Cited by 42CRISPR and Genetic EngineeringRNA regulation and diseaseCAR-T cell therapy research

Comparative analysis of CRISPR off-target discovery tools following ex vivo editing of CD34(+) hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells

Open access
Cromer, M. Kyle, Majeti, Kiran R., Rettig, Garrett R., Murugan, Karthik, Kurgan, Gavin L., Bode, Nicole M., Hampton, Jessica P., Vakulskas, Christopher A. +2 more·2023·Molecular Therapy

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

While a number of methods exist to investigate CRISPR off-target (OT) editing, few have been compared head-to-head in primary cells after clinically relevant editing processes. Therefore, we compared in silico tools (COSMID, CCTop, and Cas-OFFinder) and empirical methods (CHANGE-Seq, CIRCLE-Seq, DISCOVER-Seq, GUIDE-Seq, and SITE-Seq) after ex vivo hematopoietic stem and progenitor cell (HSPC) editing. We performed editing using 11 different gRNAs complexed with Cas9 protein (high-fidelity [HiFi] or wild-type versions), then performed targeted next-generation sequencing of nominated OT sites identified by in silico and empirical methods. We identified an average of less than one OT site per guide RNA (gRNA) and all OT sites generated using HiFi Cas9 and a 20-nt gRNA were identified by all OT detection methods with the exception of SITE-seq. This resulted in high sensitivity for the majority of OT nomination tools and COSMID, DISCOVER-Seq, and GUIDE-Seq attained the highest positive predictive value (PPV). We found that empirical methods did not identify OT sites that were not also identified by bioinformatic methods. This study supports that refined bioinformatic algorithms could be developed that maintain both high sensitivity and PPV, thereby enabling more efficient identification of potential OT sites without compromising a thorough examination for any given gRNA.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ymthe.2023.02.011

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • GUIDE-seq is more sensitive than the IDLV method because dsODNs integrate more efficiently and precisely into DSBs, while IDLV integration events are low in number and can distribute as far as 500 bp away from the actual DSB sites.

    “GUIDE-seq is more sensitive than the IDLV method because dsODNs integrate more efficiently and precisely into DSBs, while the integration events of IDLV is low in number and can distribute as far as 500bp away from the actual DSB sites (Tsai et al., 2015; Cromer et al., 2023).”

    From Off-target effects in CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing (2023) · cites this paper as Cromer et al., 2023

    The Figure 2 discussion (p. 9) identifies GUIDE-Seq as one of the empirical methods with the highest sensitivity and positive predictive value. It does not compare GUIDE-Seq with IDLV or support the proposed explanation about dsODN integration efficiency, low IDLV integration counts, or events up to 500 bp from a break; searches for IDLV and those integration details found no relevant passage. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Discover-seq is broadly applicable for various types of tissue or cell samples.

    “Because good ChIP-grade MRE11 antibodies are available and there is no need to deliver any exogenous components to the body, Discover-seq is broadly applicable for various types of tissue or cell samples (Wienert et al., 2019; Cromer et al., 2023).”

    From Off-target effects in CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing (2023) · cites this paper as Cromer et al., 2023

    The paper compares DISCOVER-Seq with other off-target discovery methods following ex vivo editing of primary CD34+ hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells (opening summary, p. 2). That supports its use in this cell type, but the cited paper does not establish broad applicability across various tissue or cell samples or give the stated antibody and exogenous-component rationale. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [5]5. [Shrivastav, M., de Haro, L.P., and Nickoloff, J.A. (2008). Regulation of DNA doublestrand break repair pathway choice. Cell Res. 18 , 134 -147.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1525-0016(23)00074-6/sref5)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cromer, M. K., Majeti, K. R., Rettig, G. R., Murugan, K., Kurgan, G. L., Bode, N. M., Hampton, J. P., Vakulskas, C. A., Behlke, M. A., & Porteus, M. H.
Affiliations
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • Stanford Medicine (US)
  • Integrated DNA Technologies (United States) (US)
Venue
Molecular Therapy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-04
Volume
31
Issue
4
Pages
1074-1087
ISSN
1525-0016 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4320921285
Cited by
42
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 1
FWCI
3.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Molecular Therapy (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • U.S. Food and Drug Administration (U01FD005978)
  • Stanford University
  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
  • Government of South Australia
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › CRISPR and Genetic Engineering
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › RNA regulation and disease
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › CAR-T cell therapy research
Keywords
hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells, ex vivo gene editing, guide RNA, cosmids, GUIDE-seq, CIRCLE-seq, positive predictive value
MeSH terms
Gene Editing, CRISPR-Associated Protein 9, RNA, Guide, CRISPR-Cas Systems, Hematopoietic Stem Cells, Antigens, CD34, CRISPR-Cas Systems

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review