Cited by 172CRISPR and Genetic EngineeringPlant Genetic and Mutation StudiesGenetically Modified Organisms Research

Genome-Wide Assessment of Efficiency and Specificity in CRISPR/Cas9 Mediated Multiple Site Targeting in Arabidopsis

Open access
Peterson, Brenda A., Haak, David C., Nishimura, Marc T., Teixeira, Paulo J. P. L., James, Sean R., Dangl, Jeffery L., Nimchuk, Zachary L.·2016·PLOS ONE

Abstract

Simultaneous multiplex mutation of large gene families using Cas9 has the potential to revolutionize agriculture and plant sciences. The targeting of multiple genomic sites at once raises concerns about the efficiency and specificity in targeting. The model Arabidopsis thaliana is widely used in basic plant research. Previous work has suggested that the Cas9 off-target rate in Arabidopsis is undetectable. Here we use deep sequencing on pooled plants simultaneously targeting 14 distinct genomic loci to demonstrate that multiplex targeting in Arabidopsis is highly specific to on-target sites with no detectable off-target events. In addition, chromosomal translocations are extremely rare. The high specificity of Cas9 in Arabidopsis makes this a reliable method for clean mutant generation with no need to enhance specificity or adopt alternate Cas9 variants.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0162169

Cites

32 of 32 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?

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
Peterson, B. A., Haak, D. C., Nishimura, M. T., Teixeira, P. J. P. L., James, S. R., Dangl, J. L., & Nimchuk, Z. L.
Affiliations
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • Virginia Tech (US)
Corresponding author
Nimchuk, Zachary L.
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2016-09-13
Volume
11
Issue
9
Pages
e0162169
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2519004356
Cited by
172
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 37 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 1
FWCI
11.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • VTechWorks (Virginia Tech) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • UNC Libraries
Funders
  • Directorate for Biological Sciences (IOS-1455607)
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute (GBMF3030)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › CRISPR and Genetic Engineering
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Plant Genetic and Mutation Studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Genetically Modified Organisms Research
Keywords
CRISPR/Cas9, multiplex genome editing, off-target effects, targeting specificity, Arabidopsis thaliana, chromosomal translocation
MeSH terms
Translocation, Genetic, Arabidopsis, Gene Targeting, Genome, Plant, Genome-Wide Association Study, Genetic Loci, 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