Cited by 217CRISPR and Genetic EngineeringRNA regulation and diseaseGenomics and Chromatin Dynamics

Cas9-chromatin binding information enables more accurate CRISPR off-target prediction

Open access
Singh, Ritambhara, Kuscu, Cem, Quinlan, Aaron, Qi, Yanjun, Adli, Mazhar·2015·Nucleic Acids Research

Abstract

The CRISPR system has become a powerful biological tool with a wide range of applications. However, improving targeting specificity and accurately predicting potential off-targets remains a significant goal. Here, we introduce a web-based CR: ISPR/Cas9 O: ff-target P: rediction and I: dentification T: ool (CROP-IT) that performs improved off-target binding and cleavage site predictions. Unlike existing prediction programs that solely use DNA sequence information; CROP-IT integrates whole genome level biological information from existing Cas9 binding and cleavage data sets. Utilizing whole-genome chromatin state information from 125 human cell types further enhances its computational prediction power. Comparative analyses on experimentally validated datasets show that CROP-IT outperforms existing computational algorithms in predicting both Cas9 binding as well as cleavage sites. With a user-friendly web-interface, CROP-IT outputs scored and ranked list of potential off-targets that enables improved guide RNA design and more accurate prediction of Cas9 binding or cleavage sites.

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/nar/gkv575

Cites

39 of 39 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?

  • CCTop and CROP-IT generate scores based on the distances of the mismatches to the PAM.

    “CCTop and CROP-IT generate scores based on the distances of the mismatches to the PAM (Singh et al., 2015; Stemmer et al., 2015).”

    From Off-target effects in CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing (2023) · cites this paper as Singh et al., 2015

  • Chemical modification of gRNA by replacing RNA nucleotides with DNA nucleotides increases on-target efficiency and decreases off-target effects.

    “| gRNA improvement | Chemical modifications [76–78] | Replacement of RNA nucleotides into DNA nucleotides | Increased on-target efficiency and decreased off-target effects |”

    From Off-target effects in CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing (2023) · cites this paper as [76]

    The Introduction and Results (page unavailable) discuss computational prediction of Cas9 off-target binding and cleavage, not chemical modification of guide RNA. Searches for RNA-to-DNA nucleotide replacement and its effects on on-target efficiency and off-target activity found no passage addressing the claim. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Incorporation of MP/bridged nucleic acids/locked nucleic acids increases on-target efficiency and decreases off-target effects.

    “Incorporation of MP/bridged nucleic acids/locked nucleic acids | Increased on-target efficiency and decreased off-target effects”

    From Off-target effects in CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing (2023) · cites this paper as [76]

    The Results and Methods passages describe CROP-IT, a computational tool for predicting Cas9 off-target sites, not the incorporation of modified nucleic acids. A search of our copy for MP, bridged nucleic acids, locked nucleic acids, and guide-RNA chemical modifications found no passage assessing their effects on on-target efficiency or off-target activity. Page numbers were not available in the indexed passages. (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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Singh, R., Kuscu, C., Quinlan, A., Qi, Y., & Adli, M.
Affiliations
University of Virginia (US)
Corresponding author
Adli, Mazhar
Venue
Nucleic Acids Research
Published
2015-06-01
Volume
43
Issue
18
Pages
e118-e118
ISSN
  • 0305-1048 (ISSN-L)
  • 1362-4962
OpenAlex
W2139314409
Cited by
217
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 7
FWCI
9.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nucleic Acids Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (P50DK096373)
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 Chromatin Dynamics
Keywords
CRISPR/Cas9, off-target prediction, cleavage site prediction, chromatin state, guide RNA design, targeting specificity, web-based prediction tool, human cell types
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Binding Sites, Chromatin, Deoxyribonucleases, Humans, Software, Sequence Analysis, DNA, Sequence Analysis, RNA, DNA Cleavage, CRISPR-Cas Systems, CRISPR-Associated Proteins

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