Commentary :
As
undergraduates, science students receive the educational foundation required
for their future STEM careers. They build their knowledge base of basic science
concepts, as well as learn hands-on skills that will help them in their future
fields [1,2]. Often, this education is transmitted through lectures and
teaching labs, where students play a passive role. However, undergraduate research
experiences can serve as a more enriching alternative to such methods by
combining biological concepts with laboratory skills in the context of novel
scientific discovery [1,3]. Due to this, many undergraduate courses are
incorporating discovery-based research into their curricula. Such
classroom undergraduate research experiences, or Course-Based Undergraduate
Research Experience (CUREs), expose groups of students to research in the
classroom. This approach to an undergraduate research experience benefits more
people than selective internships, allowing the research community to become more
inclusive and diverse [1,2]. In addition, implementing CUREs in introductory
courses exposes students to research earlier than summer internships, which
typically take place later in their college careers [1]. As a result, CUREs can
heavily influence students academic interests, and a good CURE experience can
result in increased retention rates in STEM majors and careers [1,3,4]. During
a CURE, students use basic science practices to complete novel, relevant, collaborative
research, which the student is required to present in some form at the end of
the course [1]. This creates a learning experience that does not only impart
knowledge, but also teaches students important scientific skills like asking
impactful questions, forming hypotheses, gathering and analyzing data, and
drawing conclusions from their work [1,3]. In addition, students also gain an
aptitude for problem solving and independent work, equipping them well for
future endeavors whether they choose a scientific career, or not [3]. Though
CUREs are rigid in the components they should contain, they are flexible when
it comes to the research included within their framework [1]. This allows
instructors to customize CUREs to reflect their own research, 3 maximize impact
on both the students as well as the scientific community, and include the use
of cutting-edge technologies, such as CRISPR/Cas9 gene-editing. As
CRISPR methods have developed over the past few years, it becomes apparent that
CRISPR has the potential to revolutionize science education [5]. The simplicity
of the CRISPR system lends itself particularly well to undergraduate research
experiences, allowing students possessing only basic laboratory skills to
participate in CUREs [4,6]. Additionally, CRISPR can be used on a variety of
model systems [4,6-10] which allows institutions to develop CRISPR-based labs
around the model systems and resources already present, rather invest in
specific systems tailored to less inclusive technologies. Likewise, CRISPR has
a wide range of research applications, permitting its use to fold seamlessly
into whatever research is already occurring at an institution, as well as
allowing students to customize their projects to fit their interests [4,8]. In
recent years, the many benefits of CRISPR have led to its integration in undergraduate
classrooms. Specifically, classes in microbiology and genetics seem to benefit
the most from the use of this technology, as it imparts a skill set conducive
to both fields [6-10]. Current CRISPR based CUREs tend to follow one of two
general approaches, either exploring the in vivo implications of CRISPR as an
adaptive immune system in bacteria, or examining the downstream applications of
CRISPR as a genome-editing technique [6-10]. The former approach is
demonstrated in multiple published CUREs implemented by the State University of
New York at Geneseo as well as the Université Laval in Quèbec, Canada. Both
programs focus on the presence of CRISPR in the context of microbiology, aiming
to teach students about bacterial immunity and microbiology lab techniques [6,9,10].
In the Geneseo program, students were tasked with identifying CRISPR loci in
previously uncharacterized field strains of E.
coli [10]. Similarly, the CURE presented by the Université Laval involves
the selection of S. thermophilus strains
4 with CRISPR-immunity based on their survival of a challenge with a lytic
phage [6,9]. Both courses teach culturing techniques, DNA isolation and
purification, PCR, and bioinformatics, as well as general scientific techniques
like writing lab reports and communicating science [6,9,10]. Similar techniques
are also present in genetics-focused CRISPR CUREs. Programs implemented by the
University of Alabama at Birmingham and the University of New Mexico allowed students
to create specific mutations in zebra fish and Drosophila model systems. These programs
required students to execute a CRISPR protocol from the selection of the
desired mutation, to the assembly of required CRISPR reagents, to the screening
of injected organisms for desired phenotypes [7,8]. The Alabama program is
particularly notable for its promotion of faculty-student collaboration, as the
genes edited by students were all of interest to active research at their
institution [8]. Another
benefit of utilizing CRISPR in undergraduate research is the bevy of ethical implications
unearthed by its use in scientific experimentation. Because CRISPR allows scientists
to manipulate the genome of various organisms, including human embryos, many concerns
have been raised about how CRISPR should be regulated and where gene editing crosses
the line between groundbreaking and pernicious [4]. Undergraduate researchers
can learn a great deal from this debate, both about the implications of the
CRISPR system, as well as how to deal with the implications of their own work
in the future. CRISPR
is an excellent technique to include in CURES teaching microbiology, evolutionary
biology, molecular biology, and genetics. Students who participate in these CRISPR-based
CURES report a great satisfaction with the immersive style of teaching as well
as the ability to use cutting-edge technology in their work [8,10].
Particularly, students surveyed mentioned the potential impact of their work as
a powerful motivating factor for their interest in 5 the class, as well as the
research they were conducting [8]. The use of CRISPR in the classroom can nurture
scientific interest among students, as the possible research implications of
genome editing are vast and untapped. The development of CRISPR methods has,
and will continue to enhance undergraduate science education by integrating a
revolutionary scientific technique into the early stages of students careers [9]. 1.
Auchincloss
LC, Laursen SL, Branchaw JL, Eagan K, Graham M, et al. Assessment of
Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experiences: A Meeting Report (2014) CBE
Life Sci Educ 13: 29-40. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-01-0004 2.
Dolan
EL. Course-based undergraduate research experiences: Current knowledge and
future directions. Washington DC (2016) National Res Council 14: 1-13. 3.
Petrella
JK and Jung AP. Undergraduate Research: Importance, Benefits, and Challenges
(2008) Int J Exerc Sci 1: 91-95. 4.
Dahlberg
L and Groat Carmona AM. CRISPR-Cas Technology In and Out of the Classroom
(2018) CRISPR J 1: 107-114. https://doi.org/10.1089/crispr.2018.0007 5.
Thurtle-Schmidt
DM and Lo T-W. Molecular biology at the cutting edge: A review on CRISPR/CAS9
gene editing for undergraduates (2018) Biochem Mol Biol Educ 46: 195-205. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.21108 6.
Trudel
L, Frenette M, Moineau S. CRISPR-Cas in the laboratory classroom (2017) Nature
Microbiol 2: 17018. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmicrobiol.2017.18 7.
Adame
V, Chapapas H, Cisneros M, Deaton C, Deichmann S, et al. An undergraduate
laboratory class using CRISPR/Cas9 technology to mutate drosophila genes (2016)
Biochem Mol Biol Educ 44: 263-275. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20950 8.
Bhatt
JM and Challa AK. First Year Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experience
(CURE) Using the CRISPR/Cas9 Genome Engineering Technology in Zebra fish (2018)
J Microbiol Biol Edu 19: 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v19i1.1245 9.
Hynes
AP, Lemay M-L, Trudel L, Deveau H, Frenette M, et al. Detecting natural
adaptation of the Streptococcus thermophilus CRISPR-Cas systems in research and
classroom settings (2017) Nat Protoc 12: 547-565. https://doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2016.186 10.
Militello
KT and Lazatin JC. Discovery of Escherichia coli CRISPR sequences in an
undergraduate laboratory (2017) Biochem Mol Biol Educ 45: 262-269. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.21025
Te-Wen
Lo, Department of Biology, Ithaca College, 953 Danby Road, Ithaca, NY 14850,
New York, USA, E-mail: twlo@ithaca.edu
Siniscalco
ER and Lo TW. CRISPR CUREs: Running with Molecular
Scissors in the Classroom (2018) Biochem Modern Appl 2: 1-2CRISPR CUREs: Running with Molecular Scissors in the Classroom
Emily R Siniscalco and Te-Wen Lo
Full-Text
Introduction
References
Corresponding author:
Citation:
STEM, CUREs, Genome, DNA Isolation, CRISPR
