aapola U , Craig J , Harrison DK , Aung H , Phutikanit N , Lyle R et al. (2005) Meiotic and epigenetic defects in Dnmt3L‐knockout mouse spermatogenesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102 , 4068–4073.15753313 60 Wolfe SA , Nekludova L and Pabo CO (2000) DNA recognition by Cys2His2 zinc finger proteins. Annu Rev Biophys Biomol Struct 29 , 183–212.10940247 61 Sanjana NE , Cong L , Zhou Y , Cunniff MM , Feng G and Zhang F (2012) A transcription activator‐like effector toolbox for genome engineering. Nat Protoc 7 , 171–192.22222791 62 Brocken DJW , Tark‐Dame M and Dame RT (2018) dCas9: a versatile tool for epigenome editing. Curr Issues Mol Biol 26 , 15–32.28879853 63 Qi LS , Larson MH , Gilbert LA , Doudna JA , Weissman JS , Arkin AP and Lim WA (2013) Repurposing CRISPR as an RNA‐guided platform for sequence‐specific control of gene expression. Cell 152 , 1173–1183.23452860 64 Gilbert LA , Larson MH , Morsut L , Liu Z , Brar GA , Torres SE , Stern‐Ginossar N , Brandman O , Whitehead EH , Doudna JA et al. (2013) CRISPR‐mediated modular RNA‐guided regulation of transcription in eukaryotes. Cell 154 , 442–451.23849981 65 Hilton IB , D'Ippolito AM , Vockley CM , Thakore PI , Crawford GE , Reddy TE and Gersbach CA (2015) Epigenome editing by a CRISPR‐Cas9‐based acetyltransferase activates genes from promoters and enhancers. Nat Biotechnol 33 , 510–517.25849900 66 Ma H , Naseri A , Reyes‐Gutierrez P , Wolfe SA , Zhang S and Pederson T (2015) Multicolor CRISPR labeling of chromosomal loci in human cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112 , 3002–3007.25713381 67 Bikard D , Jiang W , Samai P , Hochschild A , Zhang F and Marraffini LA (2013) Programmable repression and activation of bacterial gene expression using an engineered CRISPR‐Cas system. Nucleic Acids Res 41 , 7429–7437.23761437 68 Tanenbaum ME , Gilbert LA , Qi LS , Weissman JS and Vale RD (2014) A protein‐tagging system for signal amplification in gene expression and fluorescence imaging. Cell 159 , 635–646.25307933 69 Mali P , Aach J , Stranges PB , Esvelt KM , Moosburner M , Kosuri S , Yang L and Church GM (2013) CAS9 transcriptional activators for target specificity screening and paired nickases for cooperative genome engineering. Nat Biotechnol 31 , 833–838.23907171 70 Yang H , Wang H , Shivalila CS , Cheng AW , Shi L and Jaenisch R (2013) One‐step generation of mice carrying reporter and conditional alleles by CRISPR/Cas‐mediated genome engineering. Cell 154 , 1370–1379.23992847 71 Richardson CD , Ray GJ , DeWitt MA , Curie GL and Corn JE (2016) Enhancing homology‐directed genome editing by catalytically active and inactive CRISPR‐Cas9 using asymmetric donor DNA. Nat Biotechnol 34 , 339–344.26789497 72 Quadros RM , Miura H , Harms DW , Akatsuka H , Sato T , Aida T , Redder R , Richardson GP , Inagaki Y , Sakai D et al. (2017) Easi‐CRISPR: a robust method for one‐step generation of mice carrying conditional and insertion alleles using long ssDNA donors and CRISPR ribonucleoproteins. Genome Biol 18 , 1–15.28077169 73 Gibson DG , Young L , Chuang RY , Venter JC , Hutchison CA and Smith HO (2009) Enzymatic assembly of DNA molecules up to several hundred kilobases. Nat Methods 6 , 343–345.19363495 74 Raman M and Martin K (2014) One solution for cloning and mutagenesis: In‐Fusion® HD Cloning Plus. Nat Methods 11 , iii–v. 75 Ochman H , Gerber AS and Hartl DL (1988) Genetic applications of an inverse polymerase chain reaction. Genetics 120 , 621–623.2852134 76 Liu M , Rehman S , Tang X , Gu K , Fan Q , Chen D and Ma W (2019) Methodologies for improving HDR efficiency. Front Genet 10 , 691.31428130 77 Sakuma T , Nakade S , Sakane Y , Suzuki KIT and Yamamoto T (2015) MMEJ‐assisted gene knock‐in using TALENs and CRISPR‐Cas9 with the PITCh systems. Nat Protoc 11 , 118–133.26678082 78 Mikuni T , Nishiyama J , Sun Y , Kamasawa N and Yasuda R (2016) High‐throughput, high‐resolution mapping of protein localization in mammalian brain by in vivo genome editing. Cell 165 , 1803–1817.27180908 79 Nishiyama J , Mikuni T and Yasuda R (2017) Virus‐mediated genome editing via homology‐directed repair in mitotic and postmitotic cells in mammalian brain. Neuron 96 , 755–768.e5.29056297 80 Gao Y , Hisey E , Bradshaw TWA , Erata E , Brown WE , Courtland JL , Uezu A , Xiang Y , Diao Y and Soderling SH (2019) Plug‐and‐play protein modification using homology‐independent universal genome engineering. Neuron 103 , 583–597.e8.31272828 81 Suzuki K and Izpisua Belmonte JC (2017) In vivo genome editing via the HITI method as a tool for gene therapy. J Hum Genet 63 , 157–164.29215090 82 Willems J , de Jong APH , Scheefhals N , Mertens E , Catsburg LAE , Poorthuis RB , de Winter F , Verhaagen J , Meye FJ and MacGillavry HD (2020) ORANGE: A CRISPR/Cas9‐based genome editing toolbox for epitope tagging of endogenous proteins in neurons. PLoS Biol 18 , e3000665.32275651 83 Droogers WJ , Willems J , Macgillavry HD and de Jong APH (2022) Duplex labeling and manipulation of neuronal proteins using sequential CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing. eNeuro 9 , ENEURO.0056‐22.2022. 84 Fang H , Bygrave AM , Roth RH , Johnson RC and Huganir RL (2021) An optimized CRISPR/Cas9 approach for precise genome editing in neurons. Elife 10 , e65202.33689678 85 Zhong H , Ceballos CC , Massengill CI , Muniak MA , Ma L , Qin M , Petrie SK and Mao T (2021) High‐fidelity, efficient, and reversible labeling of endogenous proteins using crispr‐based designer exon insertion. Elife 10 , e64911.34100715 86 Haruyama N , Cho A and Kulkarni AB (2009) Overview: engineering transgenic constructs and mice. Curr Protoc Cell Biol Chapter 19 , Unit 19.10. 87 Kim H , Kim M , Im S‐K and Fang S (2018) Mouse Cre‐LoxP system: general principles to determine tissue‐specific roles of target genes. Lab Anim Res 34 , 147–159.30671100 88 Haenebalcke L , Goossens S , Dierickx P , Bartunkova S , D'Hont J , Haigh K , Hochepied T , Wirth D , Nagy A and Haigh JJ (2013) The ROSA26‐iPSC mouse: a conditional, inducible, and exchangeable resource for studying cellular (De)differentiation. Cell Rep 3 , 335–341.23395636 89 Barker N , van Es JH , Kuipers J , Kujala P , van den Born M , Cozijnsen M , Haegebarth A , Korving J , Begthel H , Peters PJ et al. (2007) Identification of stem cells in small intestine and colon by marker gene Lgr5. Nature 449 , 1003–1007.17934449 90 Zong H , Espinosa JS , Su HH , Muzumdar MD and Luo L (2005) Mosaic analysis with double markers in mice. Cell 121 , 479–492.15882628 91 Elkabetz Y , Panagiotakos G , al Shamy G , Socci ND , Tabar V and Studer L (2008) Human ES cell‐derived neural rosettes reveal a functionally distinct early neural stem cell stage. Genes Dev 22 , 152–165.18198334 92 Gaspard N , Bouschet T , Hourez R , Dimidschstein J , Naeije G , van den Ameele J , Espuny‐Camacho I , Herpoel A , Passante L , Schiffmann SN et al. (2008) An intrinsic mechanism of corticogenesis from embryonic stem cells. Nature 455 , 351–357.18716623 93 Gaspard N , Bouschet T , Herpoel A , Naeije G , van den Ameele J and Vanderhaeghen P (2009) Generation of cortical neurons from mouse embryonic stem cells. Nat Protoc 4 , 1454–1463.19798080 94 Sato T , Vries RG , Snippert HJ , van de Wetering M , Barker N , Stange DE , van Es JH , Abo A , Kujala P , Peters PJ et al. (2009) Single Lgr5 stem cells build crypt‐villus structures in vitro without a mesenchymal niche. Nature 459 , 262–265.19329995 95 Eiraku M , Watanabe K , Matsuo‐Takasaki M , Kawada M , Yonemura S , Matsumura M , Wataya T , Nishiyama A , Muguruma K and Sasai Y (2008) Self‐organized formation of polarized cortical tissues from ESCs and its active manipulation by extrinsic signals. Cell Stem Cell 3 , 519–532.18983967 96 Lancaster MA , Renner M , Martin CA , Wenzel D , Bicknell LS , Hurles ME , Homfray T , Penninger JM , Jackson AP and Knoblich JA (2013) Cerebral organoids model human brain development and microcephaly. Nature 501 , 373–379.23995685 97 Pasca AM , Sloan SA , Clarke LE , Tian Y , Makinson CD , Huber N , Kim CH , Park JY , O'Rourke NA , Nguyen KD et al. (2015) Functional cortical neurons and astrocytes from human pluripotent stem cells in 3D culture. Nat Methods 12 , 671–678.26005811 98 Kim J , Koo BK and Knoblich JA (2020) Human organoids: model systems for human biology and medicine. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 21 , 571–584.32636524 99 Kelava I and Lancaster MA (2016) Stem cell models of human brain development. Cell Stem Cell 18 , 736–748.27257762 100 Chiaradia I and Lancaster MA (2020) Brain organoids for the study of human neurobiology at the interface of in vitro and in vivo. Nat Neurosci 23 , 1496–1508.33139941 101 Giandomenico SL and Lancaster MA (2017) Probing human brain evolution and development in organoids. Curr Opin Cell Biol 44 , 36–43.28157638 102 Kanton S , Boyle MJ , He Z , Santel M , Weigert A , Sanchís‐Calleja F , Guijarro P , Sidow L , Fleck JS , Han D et al. (2019) Organoid single‐cell genomic atlas uncovers human‐specific features of brain development. Nature 574 , 418–422.31619793 103 Pollen AA , Bhaduri A , Andrews MG , Nowakowski TJ , Meyerson OS , Mostajo‐Radji MA , di Lullo E , Alvarado B , Bedolli M , Dougherty ML et al. (2019) Establishing cerebral organoids as models of human‐specific brain evolution. Cell 176 , 743–756.e17.30735633 104 Castro‐Viñuelas R , Sanjurjo‐Rodríguez C , Piñeiro‐Ramil M , Rodríguez‐Fernández S , López‐Baltar I , Fuentes‐Boquete I , Blanco FJ and Díaz‐Prado S (2021) Tips and tricks for successfully culturing and adapting human induced pluripotent stem cells. Mol Ther Methods Clin Dev 23 , 569–581.34901305 105 Daniszewski M , Nguyen Q , Chy HS , Hewitt AW , Powell JE , Pébay A , Singh V , Crombie DE , Kulkarni T , Liang HH et al. (2018) Single‐cell profiling identifies key pathways expressed by iPSCs cultured in different commercial media. iScience 7 , 30–39.30267684 106 Campostrini G , Meraviglia V , Giacomelli E , van Helden RWJ , Yiangou L , Davis RP , Bellin M , Orlova VV and Mummery CL (2021) Generation, functional analysis and applications of isogenic three‐dimensional self‐aggregating cardiac microtissues from human pluripotent stem cells. Nat Protoc 16 , 2213–2256.33772245 107 Albalushi H , Kurek M , Karlsson L , Landreh L , Kjartansdóttir KR , Söder O , Hovatta O and Stukenborg JB (2018) Laminin 521 stabilizes the pluripotency expression pattern of human embryonic stem cells initially derived on feeder cells. Stem Cells Int 2018 , 7127042.29535778 108 McCormick M (1987) Sib selection. Methods Enzymol 151 , 445–449.3431451 109 Miyaoka Y , Chan AH , Judge LM , Yoo J , Huang M , Nguyen TD , Lizarraga PP , So PL and Conklin BR (2014) Isolation of single‐base genome‐edited human iPS cells without antibiotic selection. Nat Methods 11 , 291–293.24509632 110 Lai AC and Crews CM (2017) Induced protein degradation: an emerging drug discovery paradigm. Nat Rev Drug Discov 16 , 101–114.27885283 111 Zhao L , Zhao J , Zhong K , Tong A and Jia D (2022) Targeted protein degradation: mechanisms, strategies and application. Signal Transduct Target Ther 7 , 113.35379777 112 Lin J , Jin J , Shen Y , Zhang L , Gong G , Bian H , Chen H , Nagle DG , Wu Y , Zhang W et al. (2021) Emerging protein degradation strategies: expanding the scope to extracellular and membrane proteins. Theranostics 11 , 8337–8349.34373745 113 Salama AKAA , Trkulja MV , Casanova E and Uras IZ (2022) Targeted protein degradation: clinical advances in the field of oncology. Int J Mol Sci 23 , 15440.36499765 114 Sakamoto KM , Kim KB , Kumagai A , Mercurio F , Crews CM and Deshaies RJ (2001) Protacs: Chimeric molecules that target proteins to the Skp1‐Cullin‐F box complex for ubiquitination and degradation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98 , 8554–8559.11438690 115 Takahashi D , Moriyama J , Nakamura T , Miki E , Takahashi E , Sato A , Akaike T , Itto‐Nakama K and Arimoto H (2019) AUTACs: cargo‐specific degraders using selective autophagy. Mol Cell 76 , 797–810.e10.31606272 116 Li Z , Wang C , Wang Z , Zhu C , Li J , Sha T , Ma L , Gao C , Yang Y , Sun Y et al. (2019) Allele‐selective lowering of mutant HTT protein by HTT–LC3 linker compounds. Nature 575 , 203–209.31666698 117 Li Z , Zhu C , Ding Y , Fei Y and Lu B (2020) ATTEC: a potential new approach to target proteinopathies. Autophagy 16 , 185–187.31690177 118 Banik SM , Pedram K , Wisnovsky S , Ahn G , Riley NM and Bertozzi CR (2020) Lysosome‐targeting chimaeras for degradation of extracellular proteins. Nature 584 , 291–297.32728216 119 Cotton AD , Nguyen DP , Gramespacher JA , Seiple IB and Wells JA (2021) Development of antibody‐based PROTACs for the degradation of the cell‐surface immune checkpoint protein PD‐L1. J Am Chem Soc 143 , 593–598.33395526 120 Buckley DL , Raina K , Darricarrere N , Hines J , Gustafson JL , Smith IE , Miah AH , Harling JD and Crews CM (2015) HaloPROTACS: use of small molecule PROTACs to induce degradation of HaloTag fusion proteins. ACS Chem Biol 10 , 1831–1837.26070106 121 Nabet B , Ferguson FM , Seong BKA , Kuljanin M , Leggett AL , Mohardt ML , Robichaud A , Conway AS , Buckley DL , Mancias JD et al. (2020) Rapid and direct control of target protein levels with VHL‐recruiting dTAG molecules. Nat Commun 11 , 4687.32948771 122 Nabet B , Roberts JM , Buckley DL , Paulk J , Dastjerdi S , Yang A , Leggett AL , Erb MA , Lawlor MA , Souza A et al. (2018) The dTAG system for immediate and target‐specific protein degradation. Nat Chem Biol 14 , 431–441.29581585 123 Veits GK , Henderson CS , Vogelaar A , Eron SJ , Lee L , Hart A , Deibler RW , Baddour J , Elam WA , Agafonov RV et al. (2021) Development of an AchillesTAG degradation system and its application to control CAR‐T activity. Curr Res Chem Biol 1 , 100010. 124 Nishimura K , Fukagawa T , Takisawa H , Kakimoto T and Kanemaki M (2009) An auxin‐based degron system for the rapid depletion of proteins in nonplant cells. Nat Methods 6 , 917–922.19915560 125 Yesbolatova A , Saito Y , Kitamoto N , Makino‐Itou H , Ajima R , Nakano R , Nakaoka H , Fukui K , Gamo K , Tominari Y et al. (2020) The auxin‐inducible degron 2 technology provides sharp degradation control in yeast, mammalian cells, and mice. Nat Commun 11 , 5701.33177522 126 Clift D , McEwan WA , Labzin LI , Konieczny V , Mogessie B , James LC and Schuh M (2017) A method for the Acute and rapid degradation of endogenous proteins. Cell 171 , 1692–1706.e18.29153837 127 Gross GG , Straub C , Perez‐Sanchez J , Dempsey WP , Junge JA , Roberts RW , Trinh LA , Fraser SE , de Koninck Y , de Koninck P et al. (2016) An E3‐ligase‐based method for ablating inhibitory synapses. Nat Methods 13 , 673–678.27271196 128 Anzalone AV , Koblan LW and Liu DR (2020) Genome editing with CRISPR–Cas nucleases, base editors, transposases and prime editors. Nat Biotechnol 38 , 824–844.32572269 129 Abudayyeh OO , Gootenberg JS , Essletzbichler P , Han S , Joung J , Belanto JJ , Verdine V , Cox DBT , Kellner MJ , Regev A et al. (2017) RNA targeting with CRISPR–Cas13. Nature 550 , 280–284.28976959 130 Özcan A , Krajeski R , Ioannidi E , Lee B , Gardner A , Makarova KS , Koonin EV , Abudayyeh OO and Gootenberg JS (2021) Programmable RNA targeting with the single‐protein CRISPR effector Cas7‐11. Nature 597 , 720–725.34489594 131 Konermann S , Lotfy P , Brideau NJ , Oki J , Shokhirev MN and Hsu PD (2018) Transcriptome engineering with RNA‐targeting type VI‐D CRISPR effectors. Cell 173 , 665–676.e14.29551272 132 Adli M (2018) The CRISPR tool kit for genome editing and beyond. Nat Commun 9 , 1911.29765029