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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sentmanat, Monica F., Peters, Samuel T., Florian, Colin P., Connelly, Jon P., Pruett-Miller, Shondra M.
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