4.8 Article

Refined sgRNA efficacy prediction improves large- and small-scale CRISPR-Cas9 applications

期刊

NUCLEIC ACIDS RESEARCH
卷 46, 期 3, 页码 1375-1385

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkx1268

关键词

-

资金

  1. German Cancer Aid [111743]
  2. European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon research and innovation program [714226]
  3. DFG [HE-7482/1-1, KL-2374/2-1, SFB738]
  4. Cluster of Excellence REBIRTH
  5. Hannover Biomedical Research School

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Genome editing with the CRISPR-Cas9 system has enabled unprecedented efficacy for reverse genetics and gene correction approaches. While off-target effects have been successfully tackled, the effort to eliminate variability in sgRNA efficacies-which affect experimental sensitivity-is in its infancy. To address this issue, studies have analyzed the molecular features of highly active sgRNAs, but independent cross-validation is lacking. Utilizing fluorescent reporter knock-out assays with verification at selected endogenous loci, we experimentally quantified the target efficacies of 430 sgRNAs. Based on this dataset we tested the predictive value of five recently-established prediction algorithms. Our analysis revealed a moderate correlation (r = 0.04 to r = 0.20) between the predicted and measured activity of the sgRNAs, and modest concordance between the different algorithms. We uncovered a strong PAM-distal GC-content-dependent activity, which enabled the exclusion of inactive sgRNAs. By deriving nine additional predictive features we generated a linear model-based discrete system for the efficient selection (r = 0.4) of effective sgRNAs (CRISPRater). We proved our algorithms' efficacy on small and large external datasets, and provide a versatile combined on-and off-target sgRNA scanning platform. Altogether, our study highlights current issues and efforts in sgRNA efficacy prediction, and provides an easily-applicable discrete system for selecting efficient sgRNAs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据