Evaluating and enhancing target specificity of gene-editing nucleases and deaminases
Abstract
Programmable nucleases and deaminases, which include zinc-finger nucleases, transcription activator-like effector nucleases, CRISPR RNA-guided nucleases, and RNA-guided base editors, are now widely employed for the targeted modification of genomes in cells and organisms. These gene-editing tools hold tremendous promise for therapeutic applications. Importantly, these nucleases and deaminases may display off-target activity through the recognition of near-cognate DNA sequences to their target sites, resulting in collateral damage to the genome in the form of local mutagenesis or genomic rearrangements. For therapeutic genome-editing applications with these classes of programmable enzymes, it is essential to measure and limit genome-wide off-target activity. Herein, we discuss the key determinants of off-target activity for these systems. We describe various cell-based and cell-free methods for identifying genome-wide off-target sites and diverse strategies that have been developed for reducing the off-target activity of programmable gene-editing enzymes.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Some detection methods for off-target prediction are applicable for other family of Cas nucleases, such as Cas12a (Cpf1), which also create DSBs on off-target sites.
“Some of these detection methods for off-targets prediction is applicable for other family of Cas nucleases, such as Cas12a (Cpf1), which also create DSBs on off-target sites (Kim et al., 2019).”
From Off-target effects in CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing (2023) · cites this paper as Kim et al., 2019
The accuracy of SITE-seq in finding off-target sites is low, with only 10% positive hits that could be validated by targeted sequencing.
“Nevertheless, the accuracy of SITE-seq in finding off-target sites is still low, with only 10% positive hits that could be validated by targeted sequencing (Kim et al., 2019).”
From Off-target effects in CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing (2023) · cites this paper as Kim et al., 2019
SITE-seq reduces the background noise of Digenome-seq and requires much less sequencing coverage (~0.62-2.46 million reads for human genome).
“SITE-seq reduces the background noise of Digenome-seq and requires much less sequencing coverage (∼0.62–2.46 million reads for human genome).”
From Off-target effects in CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing (2023) · cites this paper as Kim et al., 2019
CIRCLE-seq demands only ~4-5 million reads for a successful analysis for human genome.
“CIRCLE-seq demands only ∼4–5 million reads for a successful analysis for human genome (Kim et al., 2019).”
From Off-target effects in CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing (2023) · cites this paper as Kim et al., 2019
IDLV displays a propensity to integrate into the vicinity of DSBs.
“One such labeling tool is called the integrase-defective lentiviral vectors (IDLV), which displays the propensity to integrate into the vicinity of DSBs (Wang et al., 2015; Kim et al., 2019).”
From Off-target effects in CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing (2023) · cites this paper as Kim et al., 2019
Digenome-seq requires high sequencing coverage (~400-500 million reads for human genome), so its sequencing cost can be relatively high.
“Due to the high background of non-specific DSBs in the purified DNA samples, Digenome-seq requires high sequencing coverage (∼400–500 million reads for human genome) thus the sequencing cost can be relatively high (Kim et al., 2019).”
From Off-target effects in CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing (2023) · cites this paper as Kim et al., 2019
BLESS demonstrates a false positive rate lower than 1%.
“BLESS demonstrates a false positive rate lower than 1% (Crosetto et al., 2013; Yan et al., 2017; Kim et al., 2019), validating the accuracy of this method.”
From Off-target effects in CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing (2023) · cites this paper as Kim et al., 2019
Extra guanine nucleotides at the 5' end of sgRNAs may hinder the interaction between the Cas9/sgRNA complex and the DNA at off-target sites.
“may hinder the interaction between the Cas9/sgRNA complex and the DNA at the off-target sites”
From Off-target effects in CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing (2023) · cites this paper as Kim et al., 2019
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 134 · Cited by 171
- Authors
- Kim, D., Luk, K., Wolfe, S. A., & Kim, J.-S.
- Affiliations
- Institute for Basic Science (KR)
- University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School (US)
- Seoul National University (KR)
- Corresponding author
- Wolfe, Scot A.
- Venue
- Annual Review of Biochemistry
- Publisher
- Annual Reviews
- Published
- 2019-06-20
- Volume
- 88
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 191-220
- ISSN
- 0066-4154 (ISSN-L)
- 1545-4509
- OpenAlex
- W2921769581
- Cited by
- 171
- References
- 134
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 44 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 5
- FWCI
- 2.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Annual Review of Biochemistry (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Seoul National University Open Repository (Seoul National University) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R01HL093766)
- National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (R01AI117839)
- 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 › RNA Interference and Gene Delivery
- Keywords
- genome editing, off-target effects, target specificity, zinc finger nucleases, TALEN, CRISPR/Cas9, base editors, deaminase
- MeSH terms
- APOBEC Deaminases, Gene Editing, CRISPR-Associated Protein 9, RNA, Guide, CRISPR-Cas Systems, Adenosine Deaminase, Bacterial Proteins, Endodeoxyribonucleases, Endonucleases, Humans, Isoenzymes, Software, Protein Engineering, Genome, Human, Artifacts, RNA, Guide, Kinetoplastida, Gene Transfer Techniques, Escherichia coli Proteins, Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats, 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