Amplification-free long-read sequencing reveals unforeseen CRISPR-Cas9 off-target activity.
CRISPR-Cas9
Long-read sequencing
Nano-OTS
Nanopore sequencing
Off-target
On-target
PacBio sequencing
SMRT-OTS
Single molecule sequencing
Journal
Genome biology
ISSN: 1474-760X
Titre abrégé: Genome Biol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100960660
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 12 2020
01 12 2020
Historique:
received:
03
04
2020
accepted:
17
11
2020
entrez:
2
12
2020
pubmed:
3
12
2020
medline:
1
12
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
One ongoing concern about CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing is that unspecific guide RNA (gRNA) binding may induce off-target mutations. However, accurate prediction of CRISPR-Cas9 off-target activity is challenging. Here, we present SMRT-OTS and Nano-OTS, two novel, amplification-free, long-read sequencing protocols for detection of gRNA-driven digestion of genomic DNA by Cas9 in vitro. The methods are assessed using the human cell line HEK293, re-sequenced at 18x coverage using highly accurate HiFi SMRT reads. SMRT-OTS and Nano-OTS are first applied to three different gRNAs targeting HEK293 genomic DNA, resulting in a set of 55 high-confidence gRNA cleavage sites identified by both methods. Twenty-five of these sites are not reported by off-target prediction software, either because they contain four or more single nucleotide mismatches or insertion/deletion mismatches, as compared with the human reference. Additional experiments reveal that 85% of Cas9 cleavage sites are also found by other in vitro-based methods and that on- and off-target sites are detectable in gene bodies where short-reads fail to uniquely align. Even though SMRT-OTS and Nano-OTS identify several sites with previously validated off-target editing activity in cells, our own CRISPR-Cas9 editing experiments in human fibroblasts do not give rise to detectable off-target mutations at the in vitro-predicted sites. However, indel and structural variation events are enriched at the on-target sites. Amplification-free long-read sequencing reveals Cas9 cleavage sites in vitro that would have been difficult to predict using computational tools, including in dark genomic regions inaccessible by short-read sequencing.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
One ongoing concern about CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing is that unspecific guide RNA (gRNA) binding may induce off-target mutations. However, accurate prediction of CRISPR-Cas9 off-target activity is challenging. Here, we present SMRT-OTS and Nano-OTS, two novel, amplification-free, long-read sequencing protocols for detection of gRNA-driven digestion of genomic DNA by Cas9 in vitro.
RESULTS
The methods are assessed using the human cell line HEK293, re-sequenced at 18x coverage using highly accurate HiFi SMRT reads. SMRT-OTS and Nano-OTS are first applied to three different gRNAs targeting HEK293 genomic DNA, resulting in a set of 55 high-confidence gRNA cleavage sites identified by both methods. Twenty-five of these sites are not reported by off-target prediction software, either because they contain four or more single nucleotide mismatches or insertion/deletion mismatches, as compared with the human reference. Additional experiments reveal that 85% of Cas9 cleavage sites are also found by other in vitro-based methods and that on- and off-target sites are detectable in gene bodies where short-reads fail to uniquely align. Even though SMRT-OTS and Nano-OTS identify several sites with previously validated off-target editing activity in cells, our own CRISPR-Cas9 editing experiments in human fibroblasts do not give rise to detectable off-target mutations at the in vitro-predicted sites. However, indel and structural variation events are enriched at the on-target sites.
CONCLUSIONS
Amplification-free long-read sequencing reveals Cas9 cleavage sites in vitro that would have been difficult to predict using computational tools, including in dark genomic regions inaccessible by short-read sequencing.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33261648
doi: 10.1186/s13059-020-02206-w
pii: 10.1186/s13059-020-02206-w
pmc: PMC7706270
doi:
Substances chimiques
RNA, Guide
0
DNA
9007-49-2
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
290Références
Nat Commun. 2016 Jun 30;7:12065
pubmed: 27356984
PLoS Genet. 2018 Jul 9;14(7):e1007503
pubmed: 29985941
Cell. 2019 Jan 24;176(3):663-675.e19
pubmed: 30661756
Mol Cell. 2018 Sep 6;71(5):816-824.e3
pubmed: 30078724
G3 (Bethesda). 2020 Feb 6;10(2):489-494
pubmed: 31822517
Nat Biotechnol. 2018 Sep;36(8):765-771
pubmed: 30010673
Annu Rev Biophys. 2017 May 22;46:505-529
pubmed: 28375731
Am J Hum Genet. 2017 Aug 3;101(2):167-176
pubmed: 28777929
Nature. 2019 Dec;576(7785):149-157
pubmed: 31634902
Nucleic Acids Res. 2019 Jul 2;47(W1):W636-W641
pubmed: 30976793
Cell. 2014 Jun 5;157(6):1262-1278
pubmed: 24906146
Nat Commun. 2019 Apr 16;10(1):1784
pubmed: 30992455
Nat Biotechnol. 2013 Sep;31(9):822-6
pubmed: 23792628
Nature. 2018 Sep;561(7723):416-419
pubmed: 30209390
Nat Commun. 2020 Jun 5;11(1):2861
pubmed: 32504042
Nat Biotechnol. 2020 Apr;38(4):433-438
pubmed: 32042167
Science. 2019 Apr 19;364(6437):286-289
pubmed: 31000663
Trends Biotechnol. 2019 Jan;37(1):72-85
pubmed: 30115375
Cell. 2018 May 31;173(6):1439-1453.e19
pubmed: 29856956
Genome Biol. 2016 Jul 05;17(1):148
pubmed: 27380939
Nat Biotechnol. 2015 Feb;33(2):187-197
pubmed: 25513782
Cell Death Dis. 2018 Oct 27;9(11):1099
pubmed: 30368519
Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2017 Feb;16(2):89-100
pubmed: 28008168
Nat Protoc. 2018 Nov;13(11):2615-2642
pubmed: 30341435
Genes (Basel). 2018 Oct 09;9(10):
pubmed: 30304863
J Mol Biol. 2019 Jan 4;431(1):88-101
pubmed: 29885329
Nat Commun. 2019 Dec 4;10(1):5525
pubmed: 31797925
Bioinformatics. 2014 May 15;30(10):1473-5
pubmed: 24463181
Nat Biotechnol. 2013 Sep;31(9):827-32
pubmed: 23873081
Nat Med. 2017 Sep;23(9):1095-1101
pubmed: 28759051
Genome Biol. 2019 May 20;20(1):97
pubmed: 31104630
Bioinformatics. 2019 Sep 1;35(17):2907-2915
pubmed: 30668829
Nature. 2020 Sep;585(7823):79-84
pubmed: 32663838
Nat Biotechnol. 2019 Oct;37(10):1155-1162
pubmed: 31406327
Nat Methods. 2017 Jun;14(6):607-614
pubmed: 28459458
Nat Biotechnol. 2020 Nov;38(11):1317-1327
pubmed: 32541958
Eur J Hum Genet. 2017 Nov;25(11):1253-1260
pubmed: 28832569
Nat Biotechnol. 2013 Mar;31(3):230-2
pubmed: 23360966
Genome Res. 2016 Mar;26(3):406-15
pubmed: 26786045
Nat Biotechnol. 2011 Jan;29(1):24-6
pubmed: 21221095
Nat Med. 2019 May;25(5):776-783
pubmed: 30911135
Science. 2013 Feb 15;339(6121):823-6
pubmed: 23287722
Bioinformatics. 2009 Aug 15;25(16):2078-9
pubmed: 19505943
Bioinformatics. 2018 Sep 15;34(18):3094-3100
pubmed: 29750242
Nat Biotechnol. 2013 Sep;31(9):833-8
pubmed: 23907171
Nucleic Acids Res. 2019 Jul 2;47(W1):W171-W174
pubmed: 31106371
Nat Methods. 2015 Mar;12(3):237-43, 1 p following 243
pubmed: 25664545
Science. 2013 Feb 15;339(6121):819-23
pubmed: 23287718
Hum Mutat. 2018 Sep;39(9):1262-1272
pubmed: 29932473
Nat Methods. 2017 Jun;14(6):600-606
pubmed: 28459459
Elife. 2013 Jan 29;2:e00471
pubmed: 23386978
Cell Biol Toxicol. 2020 Feb;36(1):5-9
pubmed: 31734746