Back

Population-scale cellular GUIDE-seq-2 and biochemical CHANGE-seq-R profiles reveal human genetic variation frequently affects Cas9 off-target activity

Tsai, S.; Lazzarotto, C.; Li, Y.; Flory, A. R.; Chyr, J.; Yang, M.; Katta, V.; Urbina, E.; Lee, G.; Wood, R.; Matsubara, A.; Rashkin, S. R.; Ma, J.; Cheng, Y.

2025-02-12 genomics
10.1101/2025.02.10.637517 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Genome editing enzymes can introduce targeted changes to the DNA in living cells1-4, transforming biological research and enabling the first approved gene editing therapy for sickle cell disease5. However, their genome-wide activity can be altered by genetic variation at on- or off-target sites6-8, potentially impacting both their precision and therapeutic safety. Due to a lack of scalable methods to measure genome-wide editing activity in cells from large populations and diverse target libraries, the frequency and extent of these variant effects on editing remains unknown. Here, we present the first population-scale study of how genetic variation affects the cellular genome-wide activity of CRISPR-Cas9, enabled by a novel, sensitive, and unbiased cellular assay, GUIDE-seq-2 with improved scalability and accuracy compared to the original broadly adopted method9. Analyzing Cas9 genome-wide activity at 1,115 on- and off-target sites across six guide RNAs in cells from 95 individuals spanning four genetically diverse populations, we found that variants frequently overlap off-target sites, with 13% significantly altering Cas9 editing activity by up to 33% indels. To understand common features of high-impact variants, we developed a new massively parallel biochemical assay, CHANGE-seq-R, to measure Cas9 activity across millions of mismatched target sites, and trained a deep neural network model, CHANGE-net, to accurately predict and interpret the effects of single-nucleotide variants on off-targets with up to six mismatches. Taken together, our findings illuminate a path to account for genetic variation when designing genome editing strategies for research and therapeutics.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"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.