Cited by 1,168CRISPR and Genetic EngineeringRNA regulation and diseaseDNA and Nucleic Acid Chemistry

Enhanced proofreading governs CRISPR-Cas9 targeting accuracy

Open access
Chen, Janice S., Dagdas, Yavuz S., Kleinstiver, Benjamin P., Welch, Moira M., Sousa, Alexander A., Harrington, Lucas B., Sternberg, Samuel H., Joung, J. Keith +2 more·2017·Nature

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

The RNA-guided CRISPR-Cas9 nuclease from Streptococcus pyogenes (SpCas9) has been widely repurposed for genome editing. High-fidelity (SpCas9-HF1) and enhanced specificity (eSpCas9(1.1)) variants exhibit substantially reduced off-target cleavage in human cells, but the mechanism of target discrimination and the potential to further improve fidelity are unknown. Here, using single-molecule Förster resonance energy transfer experiments, we show that both SpCas9-HF1 and eSpCas9(1.1) are trapped in an inactive state when bound to mismatched targets. We find that a non-catalytic domain within Cas9, REC3, recognizes target complementarity and governs the HNH nuclease to regulate overall catalytic competence. Exploiting this observation, we design a new hyper-accurate Cas9 variant (HypaCas9) that demonstrates high genome-wide specificity without compromising on-target activity in human cells. These results offer a more comprehensive model to rationalize and modify the balance between target recognition and nuclease activation for precision genome editing.

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 · 10.1038/nature24268

Cites

29 of 29 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?

  • Among the 134 off-target sites of one sgRNA targeting VEGFA with SpCas9, only 19, 24, and 18 of the off-target sites are also detectable with eSpCas9, SpCas9-HF1 and hypaCas9, respectively.

    “For example, among the 134 off-target sites of one sgRNA targeting VEGFA with SpCas9, only 19, 24, and 18 of the off-target sites are also detectable with eSpCas9, SpCas9-HF1 and hypaCas9, respectively (Chen et al., 2017).”

    From Off-target effects in CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing (2023) · cites this paper as Chen et al., 2017

    The paper’s genome-wide specificity passage (indexed under Abstract; page not provided) reports GUIDE-seq comparisons for VEGFA-targeting sgRNAs and improved specificity for the variants relative to wild-type SpCas9. The Extended Data Figure 9 caption describes off-target profiles, but our copy does not state the claimed counts of 134, 19, 24, and 18 or establish that those sites overlap. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • hypaCas9 demonstrates higher on-target activity and lower off-target effects than eSpCas9 and SpCas9-HF1.

    “Accordingly, scientists further designed hypaCas9 (hyper-accurate Cas9) (Chen et al., 2017), which demonstrates higher on-target activity and lower off-target effects than eSpCas9 and SpCas9-HF1 (Kleinstiver et al., 2016; Slaymaker et al., 2016; Chen et al., 2017).”

    From Off-target effects in CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing (2023) · cites this paper as Chen et al., 2017

    The GUIDE-seq passage (section labeled Abstract; page not provided) reports comparable on-target editing efficiencies among HypaCas9, eSpCas9(1.1), and SpCas9-HF1—not higher activity for HypaCas9. It reports equivalent or better genome-wide specificity for HypaCas9, which supports a possible reduction in off-target effects but not a reduction relative to both variants for every sgRNA examined. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • eSpCas9, SpCas9-HF1 and hypaCas9 maintained high on-target activity (>70% of wildtype SpCas9) at 23/24, 18/24, and 19/24 tested sites, respectively.

    “Janice S et al. shows that eSpCas9, SpCas9-HF1 and hypaCas9 maintained high on-target activity (>70% of wildtype SpCas9) at 23/24, 18/24, and 19/24 tested sites, respectively.”

    From Off-target effects in CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing (2023) · cites this paper as Chen et al., 2017

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. [30]Lin Y CRISPR/Cas9 systems have off-target activity with insertions or deletions between target DNA and guide RNA sequences Nucleic Acids Res 42 7473 7485 2014 24838573 PMC4066799

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chen, J. S., Dagdas, Y. S., Kleinstiver, B. P., Welch, M. M., Sousa, A. A., Harrington, L. B., Sternberg, S. H., Joung, J. K., Yildiz, A., & Doudna, J. A.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Massachusetts General Hospital (US)
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Doudna, Jennifer A.
Venue
Nature
Published
2017-09-20
Volume
550
Issue
7676
Pages
407-410
ISSN
  • 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-4687
OpenAlex
W2726053863
Cited by
1,168
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 72 · 2025: 123 · 2024: 100 · 2023: 93 · 2022: 156 · 2021: 154 · 2020: 174 · 2019: 141 · 2018: 130 · 2017: 23
FWCI
52.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature (publishedVersion)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1244557, 1617028)
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute
  • Charles A. King Trust
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
  • National Human Genome Research Institute (RM1HG009490)
  • National Cancer Institute (K99CA218870)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM118773, R35GM118158, R01GM094522)
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
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › DNA and Nucleic Acid Chemistry
Keywords
CRISPR/Cas9, SpCas9, off-target editing, genome editing specificity, HNH nuclease, nuclease activation, Streptococcus pyogenes
MeSH terms
Protein Domains, Gene Editing, Biotechnology, Endonucleases, Enzyme Activation, Humans, Streptococcus pyogenes, Substrate Specificity, Genetic Variation, Mutagenesis, CRISPR-Cas Systems, CRISPR-Associated Proteins

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