Computational Tools and Resources Supporting CRISPR-Cas Experiments

Overview

Journal Cells

Publisher MDPI

Specialties Biochemistry
Biophysics
Cell Biology
Molecular Biology

Date 2020 May 28

PMID 32455882

Citations 22

Authors

Pawel Sledzinski

Mateusz Nowaczyk

Marta Olejniczak

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The CRISPR-Cas system has become a cutting-edge technology that revolutionized genome engineering. The use of Cas9 nuclease is currently the method of choice in most tasks requiring a specific DNA modification. The rapid development in the field of CRISPR-Cas is reflected by the constantly expanding ecosystem of computational tools aimed at facilitating experimental design and result analysis. The first group of CRISPR-Cas-related tools that we review is dedicated to aid in guide RNA design by prediction of their efficiency and specificity. The second, relatively new group of tools exploits the observed biases in repair outcomes to predict the results of CRISPR-Cas edits. The third class of tools is developed to assist in the evaluation of the editing outcomes by analysis of the sequencing data. These utilities are accompanied by relevant repositories and databases. Here we present a comprehensive and updated overview of the currently available CRISPR-Cas-related tools, from the perspective of a user who needs a convenient and reliable means to facilitate genome editing experiments at every step, from the guide RNA design to analysis of editing outcomes. Moreover, we discuss the current limitations and challenges that the field must overcome for further improvement in the CRISPR-Cas endeavor.

Citing Articles

Critical considerations and computational tools in plant genome editing.

Saha D, Panda A, Datta S Heliyon. 2025; 11(1):e41135.

PMID: 39807514 PMC: 11728886. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e41135.

Structure-optimized sgRNA selection with PlatinumCRISPr for efficient Cas9 generation of knockouts.

Haussmann I, Dix T, McQuarrie D, Dezi V, Hans A, Arnold R Genome Res. 2024; 34(12):2279-2292.

PMID: 39626969 PMC: 11694751. DOI: 10.1101/gr.279479.124.

Codon usage and expression-based features significantly improve prediction of CRISPR efficiency.

Bergman S, Tuller T NPJ Syst Biol Appl. 2024; 10(1):100.

PMID: 39227603 PMC: 11372048. DOI: 10.1038/s41540-024-00431-8.

Meta-2OM: A multi-classifier meta-model for the accurate prediction of RNA 2'-O-methylation sites in human RNA.

Harun-Or-Roshid M, Pham N, Manavalan B, Kurata H PLoS One. 2024; 19(6):e0305406.

PMID: 38924058 PMC: 11207182. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0305406.

Strong association between genomic 3D structure and CRISPR cleavage efficiency.

Bergman S, Tuller T PLoS Comput Biol. 2024; 20(6):e1012214.

PMID: 38848440 PMC: 11189236. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1012214.

References

Chen C, Rodiger J, Chung V, Viswanatha R, Mohr S, Hu Y . SNP-CRISPR: A Web Tool for SNP-Specific Genome Editing. G3 (Bethesda). 2019; 10(2):489-494. PMC: 7003079. DOI: 10.1534/g3.119.400904. View

Chen W, Zhang G, Li J, Zhang X, Huang S, Xiang S . CRISPRlnc: a manually curated database of validated sgRNAs for lncRNAs. Nucleic Acids Res. 2018; 47(D1):D63-D68. PMC: 6324000. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gky904. View

Heigwer F, Kerr G, Boutros M . E-CRISP: fast CRISPR target site identification. Nat Methods. 2014; 11(2):122-3. DOI: 10.1038/nmeth.2812. View

Pattanayak V, Lin S, Guilinger J, Ma E, Doudna J, Liu D . High-throughput profiling of off-target DNA cleavage reveals RNA-programmed Cas9 nuclease specificity. Nat Biotechnol. 2013; 31(9):839-43. PMC: 3782611. DOI: 10.1038/nbt.2673. View

Canver M, Joung J, Pinello L . Impact of Genetic Variation on CRISPR-Cas Targeting. CRISPR J. 2019; 1(2):159-170. PMC: 6319324. DOI: 10.1089/crispr.2017.0016. View

Wienert B, Wyman S, Richardson C, Yeh C, Akcakaya P, Porritt M . Unbiased detection of CRISPR off-targets in vivo using DISCOVER-Seq. Science. 2019; 364(6437):286-289. PMC: 6589096. DOI: 10.1126/science.aav9023. View

Labuhn M, Adams F, Ng M, Knoess S, Schambach A, Charpentier E . Refined sgRNA efficacy prediction improves large- and small-scale CRISPR-Cas9 applications. Nucleic Acids Res. 2017; 46(3):1375-1385. PMC: 5814880. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkx1268. View

Crosetto N, Mitra A, Silva M, Bienko M, Dojer N, Wang Q . Nucleotide-resolution DNA double-strand break mapping by next-generation sequencing. Nat Methods. 2013; 10(4):361-5. PMC: 3651036. DOI: 10.1038/nmeth.2408. View

Xu H, Xiao T, Chen C, Li W, Meyer C, Wu Q . Sequence determinants of improved CRISPR sgRNA design. Genome Res. 2015; 25(8):1147-57. PMC: 4509999. DOI: 10.1101/gr.191452.115. View

10.

Cradick T, Fine E, Antico C, Bao G . CRISPR/Cas9 systems targeting β-globin and CCR5 genes have substantial off-target activity. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013; 41(20):9584-92. PMC: 3814385. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkt714. View

11.

Lessard S, Francioli L, Alfoldi J, Tardif J, Ellinor P, MacArthur D . Human genetic variation alters CRISPR-Cas9 on- and off-targeting specificity at therapeutically implicated loci. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017; 114(52):E11257-E11266. PMC: 5748207. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1714640114. View

12.

Lindsay H, Burger A, Biyong B, Felker A, Hess C, Zaugg J . CrispRVariants charts the mutation spectrum of genome engineering experiments. Nat Biotechnol. 2016; 34(7):701-2. DOI: 10.1038/nbt.3628. View

13.

Brinkman E, Chen T, Amendola M, van Steensel B . Easy quantitative assessment of genome editing by sequence trace decomposition. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014; 42(22):e168. PMC: 4267669. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gku936. View

14.

Haeussler M, Schonig K, Eckert H, Eschstruth A, Mianne J, Renaud J . Evaluation of off-target and on-target scoring algorithms and integration into the guide RNA selection tool CRISPOR. Genome Biol. 2016; 17(1):148. PMC: 4934014. DOI: 10.1186/s13059-016-1012-2. View

15.

Kleinstiver B, Pattanayak V, Prew M, Tsai S, Nguyen N, Zheng Z . High-fidelity CRISPR-Cas9 nucleases with no detectable genome-wide off-target effects. Nature. 2016; 529(7587):490-5. PMC: 4851738. DOI: 10.1038/nature16526. View

16.

Wong N, Liu W, Wang X . WU-CRISPR: characteristics of functional guide RNAs for the CRISPR/Cas9 system. Genome Biol. 2015; 16:218. PMC: 4629399. DOI: 10.1186/s13059-015-0784-0. View

17.

Ran F, Cong L, Yan W, Scott D, Gootenberg J, Kriz A . In vivo genome editing using Staphylococcus aureus Cas9. Nature. 2015; 520(7546):186-91. PMC: 4393360. DOI: 10.1038/nature14299. View

18.

Mueller K, Carlson-Stevermer J, Saha K . Increasing the precision of gene editing , and . Curr Opin Biomed Eng. 2019; 7:83-90. PMC: 6510258. DOI: 10.1016/j.cobme.2018.08.006. View

19.

Germini D, Tsfasman T, Zakharova V, Sjakste N, Lipinski M, Vassetzky Y . A Comparison of Techniques to Evaluate the Effectiveness of Genome Editing. Trends Biotechnol. 2017; 36(2):147-159. DOI: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2017.10.008. View

20.

Guell M, Yang L, Church G . Genome editing assessment using CRISPR Genome Analyzer (CRISPR-GA). Bioinformatics. 2014; 30(20):2968-70. PMC: 4184265. DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu427. View