Cited by 54CRISPR and Genetic EngineeringRNA regulation and diseaseVirus-based gene therapy research

Genome-wide detection of CRISPR editing in vivo using GUIDE-tag

Open access
Liang, Shun-Qing, Liu, Pengpeng, Smith, Jordan L., Mintzer, Esther, Maitland, Stacy, Dong, Xiaolong, Yang, Qiyuan, Lee, Jonathan +6 more·2022·Nature Communications

Abstract

Analysis of off-target editing is an important aspect of the development of safe nuclease-based genome editing therapeutics. in vivo assessment of nuclease off-target activity has primarily been indirect (based on discovery in vitro, in cells or via computational prediction) or through ChIP-based detection of double-strand break (DSB) DNA repair factors, which can be cumbersome. Herein we describe GUIDE-tag, which enables one-step, off-target genome editing analysis in mouse liver and lung. The GUIDE-tag system utilizes tethering between the Cas9 nuclease and the DNA donor to increase the capture rate of nuclease-mediated DSBs and UMI incorporation via Tn5 tagmentation to avoid PCR bias. These components can be delivered as SpyCas9-mSA ribonucleoprotein complexes and biotin-dsDNA donor for in vivo editing analysis. GUIDE-tag enables detection of off-target sites where editing rates are ≥ 0.2%. UDiTaS analysis utilizing the same tagmented genomic DNA detects low frequency translocation events with off-target sites and large deletions in vivo. The SpyCas9-mSA and biotin-dsDNA system provides a method to capture DSB loci in vivo in a variety of tissues with a workflow that is amenable to analysis of gross genomic alterations that are associated with 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/s41467-022-28135-9

Cites

81 of 81 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?

  • GUIDE-tag was derived from GUIDE-seq but with an improved dsODN capture system to increase the discovery rate of DSBs.

    “GUIDE-tag was derived from GUIDE-seq but with an improved dsODN capture system to increase the discovery rate of DSBs (Liang et al., 2022).”

    From Off-target effects in CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing (2023) · cites this paper as Liang et al., 2022

    The Results section, “One step quantification of on-target insertion and genome-wide off-target sites in vivo” (page unavailable), links GUIDE-tag to GUIDE-seq’s DNA-tagging approach. The Results section, “Examining alternate forms of biotinylated donors for GUIDE-tag analysis” (page unavailable), reports only a modest increase in synthetic donor integration in mice and higher integration for an internally biotinylated dsODN in cell culture. These passages support improved tag capture in some conditions, but do not establish an increased DSB discovery rate relative to GUIDE-seq. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Among the 26 off-target sites originally detected by Discover-seq, GUIDE-tag successfully captures 24, and GUIDE-tag uncovers 16 new off-target sites that were not discovered by Discover-seq.

    “Among the 26 off-target sites that were originally detected by Discover-seq, GUIDE-tag successfully captures 24. In addition, GUIDE-tag uncovers 16 new off-target sites that were not discovered by Discover-seq (Liang et al., 2022).”

    From Off-target effects in CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing (2023) · cites this paper as Liang et al., 2022

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
Liang, S.-Q., Liu, P., Smith, J. L., Mintzer, E., Maitland, S., Dong, X., Yang, Q., Lee, J., Haynes, C. M., Zhu, L. J., Watts, J. K., Sontheimer, E. J., Wolfe, S. A., & Xue, W.
Affiliations
University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School (US)
Corresponding author
  • Wolfe, Scot A.
  • Xue, Wen
Venue
Nature Communications
Published
2022-01-21
Volume
13
Issue
1
Pages
437-437
ISSN
2041-1723 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4206225117
Cited by
54
References
81
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 5
FWCI
3.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Communications (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)
Funders
American Cancer Society (129056-RSG-16-093)
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 › Genetics › Virus-based gene therapy research
Keywords
in vivo gene editing, Cas9 nuclease, unique molecular identifiers, translocation, large deletions, mouse liver, mouse lung
MeSH terms
Gene Editing, CRISPR-Associated Protein 9, RNA, Guide, CRISPR-Cas Systems, Animals, Base Sequence, Biotin, DNA, Liver, Lung, Ribonucleoproteins, Genome, Genes, Reporter, Biotinylation, Cell Line, Tumor, Mice, 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