Cited by 816CRISPR and Genetic EngineeringRNA regulation and diseaseCAR-T cell therapy research

CIRCLE-Seq: A highly sensitive in vitro screen for genome-wide CRISPR-cas9 nuclease off-targets

Open access
Tsai, Shengdar Q, Nguyen, Nhu T, Malagon-Lopez, Jose, Topkar, Ved V, Aryee, Martin J, Joung, J Keith·2017·Nature Methods

Abstract

Sensitive detection of off-target effects is important for translating CRISPR-Cas9 nucleases into human therapeutics. In vitro biochemical methods for finding off-targets offer the potential advantages of greater reproducibility and scalability while avoiding limitations associated with strategies that require the culture and manipulation of living cells. Here we describe circularization for in vitro reporting of cleavage effects by sequencing (CIRCLE-seq), a highly sensitive, sequencing-efficient in vitro screening strategy that outperforms existing cell-based or biochemical approaches for identifying CRISPR-Cas9 genome-wide off-target mutations. In contrast to previously described in vitro methods, we show that CIRCLE-seq can be practiced using widely accessible next-generation sequencing technology and does not require reference genome sequences. Importantly, CIRCLE-seq can be used to identify off-target mutations associated with cell-type-specific single-nucleotide polymorphisms, demonstrating the feasibility and importance of generating personalized specificity profiles. CIRCLE-seq provides an accessible, rapid, and comprehensive method for identifying genome-wide off-target mutations of CRISPR-Cas9.

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.4278

Cites

45 of 45 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?

  • The false positive rate of CIRCLE-seq is still high and needs careful downstream validation by targeted sequencing.

    “However, the false positive rate of CIRCLE-seq is still high and needs careful downstream validation by targeted sequencing (Tsai et al., 2017).”

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

    The Discussion recommends using CIRCLE-seq as an initial screen and verifying potential off-target sites with an orthogonal approach; it also describes targeted sequencing used for validation. But it says the true false-positive rate is challenging to estimate, not that it is high. The provided copy gives no page number for these passages. (LLM, conf=0.89)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • CIRCLE-seq can detect genome-wide off-target sites without performing WGS.

    “CIRCLE-seq is another method that can detect genome-wide off-target sites without performing WGS.”

    From Off-target effects in CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing (2023) · cites this paper as Tsai 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. [25]Bolukbasi MF Gupta A Wolfe SA Creating and evaluating accurate CRISPR-Cas9 scalpels for genomic surgery Nat Meth 13 41 50 2015 26716561

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tsai, S. Q., Nguyen, N. T., Malagon-Lopez, J., Topkar, V. V., Aryee, M. J., & Joung, J. K.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Massachusetts General Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
  • Tsai, Shengdar Q
  • Joung, J Keith
Venue
Nature Methods
Published
2017-05-01
Volume
14
Issue
6
Pages
607-614
ISSN
  • 1548-7091 (ISSN-L)
  • 1548-7105
OpenAlex
W2611661371
Cited by
814
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 82 · 2025: 84 · 2024: 82 · 2023: 91 · 2022: 86 · 2021: 96 · 2020: 117 · 2019: 77 · 2018: 69 · 2017: 29
FWCI
32.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
erratum (2018-05-01)
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)
Funders
National Institute of General Medical Sciences (DP1GM105378, R35GM118158, R01GM107427)
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
CIRCLE-seq, CRISPR/Cas9, off-target effects, circularization, single nucleotide polymorphisms
MeSH terms
Chromosome Mapping, Deoxyribonucleases, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results, Genome, Sequence Analysis, DNA, High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing, Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats, 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