Validation and Long-Term Follow Up of CD33 Off-Targets Predicted In Vitro and In Silico Using Error-Corrected Sequencing in Rhesus Macaques
AlJanahi, A. A.; Lazzarotto, C. R.; Chen, S.; Shin, T.-H.; Cordes, S.; Jabara, I.; Zhou, Y.; Young, D. J.; Lee, B.-C.; Yu, K.-R.; Li, Y.; Toms, B.; Tunc, I.; Hong, S. G.; Truitt, L.; Klermund, J.; Kim, M.; Cathomen, T.; Gill, S.; Tsai, S. Q.; Dunbar, C. E.
Show abstract
ABSTRACTThe programmable nuclease technology CRISPR/Cas9 has revolutionized gene editing in the last decade. Due to the risk of off-target editing, accurate and sensitive methods for off-target characterization are crucial prior to applying CRISPR/Cas9 therapeutically. Here, we utilized a rhesus macaque model to ask whether CIRCLE-Seq (CS), an in vitro off-target prediction method, more accurately identifies off-targets compared to in silico prediction (ISP) based solely on genomic sequence comparisons. We use AmpliSeq HD error-corrected sequencing to validate off-target sites predicted by CIRCLE-Seq and ISP for guide RNAs designed against TET2 and CD33 genes. A gRNA targeting TET2 designed using modern algorithms and predicted to have low off-target risk by both ISP and CIRCLE-Seq created no detectable mutations at off-target sites in hematopoietic cells following transplantation, even when applying highly sensitive error-corrected sequencing. In contrast, a CD33 gRNA designed using less robust algorithms with over 10-fold more off-targets sites predicted by both ISP and CIRCLE-Seq, however there was poor correlation between the sites predicted by the two methods. When almost 500 sites identified by each method were searched for in hematopoietic cells following transplantation, 19 detectable mutations in off-target sites were detected via error-corrected sequencing. Of these 19 sites, 8 sites were predicted in the top 500 sites by both methods, 8 by CIRCLE-Seq only, and 3 by ISP only. Cells with off-target editing exhibited no expansion or abnormal behavior in vivo in animals followed for up to 2 years. In conclusion, neither methodology predicted all sites, and a combination of careful gRNA design, followed by screening for predicted off-target sites in target cells by multiple methods may be required for optimizing safety of clinical development.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.View Full Text
Matching journals
The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Adenine base editing is an efficient approach to restore function in FA patient cells without double-stranded DNA breaks 96%
- Functional Screening in human HSPCs identifies optimized protein-based enhancers of Homology Directed Repair 95%
- CRISPR-Cas9 cytidine and adenosine base editing of splice-sites mediates highly-efficient disruption of proteins in primary cells 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Comparative analysis of CRISPR off-target activity discovery tools following ex vivo editing of CD34+ hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells 97%
- Development and IND-enabling studies of a novel Cas9 genome-edited autologous CD34+ cell therapy to induce fetal hemoglobin for sickle cell disease 96%
- TALEN-mediated intron editing of HSPCs enables transgene expression restricted to the myeloid lineage 96%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Near-perfect precise on-target editing of human hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells 97%
- Patient-derived xenografts and single-cell sequencing identifies three subtypes of tumor-reactive lymphocytes in uveal melanoma metastases 94%
- Highly efficient generation of isogenic pluripotent stem cell models using prime editing 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Short and long-read genome sequencing methodologies for somatic variant detection; genomic analysis of a patient with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma 93%
- Active regulatory elements recruit cohesin to establish cell-specific chromatin domains. 93%
- Comparisons of the antibody repertoires of a humanized rodent and humans by high throughput sequencing 93%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.