Cargando…
A Survey of Validation Strategies for CRISPR-Cas9 Editing
The T7 endonuclease 1 (T7E1) mismatch detection assay is a widely used method for evaluating the activity of site-specific nucleases, such as the clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)-Cas9 system. To determine the accuracy and sensitivity of this assay, we compared the e...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group UK
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5772360/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29343825 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-19441-8 |
_version_ | 1783293398067707904 |
---|---|
author | Sentmanat, Monica F. Peters, Samuel T. Florian, Colin P. Connelly, Jon P. Pruett-Miller, Shondra M. |
author_facet | Sentmanat, Monica F. Peters, Samuel T. Florian, Colin P. Connelly, Jon P. Pruett-Miller, Shondra M. |
author_sort | Sentmanat, Monica F. |
collection | PubMed |
description | The T7 endonuclease 1 (T7E1) mismatch detection assay is a widely used method for evaluating the activity of site-specific nucleases, such as the clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)-Cas9 system. To determine the accuracy and sensitivity of this assay, we compared the editing estimates derived by the T7E1 assay with that of targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS) in pools of edited mammalian cells. Here, we report that estimates of nuclease activity determined by T7E1 most often do not accurately reflect the activity observed in edited cells. Editing efficiencies of CRISPR-Cas9 complexes with similar activity by T7E1 can prove dramatically different by NGS. Additionally, we compared editing efficiencies predicted by the Tracking of Indels by Decomposition (TIDE) assay and the Indel Detection by Amplicon Analysis (IDAA) assay to that observed by targeted NGS for both cellular pools and single-cell derived clones. We show that targeted NGS, TIDE, and IDAA assays predict similar editing efficiencies for pools of cells but that TIDE and IDAA can miscall alleles in edited clones. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5772360 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group UK |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-57723602018-01-26 A Survey of Validation Strategies for CRISPR-Cas9 Editing Sentmanat, Monica F. Peters, Samuel T. Florian, Colin P. Connelly, Jon P. Pruett-Miller, Shondra M. Sci Rep Article The T7 endonuclease 1 (T7E1) mismatch detection assay is a widely used method for evaluating the activity of site-specific nucleases, such as the clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)-Cas9 system. To determine the accuracy and sensitivity of this assay, we compared the editing estimates derived by the T7E1 assay with that of targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS) in pools of edited mammalian cells. Here, we report that estimates of nuclease activity determined by T7E1 most often do not accurately reflect the activity observed in edited cells. Editing efficiencies of CRISPR-Cas9 complexes with similar activity by T7E1 can prove dramatically different by NGS. Additionally, we compared editing efficiencies predicted by the Tracking of Indels by Decomposition (TIDE) assay and the Indel Detection by Amplicon Analysis (IDAA) assay to that observed by targeted NGS for both cellular pools and single-cell derived clones. We show that targeted NGS, TIDE, and IDAA assays predict similar editing efficiencies for pools of cells but that TIDE and IDAA can miscall alleles in edited clones. Nature Publishing Group UK 2018-01-17 /pmc/articles/PMC5772360/ /pubmed/29343825 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-19441-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2018 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Article Sentmanat, Monica F. Peters, Samuel T. Florian, Colin P. Connelly, Jon P. Pruett-Miller, Shondra M. A Survey of Validation Strategies for CRISPR-Cas9 Editing |
title | A Survey of Validation Strategies for CRISPR-Cas9 Editing |
title_full | A Survey of Validation Strategies for CRISPR-Cas9 Editing |
title_fullStr | A Survey of Validation Strategies for CRISPR-Cas9 Editing |
title_full_unstemmed | A Survey of Validation Strategies for CRISPR-Cas9 Editing |
title_short | A Survey of Validation Strategies for CRISPR-Cas9 Editing |
title_sort | survey of validation strategies for crispr-cas9 editing |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5772360/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29343825 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-19441-8 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT sentmanatmonicaf asurveyofvalidationstrategiesforcrisprcas9editing AT peterssamuelt asurveyofvalidationstrategiesforcrisprcas9editing AT floriancolinp asurveyofvalidationstrategiesforcrisprcas9editing AT connellyjonp asurveyofvalidationstrategiesforcrisprcas9editing AT pruettmillershondram asurveyofvalidationstrategiesforcrisprcas9editing AT sentmanatmonicaf surveyofvalidationstrategiesforcrisprcas9editing AT peterssamuelt surveyofvalidationstrategiesforcrisprcas9editing AT floriancolinp surveyofvalidationstrategiesforcrisprcas9editing AT connellyjonp surveyofvalidationstrategiesforcrisprcas9editing AT pruettmillershondram surveyofvalidationstrategiesforcrisprcas9editing |