UNCOVERseq Enables Sensitive and Controlled Gene Editing Off-Target Nomination Across CRISPR-Cas Modalities and Systems
Kyle J. KinneyiD, Kun JiaiD, He ZhangiD, Ellen SchmaljohniD, Thomas OsborneiD, Bernice Thommandru, Karthik MuruganiD, Andrea Sánchez PeñaiD, Sean C. WestiD, Shengyao CheniD, Roshani Codipilly, Morgan L. SturgeoniD, Rolf TurkiD, Matthew McNeilliD, Mark A. BehlkeiD, Ashley M. JacobiiD, M. Kyle CromeriD, Garrett R. RettigiD, Gavin KurganiD
Abstract
The rapid development of CRISPR-Cas gene editing technologies has revolutionized genetic medicine, offering unprecedented precision and potential for treating a wide array of genetic disorders. However, assessing the risks of unintended gene editing effects remains critical, and is complicated by new editing modalities and unclear analytical guidelines. We present UNCOVERseq (Unbiased Nomination of CRISPR Off-target Variants using Enhanced RhPCR), an improved in cellulo off-target nomination workflow designed to sensitively nominate off-target sites (<0.01% editing) with defined input requirements and analytical process controls to provide empirical performance evidence across diverse circumstances. Using this workflow, we nominated off-targets across 192 guide RNAs (gRNAs) and demonstrated superior performance compared to existing methodologies. We identified a subset of six gRNAs with a dynamic range of specificity and confirmed the relevance and high true positive rate of our nomination method, providing relative risk assessments for multiple modalities (S.p. Cas9 and derived high-fidelity variants / base editors) in a translational system involving hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells (HSPCs). Additionally, we established that double-strand break (DSB) editing retains a strong, positive rank correlation to single-strand break (SSB)-mediated base editing, highlighting the importance of DSB nomination sites as candidate loci for base editing. Overall, UNCOVERseq improves informed risk assessment of gene editing in translational systems by enhancing the quality of off-target nomination.
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papers- Citations
- 5
- FWCI
- 8.21
- Field percentile
- top 3%
- Organism
- Assay
- Research Focus
- Approach
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.
Related papers
- Unbiased detection of CRISPR off-targets in vivo using DISCOVER-Seq
Beeke Wienert, Stacia K. Wyman, … Jacob E. Corn·SciencePeer-reviewed·Apr 19, 2019
- DANGER analysis: Risk-averse on/off-target assessment for CRISPR editing without a reference genome
Kazuki Nakamae, Hidemasa U. Bono·Bioinformatics AdvancesPeer-reviewed·Jan 1, 2023
- RGEN-SEQ FOR HIGHLY SENSITIVE AMPLIFICATION-FREE SCREEN OF OFF-TARGET SITES OF GENE EDITORS
A. Kuzin, Brendan Redler, … Alexei I. Slesarev·Scientific ReportsPeer-reviewed·Dec 8, 2021
- Global-scale CRISPR gene editor specificity profiling by ONE-seq identifies population-specific, variant off-target effects
Karl Petri, Daniel Y. Kim, … Vikram Pattanayak·bioRxiv·Apr 5, 2021
- Comparative analysis of CRISPR off-target activity discovery tools following ex vivo editing of CD34+ hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells
M. Kyle Cromer, Kiran R. Majeti, … Matthew Hebden Porteus·Molecular TherapyPeer-reviewed·Feb 15, 2023
- Towards best-practice approaches for CRISPR/Cas9 gene engineering
Claude Van Campenhout, Pauline Cabochette, … Véronique Kruys·bioRxiv·Dec 4, 2018