Cited by 145CRISPR and Genetic EngineeringRNA regulation and diseaseGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies

Genome editing assessment using CRISPR Genome Analyzer (CRISPR-GA)

Open access
Güell, Marc, Yang, Luhan, Church, George M.·2014·Bioinformatics

Abstract

Summary: Clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)-based technologies have revolutionized human genome engineering and opened countless possibilities to basic science, synthetic biology and gene therapy. Albeit the enormous potential of these tools, their performance is far from perfect. It is essential to perform a posterior careful analysis of the gene editing experiment. However, there are no computational tools for genome editing assessment yet, and current experimental tools lack sensitivity and flexibility. We present a platform to assess the quality of a genome editing experiment only with three mouse clicks. The method evaluates next-generation data to quantify and characterize insertions, deletions and homologous recombination. CRISPR Genome Analyzer provides a report for the locus selected, which includes a quantification of the edited site and the analysis of the different alterations detected. The platform maps the reads, estimates and locates insertions and deletions, computes the allele replacement efficiency and provides a report integrating all the information. Availability and implementation: CRISPR-GA Web is available at http://crispr-ga.net . Documentation on CRISPR-GA instructions can be found at http://crispr-ga.net/documentation.html Contact: mguell@genetics.med.harvard.edu

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 · 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu427

Cites

18 of 18 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 deep-sequencing detection limit reflects the Illumina platform's inherent error rate, up to 0.4%.

    “The limit of detection in these experiments is based on the inherent error rate of the Illumina platform (up to 0.4%), which has previously been described for genome editing experiment analyzed by NGS71–73.”

    From A high-fidelity Cas9 mutant delivered as a ribonucleoprotein complex enables efficient gene editing in human hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells (2018) · cites this paper as [73]

    The Introduction says CRISPR-GA uses Illumina MiSeq sequencing, and the Implementation section describes filtering reads with sequencing errors. The Conclusions give a detection limit for CRISPR-GA, but no passage identifies an inherent Illumina error rate of up to 0.4% or says that rate determines the detection limit in the citing paper’s experiments (searched: 0.4%, Illumina error rate, detection limit). (LLM, conf=0.75)

    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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 19 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Güell, M., Yang, L., & Church, G. M.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Church, George M.
Venue
Bioinformatics
Published
2014-07-01
Volume
30
Issue
20
Pages
2968-2970
ISSN
  • 1367-4803 (ISSN-L)
  • 1367-4811
OpenAlex
W2161871693
Cited by
142
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 7
FWCI
5.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Bioinformatics (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Human Genome Research Institute (P50HG005550, HG005550)
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 › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Keywords
CRISPR gene editing, indels, homologous recombination, next-generation sequencing data analysis, web-based analysis tool
MeSH terms
Alleles, Genetic Engineering, Humans, User-Computer Interface, Genome, Human, Genomics, High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing, Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats

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