Sign in

Abstract

CRISPR gene editing holds great promise to modify somatic genomes to ameliorate disease. In silico prediction of homologous sites coupled with biochemical evaluation of possible genomic off-targets may predict genotoxicity risk of individual gene editing reagents. However, standard computational and biochemical methods focus on reference genomes and do not consider the impact of genetic diversity on off-target potential. Here we developed a web application called CRISPRme that explicitly and efficiently integrates human genetic variant datasets with orthogonal genomic annotations to nominate and prioritize off-target sites at scale. The method considers both single-nucleotide variants (SNVs) and indels, accounts for bona fide haplotypes, accepts spacer:protospacer mismatches and bulges, and is suitable for personal genome analyses. We tested the tool with a guide RNA (gRNA) targeting the BCL11A erythroid enhancer that has shown therapeutic promise in clinical trials for sickle cell disease (SCD) and {beta}-thalassemia1. We find that the top candidate off-target site is produced by a non-reference allele common in African-ancestry populations (rs114518452, minor allele frequency (MAF)=4.5%) that introduces a protospacer adjacent motif (PAM) for SpCas9. We validate that SpCas9 generates indels ([~]9.6% frequency) and chr2 pericentric inversions in a strictly allele-specific manner in edited CD34+ hematopoietic stem/progenitor cells (HSPCs), although a high-fidelity Cas9 variant mitigates this off-target. The CRISPRme tool highlights alternative allele-specific off-target editing as a prevalent risk of gRNAs considered for therapeutic gene editing. Our report illustrates how population and private genetic variants should be considered as modifiers of genome editing outcomes. We suggest that variant-aware off-target assessment should be considered in therapeutic genome editing efforts going forward and provide a powerful approach for comprehensive off-target nomination.

PDFDOI

02 /Specification & Classification

Click any tag to browse matching papers
Citations
124
FWCI
7.43
Field percentile
top 1%

Reproducibility ledger

Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.

Sign in to file a reproducibility report.