Cited by 369CRISPR and Genetic EngineeringDNA Repair MechanismsGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities

BLISS is a versatile and quantitative method for genome-wide profiling of DNA double-strand breaks

Open access
Yan, Winston X., Mirzazadeh, Reza, Garnerone, Silvano, Scott, David, Schneider, Martin W., Kallas, Tomasz, Custodio, Joaquin, Wernersson, Erik +7 more·2017·Nature Communications

Abstract

Precisely measuring the location and frequency of DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) along the genome is instrumental to understanding genomic fragility, but current methods are limited in versatility, sensitivity or practicality. Here we present Breaks Labeling In Situ and Sequencing (BLISS), featuring the following: (1) direct labelling of DSBs in fixed cells or tissue sections on a solid surface; (2) low-input requirement by linear amplification of tagged DSBs by in vitro transcription; (3) quantification of DSBs through unique molecular identifiers; and (4) easy scalability and multiplexing. We apply BLISS to profile endogenous and exogenous DSBs in low-input samples of cancer cells, embryonic stem cells and liver tissue. We demonstrate the sensitivity of BLISS by assessing the genome-wide off-target activity of two CRISPR-associated RNA-guided endonucleases, Cas9 and Cpf1, observing that Cpf1 has higher specificity than Cas9. Our results establish BLISS as a versatile, sensitive and efficient method for genome-wide DSB mapping in many applications.

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/ncomms15058

Cites

27 of 27 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?

  • For the sgRNA targeting EMX1, BLESS uncovered 6 off-target sites, all of which are included in the 10 genuine off-target sites that BLISS discovered.

    “For the sgRNA targeting EMX1, BLESS uncovered 6 off-target sites, all of which are included in the 10 genuine off-target sites that BLISS discovered.”

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

    The Results section, ‘Profiling of Cas9 and Cpf1 specificity’ (page unavailable), says BLISS detected validated off-target sites for the EMX1 and VEGFA guides, including sites previously identified by BLESS, and found additional sites BLESS missed. Our copy does not state that BLESS found exactly six EMX1 off-target sites, that BLISS found exactly ten, or that all six BLESS sites were among them. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • For the sgRNA targeting VEGFA, BLISS identified 27 additional off-target sites that were not found by BLESS.

    “Similarly, for the sgRNA targeting VEGFA, besides the 16 off-target sites that were detected by both methods, BLISS identified 27 additional off-target sites that are not found by BLESS (Yan et al., 2017).”

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

    The Results section, “Profiling of Cas9 and Cpf1 specificity” (page unavailable), says BLISS found new off-target sites absent from BLESS when testing guides targeting VEGFA and EMX1. Our copy does not give the claimed count of 27 additional VEGFA sites or confirm the 16 sites shared by both methods. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • AAV delivery in vivo may cause accumulation of off-target mutations.

    “| Delivery methods improvement | Application in vivo [95–105] | AAV: Last for years in terminally differentiated cell types | May cause accumulation of off-target mutations |”

    From Off-target effects in CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing (2023) · cites this paper as [98]

    The Results section (‘Profiling of Cas9 and Cpf1 specificity’; page unavailable) reports validated off-target sites after Cas9 experiments in transfected cells. It does not establish that AAV delivery in vivo causes off-target mutations to accumulate; the cited passage concerns off-target DNA breaks, not that delivery method or time course. (LLM, conf=0.79)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Compared to BLESS, BLISS demands only a few thousand cells and demonstrates higher sensitivity.

    “Compared to BLESS, BLISS demands only a few thousand cells and demonstrates a higher sensitivity.”

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

  • BLISS ligates DSB ends with adapters containing the T7 promoter, so tagged DNA fragments can be linearly amplified via T7-mediated transcription before sequencing.

    “BLISS ligates DSB ends with adapters containing the T7 promoter, so the tagged DNA fragments can be linearly amplified via T7-mediated transcription before sequencing (Yan et al., 2017; Ballarino et al., 2021).”

    From Off-target effects in CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing (2023) · cites this paper as Yan 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yan, W. X., Mirzazadeh, R., Garnerone, S., Scott, D., Schneider, M. W., Kallas, T., Custodio, J., Wernersson, E., Li, Y., Gao, L., Federova, Y., Zetsche, B., Zhang, F., Bienko, M., & Crosetto, N.
Affiliations
  • Broad Institute (US)
  • Science for Life Laboratory (SE)
Corresponding author
  • Zhang, Feng
  • Bienko, Magda
  • Crosetto, Nicola
Venue
Nature Communications
Published
2017-05-12
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
15058-15058
ISSN
2041-1723 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2613056759
Cited by
369
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 38 · 2022: 48 · 2021: 52 · 2020: 68 · 2019: 45 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 16
FWCI
16.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Communications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Nature
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (T32GM007753)
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute
  • New York Stem Cell Foundation
  • Svenska Sällskapet för Medicinsk Forskning
  • Karolinska Institutet
  • Vetenskapsrådet (621-2014-5503, 521-2014-2866)
  • Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology
  • Science for Life Laboratory
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Mental Health (DP1MH100706, R01MH110049)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (T32GM007753)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › CRISPR and Genetic Engineering
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › DNA Repair Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities
Keywords
DNA double-strand breaks, unique molecular identifiers, Cas9, CRISPR/Cas12a, low-input sequencing, cancer cells, embryonic stem cells, liver tissue
MeSH terms
Mouse Embryonic Stem Cells, Animals, Cell Line, Gene Expression Regulation, Humans, Liver, Reproducibility of Results, Genomics, Cell Line, Tumor, Mice, DNA Breaks, Double-Stranded, Genome-Wide Association Study, HEK293 Cells, 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