4.8 Article

BLISS is a versatile and quantitative method for genome-wide profiling of DNA double-strand breaks

期刊

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
卷 8, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/ncomms15058

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute of General Medical Sciences [T32GM007753]
  2. Paul and Daisy Soros Fellowship
  3. Swedish Society for Medical Research (SSMF) Postdoctoral Fellowship
  4. NIH through NIMH [5DP1-MH100706, 1R01-MH110049]
  5. NSF
  6. New York Stem Cell Foundation
  7. Howard Hughes Medical Institute
  8. Simons Foundation
  9. Paul G. Allen Family Foundation
  10. Vallee Foundation
  11. Skoltech-MIT Next Generation Program
  12. Science for Life Laboratory
  13. Swedish Research Council [621-2014-5503, 521-2014-2866]
  14. Ragnar Soderberg Foundation
  15. Karolinska Institutet
  16. Karolinska Institutet Strategic Programme in Cancer
  17. Swedish Cancer Research Foundation [CAN 2015/585]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Precisely measuring the location and frequency of DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) along the genome is instrumental to understanding genomic fragility, but current methods are limited in versatility, sensitivity or practicality. Here we present Breaks Labeling In Situ and Sequencing (BLISS), featuring the following: (1) direct labelling of DSBs in fixed cells or tissue sections on a solid surface; (2) low-input requirement by linear amplification of tagged DSBs by in vitro transcription; (3) quantification of DSBs through unique molecular identifiers; and (4) easy scalability and multiplexing. We apply BLISS to profile endogenous and exogenous DSBs in low-input samples of cancer cells, embryonic stem cells and liver tissue. We demonstrate the sensitivity of BLISS by assessing the genome-wide off-target activity of two CRISPR-associated RNA-guided endonucleases, Cas9 and Cpf1, observing that Cpf1 has higher specificity than Cas9. Our results establish BLISS as a versatile, sensitive and efficient method for genome-wide DSB mapping in many applications.

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