Prediction of off-target activities for the end-to-end design of CRISPR guide RNAs
Open accessAbstract
The CRISPR-Cas9 system provides unprecedented genome editing capabilities. However, off-target effects lead to sub-optimal usage and additionally are a bottleneck in the development of therapeutic uses. Herein, we introduce the first machine learning-based approach to off-target prediction, yielding a state-of-the-art model for CRISPR-Cas9 that outperforms all other guide design services. Our approach, Elevation, consists of two interdependent machine learning models-one for scoring individual guide-target pairs, and another which aggregates these guide-target scores into a single, overall summary guide score. Through systematic investigation, we demonstrate that Elevation performs substantially better than competing approaches on both tasks. Additionally, we are the first to systematically evaluate approaches on the guide summary score problem; we show that the most widely-used method performs no better than random at times, whereas Elevation consistently outperformed it, sometimes by an order of magnitude. We also introduce an evaluation method that balances errors between active and inactive guides, thereby encapsulating a range of practical use cases; Elevation is consistently superior to other methods across the entire range. Finally, because of the large scale and computational demands of off-target prediction, we have developed a cloud-based service for quick retrieval. This service provides end-to-end guide design by also incorporating our previously reported on-target model, Azimuth. (https://crispr.ml:please treat this web site as confidential until publication).
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Elevation includes DNA accessibility information to predict potential off-target sites.
“Similarly, the Elevation tool also includes DNA accessibility information to predict potential off-target sites (Listgarten et al., 2018).”
From Off-target effects in CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing (2023) · cites this paper as Listgarten et al., 2018
The Results section, “Predicting with chromatin accessibility” (page not provided), says the authors tested DNase I accessibility features but decided not to include them in the final deployed Elevation model because the results were inconclusive. Thus, the paper says the tool does not include the information the claim attributes to it. (LLM, conf=0.93)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredElevation only works with human exome (GRCh38), limiting its broader usage in other organisms.
“The disadvantage of Elevation is it only works with human exome (GRCh38), limiting its broader usage in other organisms (Listgarten et al., 2018).”
From Off-target effects in CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing (2023) · cites this paper as Listgarten et al., 2018
The Methods (Web portal; page unavailable) say that precomputed Elevation scores were made available for the human exome (GRCh38). That supports a limitation of the published web portal, not the claim that Elevation only works there: Methods (Elevation-search; page unavailable) say the system is designed to accept different species of origin for the reference genome. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 45 · Cited by 336
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [21]Hsu PD DNA targeting specificity of RNA-guided Cas9 nucleases Nat Biotechnol 31 827 32 2013 23873081 PMC3969858
- Authors
- Listgarten, J., Weinstein, M., Kleinstiver, B. P., Sousa, A. A., Joung, J. K., Crawford, J., Gao, K., Hoang, L., Elibol, M., Doench, J. G., & Fusi, N.
- Affiliations
- Microsoft (United States) (US)
- University of California, Los Angeles (US)
- Harvard University (US)
- Massachusetts General Hospital (US)
- Microsoft Research New England (United States) (US)
- Broad Institute (US)
- Corresponding author
- Listgarten, Jennifer
- Weinstein, Michael
- Doench, John G.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Nature Biomedical Engineering
- Published
- 2018-01-10
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 38-47
- ISSN
- 2157-846X (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC6037314
- OpenAlex
- W2782551527
- Cited by
- 336
- References
- 45
- Citations by year
- 2026: 42 · 2025: 44 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 42 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 53 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 15
- FWCI
- 11.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- europepmc.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Nature Biomedical Engineering (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Cancer Institute (K99CA218870)
- 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 › Machine Learning in Bioinformatics
- Keywords
- CRISPR/Cas9, off-target prediction, guide RNA design, machine learning, altitude, azimuth angle, genome editing, cloud services
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