Cited by 465DNA Repair MechanismsGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalitiesCRISPR and Genetic Engineering

Nucleotide-resolution DNA double-strand break mapping by next-generation sequencing

Open access
Crosetto, Nicola, Mitra, Abhishek, Silva, Maria Joao, Bienko, Magda, Dojer, Norbert, Wang, Qi, Karaca, Elif, Chiarle, Roberto +5 more·2013·Nature Methods

Abstract

We present a genome-wide approach to map DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) at nucleotide resolution by a method we termed BLESS (direct in situ breaks labeling, enrichment on streptavidin and next-generation sequencing). We validated and tested BLESS using human and mouse cells and different DSBs-inducing agents and sequencing platforms. BLESS was able to detect telomere ends, Sce endonuclease-induced DSBs and complex genome-wide DSB landscapes. As a proof of principle, we characterized the genomic landscape of sensitivity to replication stress in human cells, and we identified >2,000 nonuniformly distributed aphidicolin-sensitive regions (ASRs) overrepresented in genes and enriched in satellite repeats. ASRs were also enriched in regions rearranged in human cancers, with many cancer-associated genes exhibiting high sensitivity to replication stress. Our method is suitable for genome-wide mapping of DSBs in various cells and experimental conditions, with a specificity and resolution unachievable by current techniques.

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/nmeth.2408

Cites

41 of 41 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?

  • BLESS demonstrates a false positive rate lower than 1%.

    “BLESS demonstrates a false positive rate lower than 1% (Crosetto et al., 2013; Yan et al., 2017; Kim et al., 2019), validating the accuracy of this method.”

    From Off-target effects in CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing (2023) · cites this paper as Crosetto et al., 2013

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
Crosetto, N., Mitra, A., Silva, M. J., Bienko, M., Dojer, N., Wang, Q., Karaca, E., Chiarle, R., Skrzypczak, M., Ginalski, K., Pasero, P., Rowicka, M., & Dikic, I.
Affiliations
  • Goethe University Frankfurt (DE)
  • The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston (US)
  • Boston Children's Hospital (US)
  • University of Warsaw (PL)
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
Corresponding author
  • Crosetto, Nicola
  • Rowicka, Maga
Venue
Nature Methods
Published
2013-03-17
Volume
10
Issue
4
Pages
361-365
ISSN
  • 1548-7091 (ISSN-L)
  • 1548-7105
OpenAlex
W2095950258
Cited by
465
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 39 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 45 · 2020: 66 · 2019: 52 · 2018: 35 · 2017: 53 · 2016: 47 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 3
FWCI
12.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Methods (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • Institutional Research Information System University of Turin (University of Turin) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1TR000071)
  • National Center for Research Resources (UL1RR029876)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Topics
  • 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
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › CRISPR and Genetic Engineering
Keywords
DNA double-strand breaks, telomeres, replication stress, satellite repeats, cancer genes
MeSH terms
Animals, Base Sequence, Cloning, Molecular, DNA Replication, Fibroblasts, Humans, Male, Mice, Inbred C57BL, Spleen, Testis, Virus Replication, Aphidicolin, Sequence Analysis, DNA, Microsatellite Repeats, Physical Chromosome Mapping, Nucleic Acid Amplification Techniques, Genomics, Cell Line, Tumor, Mice, DNA Breaks, Double-Stranded

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