4.7 Article

Systematic quantification of HDR and NHEJ reveals effects of locus, nuclease, and cell type on genome-editing

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 6, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/srep23549

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [U01-HL100406, U01-GM09614, R01-HL108677, U01-HL098179, U01-HL099997, P01-HL089707, R01-HL060664]
  2. UCSF Liver Center
  3. Bluefield Project
  4. Uehara Memorial Foundation Research Fellowship
  5. Gladstone-CIRM Fellowship

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Precise genome-editing relies on the repair of sequence-specific nuclease-induced DNA nicking or double-strand breaks (DSBs) by homology-directed repair (HDR). However, nonhomologous endjoining (NHEJ), an error-prone repair, acts concurrently, reducing the rate of high-fidelity edits. The identification of genome-editing conditions that favor HDR over NHEJ has been hindered by the lack of a simple method to measure HDR and NHEJ directly and simultaneously at endogenous loci. To overcome this challenge, we developed a novel, rapid, digital PCR-based assay that can simultaneously detect one HDR or NHEJ event out of 1,000 copies of the genome. Using this assay, we systematically monitored genome-editing outcomes of CRISPR-associated protein 9 (Cas9), Cas9 nickases, catalytically dead Cas9 fused to FokI, and transcription activator-like effector nuclease at three disease-associated endogenous gene loci in HEK293T cells, HeLa cells, and human induced pluripotent stem cells. Although it is widely thought that NHEJ generally occurs more often than HDR, we found that more HDR than NHEJ was induced under multiple conditions. Surprisingly, the HDR/NHEJ ratios were highly dependent on gene locus, nuclease platform, and cell type. The new assay system, and our findings based on it, will enable mechanistic studies of genome-editing and help improve genome-editing technology.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available