Cited by 2,268CRISPR and Genetic EngineeringRNA regulation and diseaseRNA Interference and Gene Delivery

GUIDE-seq enables genome-wide profiling of off-target cleavage by CRISPR-Cas nucleases

Open access
Tsai, Shengdar Q, Zheng, Zongli, Nguyen, Nhu T, Liebers, Matthew, Topkar, Ved V, Thapar, Vishal, Wyvekens, Nicolas, Khayter, Cyd +4 more·2015·Nature Biotechnology

Abstract

CRISPR RNA-guided nucleases (RGNs) are widely used genome-editing reagents, but methods to delineate their genome-wide, off-target cleavage activities have been lacking. Here we describe an approach for global detection of DNA double-stranded breaks (DSBs) introduced by RGNs and potentially other nucleases. This method, called genome-wide, unbiased identification of DSBs enabled by sequencing (GUIDE-seq), relies on capture of double-stranded oligodeoxynucleotides into DSBs. Application of GUIDE-seq to 13 RGNs in two human cell lines revealed wide variability in RGN off-target activities and unappreciated characteristics of off-target sequences. The majority of identified sites were not detected by existing computational methods or chromatin immunoprecipitation sequencing (ChIP-seq). GUIDE-seq also identified RGN-independent genomic breakpoint 'hotspots'. Finally, GUIDE-seq revealed that truncated guide RNAs exhibit substantially reduced RGN-induced, off-target DSBs. Our experiments define the most rigorous framework for genome-wide identification of RGN off-target effects to date and provide a method for evaluating the safety of these nucleases before clinical use.

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/nbt.3117

Cites

39 of 39 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?

  • A primary limitation of GUIDE-seq is the low delivery efficiency of dsODNs into cells, resulting in detection of only 30%-50% of all DSBs.

    “A primary limitation of GUIDE-seq is relevant to the low delivery efficiency of dsODNs into cells, which results in detection of only 30%–50% of all the DSBs (Tsai et al., 2015; Pan et al., 2022).”

    From Off-target effects in CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing (2023) · cites this paper as Tsai et al., 2015

    The Results (Overview of the GUIDE-Seq method; page unavailable) report robust dsODN integration, at rates two- to three-fold lower than indel frequencies at the tested sites—not detection of 30%–50% of all DSBs. The Discussion (page unavailable) describes dsODN integration as very efficient and reports detection of 38 of 40 previously identified off-target sites, contrary to the claimed primary limitation. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • GUIDE-seq off-target profiling of AsCas12a-crRNA+11 in HEK293/3272-26A>G cells showed exclusive editing of the 3272-26A>G CFTR locus, with no detectable non-specific cleavages in the second allele or any other genomic loci.

    “Off-target profiling of AsCas12a-crRNA+11 genome editing in HEK293/3272-26A>G cells18,42 showed very high specificity, as demonstrated by exclusive editing of the 3272-26A>G CFTR locus, while non-specific cleavages in the second allele, or any other genomic loci, could not be detected (Fig. 2c and Supplementary Fig. 4c).”

    From Allele specific repair of splicing mutations in cystic fibrosis through AsCas12a genome editing (2019) · cites this paper as [42]

    The Discussion identifies GUIDE-seq as a method for assessing genome-wide off-target effects, supporting the method attribution. But the paper does not report profiling AsCas12a-crRNA+11 in HEK293/3272-26A>G cells or the claimed exclusive CFTR editing and absence of detectable cleavage elsewhere; its reported experiments concern other guide RNAs. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • It defines off-target effects as cleavage at guide-mismatched sites and says they should be minimized for therapeutic editing.

    “While cleavage at sites with perfect complementarity to the protospacer domain of the gRNA typically occurs with highest efficiency, cleavage at sites having one to several bases of mismatch with the gRNA can occur. These undesired cleavage events are called “off-target effects” (OTEs)10, and their existence should be minimized for therapeutic applications of genome editing technologies.”
  • It describes GUIDE-seq as a method for empirically finding actual off-target sites in cells.

    “The GUIDE-seq procedure10 can be used to empirically identify real off-target sites in cells.”
  • GUIDE-seq can detect off-target sites with indel frequencies as low as 0.03%.

    “GUIDE-seq can detect off-target sites with indel frequencies as low as 0.03% (Tsai et al., 2015).”

    From Off-target effects in CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing (2023) · cites this paper as Tsai et al., 2015

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tsai, S. Q., Zheng, Z., Nguyen, N. T., Liebers, M., Topkar, V. V., Thapar, V., Wyvekens, N., Khayter, C., Iafrate, A. J., Le, L. P., Aryee, M. J., & Joung, J. K.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Massachusetts General Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
  • Tsai, Shengdar Q
  • Joung, J Keith
Venue
Nature Biotechnology
Published
2014-12-16
Volume
33
Issue
2
Pages
187-197
ISSN
  • 0733-222X (ISSN-L)
  • 1087-0156
  • 1546-1696
OpenAlex
W2003797386
Cited by
2,268
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 189 · 2025: 211 · 2024: 196 · 2023: 191 · 2022: 208 · 2021: 211 · 2020: 231 · 2019: 186 · 2018: 187 · 2017: 177 · 2016: 172 · 2015: 105 · 2014: 1
FWCI
62.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Biotechnology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (DP1GM105378, R01GM088040, F32GM105189)
  • National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (R01AR063070)
  • National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (DP1 GM105378)
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 › RNA Interference and Gene Delivery
Keywords
GUIDE-seq, CRISPR-Cas nucleases, off-target cleavage, DNA double-strand breaks, genome-wide characterization, genome editing safety
MeSH terms
RNA, Guide, CRISPR-Cas Systems, Cell Line, Humans, Oligodeoxyribonucleotides, Genome, Human, RNA Editing, DNA Breaks, Double-Stranded, High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing, 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