2016
DOI: 10.1186/s13059-016-1012-2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluation of off-target and on-target scoring algorithms and integration into the guide RNA selection tool CRISPOR

Abstract: BackgroundThe success of the CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing technique depends on the choice of the guide RNA sequence, which is facilitated by various websites. Despite the importance and popularity of these algorithms, it is unclear to which extent their predictions are in agreement with actual measurements.ResultsWe conduct the first independent evaluation of CRISPR/Cas9 predictions. To this end, we collect data from eight SpCas9 off-target studies and compare them with the sites predicted by popular algorithms.… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

14
1,306
5
1

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1,445 publications
(1,371 citation statements)
references
References 54 publications
14
1,306
5
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The higher efficiency of the sgRNA2 compared to sgRNA1 could be explained by the difference in the targeted sequence. Nucleotide composition of the sgRNA can influence the efficiency of mutagenesis as showed by the CRISPOR program that evaluates the guide activity using prediction algorithms against seven available data sets (Haeussler et al ., 2016). sgRNA2 could be considered more efficient than sgRNA1 in 5 of the 7 algorithms used.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The higher efficiency of the sgRNA2 compared to sgRNA1 could be explained by the difference in the targeted sequence. Nucleotide composition of the sgRNA can influence the efficiency of mutagenesis as showed by the CRISPOR program that evaluates the guide activity using prediction algorithms against seven available data sets (Haeussler et al ., 2016). sgRNA2 could be considered more efficient than sgRNA1 in 5 of the 7 algorithms used.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A similar candidate target was suggested by three CRISPR designing tools (CRISPOR, CRISPR-P, and CRISPR-PLANT; Lei et al, 2014;Xie et al, 2014;Haeussler et al, 2016) and was selected for mutagenesis. A protospacer was designed using the ATTG_protospacer and AAAC_protospacer primers (Supplemental Table 3), and the annealed primers were cloned into pEn-Chimera according to Fauser et al (2014).…”
Section: Crispr Mutagenesismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Two guide RNA sequences were selected on exons 1 and 2 of the MuPAXX gene using the CRISPOR web tool (http://crispor.tefor.net/crispor.py). 24 gRNA-overlapping restriction enzyme (RE) diagnostic sites near the Cas9 cleavage site were selected to facilitate mutagenesis screening and subsequent mouse genotyping (Supplementary Figures S1A and B). Double-stranded DNA oligonucleotides corresponding to the selected guide RNA were cloned into the pX330-U6-Chimeric_BB-CBh-hSpCas9 vector (the generous gift of Feng Zhang, Addgene, Cambridge MA, USA, #42230) according to Zhang lab's recommendations.…”
Section: Paxxmentioning
confidence: 99%