Back

Classifying CRISPR-Cas9 Off-Target Cleavage Sites from GUIDE-seq Data: A Class-Imbalanced Machine Learning Benchmark

Sarvi, D.; Alasyam, J.

2026-08-23 genetics
10.64898/2026.08.19.745843 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Off-target cleavage is a central safety concern for CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing, particularly in therapeutic applications where unintended double-strand breaks carry clinical risk. We benchmarked five machine learning classifiers: logistic regression on mismatch-count summary features, a random forest and a gradient boosting model on one-hot-encoded sgRNA/candidate-site sequence pairs, a one-dimensional convolutional neural network (CNN) over the positional mismatch map, and a gradient-boosting/CNN ensemble: on a real, published GUIDE-seq off-target dataset (Kleinstiver et al., 2016, Nature) comprising 95,829 candidate off-target sites for five sgRNAs, of which only 54 (0.06%) were experimentally validated as true cleavage sites. On a held-out, stratified test split (n = 19,166; 11 true positives), gradient boosting on combined mismatch and sequence features performed best (ROC-AUC = 0.997, PR-AUC = 0.355, best F1 = 0.50), outperforming a random forest on raw sequence encoding alone (PR-AUC = 0.083) and a sequence CNN (PR-AUC = 0.129). Because the positive class is extremely rare, we report precision-recall AUC as the primary metric rather than ROC-AUC, which is inflated by the large negative class. A positional mismatch analysis showed that experimentally validated off-target sites carried substantially fewer mismatches overall than non-cleaved candidate sites (mean 3.6 vs. 5.9 mismatches across the 23-nucleotide target), and were markedly more mismatch-intolerant in the 10-nucleotide PAM-proximal seed region (11.3% vs. 27.4% per-position mismatch rate) and at the PAM itself (6.8% vs. 16.0%), consistent with established seed-region and PAM-sensitivity models of Cas9 target recognition. We report these findings, including the low absolute precision achievable in this severely imbalanced, small-positive-class setting, as a realistic picture of what off-target classifiers can and cannot yet deliver from sequence alone.

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.