Cited by 22CRISPR and Genetic EngineeringFungal and yeast genetics researchMicrobial Metabolic Engineering and Bioproduction

Non-homologous end-joining-deficient filamentous fungal strains mitigate the impact of off-target mutations during the application of CRISPR/Cas9

Open access
Garrigues, Sandra, Peng, Mao, Kun, Roland S., de Vries, Ronald P.·2023·mBio

Abstract

ABSTRACT CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing technology has been implemented in almost all living organisms. Its editing precision appears to be very high and therefore could represent a big change from conventional genetic engineering approaches. However, guide RNA binding to nucleotides similar to the target site could result in undesired off-target mutations. Despite this, evaluating whether mutations occur is rarely performed in genome editing studies. In this study, we generated CRISPR/Cas9-derived filamentous fungal strains and analyzed them for the occurrence of mutations, and to which extent genome stability affects their occurrence. As a test case, we deleted the (hemi-)cellulolytic regulator-encoding gene xlnR in two Aspergillus niger strains: a wild type (WT) and a non-homologous end-joining (NHEJ)-deficient strain Δ kusA . Initial phenotypic analysis suggested a much higher prevalence of mutations in the WT compared to NHEJ-deficient strains, which was confirmed and quantified by whole-genome sequencing analysis. Our results clearly demonstrate that CRISPR/Cas9 applied to an NHEJ-deficient strain is an efficient strategy to avoid unwanted mutations. IMPORTANCE Filamentous fungi are commonly used biofactories for the production of industrially relevant proteins and metabolites. Often, fungal biofactories undergo genetic development (genetic engineering, genome editing, etc.) aimed at improving production yields. In this context, CRISPR/Cas9 has gained much attention as a genome editing strategy due to its simplicity, versatility, and precision. However, despite the high level of accuracy reported for CRISPR/Cas9, in some cases unintentional cleavages in non-targeted loci—known as off-target mutations—could arise. While biosafety should be a central feature of emerging biotechnologies to minimize unintended consequences, few studies quantitatively evaluate the risk of off-target mutations. This study demonstrates that the use of non-homologous end-joining-deficient fungal strains drastically reduces the number of unintended genomic mutations, ensuring that CRISPR/Cas9 can be safely applied for strain development.

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 · 10.1128/mbio.00668-23

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.

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?

  • Utilizing NHEJ-deficient strains in organisms like filamentous fungi has demonstrated significant reductions in off-target mutations and enhanced genomic stability.

    “Researchers have explored strategies such as utilizing Non-Homologous End-Joining (NHEJ)-deficient strains in organisms like filamentous fungi, which have demonstrated significant reductions in off-target mutations and enhanced genomic stability (Garrigues et al., 2023).”
  • Off-target effects are unintended genomic modifications that occur when guide RNA binds to sequences similar to, but not identical with, the intended target, potentially resulting in undesirable DNA cleavage and mutations.

    “Off-target effects are unintended genomic modifications occur when guide RNA (gRNA) binds to sequences similar to, but not identical with, the intended target, potentially resulting in undesirable DNA cleavage and mutations (Guo et al., 2023; Lopes and Prasad, 2024; Garrigues et al., 2023).”

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 64 · Cited by 22

Authors
Garrigues, S., Peng, M., Kun, R. S., & de Vries, R. P.
Affiliations
  • Utrecht University (NL)
  • Fungal Physiology, Westerdijk Fungal Biodiversity Institute and Fungal Molecular Physiology, Utrecht University , Utrecht, the Netherlands
Venue
mBio
Published
2023-07-24
Volume
14
Issue
4
Pages
e0066823-e0066823
ISSN
2150-7511 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4385170850
Cited by
22
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 8
FWCI
1.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • mBio (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • KNAW research portal (Royal Academy of Art and Sciences (KNAW)) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (15807)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › CRISPR and Genetic Engineering
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Fungal and yeast genetics research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Microbial Metabolic Engineering and Bioproduction
Keywords
CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing, off-target mutations, filamentous fungi, Aspergillus niger, genome stability, biosafety, cellulase regulation
MeSH terms
Gene Editing, Aspergillus niger, Genetic Engineering, Mutation, 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