Abstract

The DNA mutation produced by cellular repair of a CRISPR–Cas9-generated double-strand break determines its phenotypic effect. It is known that the mutational outcomes are not random, but depend on DNA sequence at the targeted location. Here we systematically study the influence of flanking DNA sequence on repair outcome by measuring the edits generated by >40,000 guide RNAs (gRNAs) in synthetic constructs. We performed the experiments in a range of genetic backgrounds and using alternative CRISPR–Cas9 reagents. In total, we gathered data for >109 mutational outcomes. The majority of reproducible mutations are insertions of a single base, short deletions or longer microhomology-mediated deletions. Each gRNA has an individual cell-line-dependent bias toward particular outcomes. We uncover sequence determinants of the mutations produced and use these to derive a predictor of Cas9 editing outcomes. Improved understanding of sequence repair will allow better design of gene editing experiments.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Accessions

Primary accessions

European Nucleotide Archive

References

  1. 1.

    & The new frontier of genome engineering with CRISPR-Cas9. Science 346, 1258096 (2014).

  2. 2.

    , & Repair of double-strand breaks by end joining. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 5, a012757 (2013).

  3. 3.

    & How cells ensure correct repair of DNA double-strand breaks. J. Biol. Chem. 293, 10502–10511 (2018).

  4. 4.

    et al. Microhomology-mediated end joining and homologous recombination share the initial end resection step to repair DNA double-strand breaks in mammalian cells. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110, 7720–7725 (2013).

  5. 5.

    Regulation of repair pathway choice at two-ended DNA double-strand breaks. Mutat. Res. 803-805, 51–55 (2017).

  6. 6.

    , , & Microhomology-based choice of Cas9 nuclease target sites. Nat. Methods 11, 705–706 (2014).

  7. 7.

    et al. DNA repair profiling reveals nonrandom outcomes at Cas9-mediated breaks. Mol. Cell 63, 633–646 (2016).

  8. 8.

    , , , & Genome-wide recessive genetic screening in mammalian cells with a lentiviral CRISPR-guide RNA library. Nat. Biotechnol. 32, 267–273 (2014).

  9. 9.

    et al. CRISPR/Cas9 cleavages in budding yeast reveal templated insertions and strand-specific insertion/deletion profiles. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 115, E2040–E2047 (2018).

  10. 10.

    , , & Precise and predictable CRISPR chromosomal rearrangements reveal principles of Cas9-mediated nucleotide insertion. Mol. Cell 71, 498–509.e4 (2018).

  11. 11.

    et al. Decoding non-random mutational signatures at Cas9 targeted sites. Nucleic Acids Res. 46, 8417–8434 (2018).

  12. 12.

    et al. Target-specific precision of CRISPR-mediated genome editing. Preprint at. bioRxiv (2018).

  13. 13.

    , , & Unraveling CRISPR-Cas9 genome engineering parameters via a library-on-library approach. Nat. Methods 12, 823–826 (2015).

  14. 14.

    et al. In vivo high-throughput profiling of CRISPR-Cpf1 activity. Nat. Methods 14, 153–159 (2017).

  15. 15.

    et al. Pairwise library screen systematically interrogates Staphylococcus aureus Cas9 specificity in human cells. Nat. Commun. 9, 2962 (2018).

  16. 16.

    et al. RNA-guided human genome engineering via Cas9. Science 339, 823–826 (2013).

  17. 17.

    et al. Dynamic imaging of genomic loci in living human cells by an optimized CRISPR/Cas system. Cell 155, 1479–1491 (2013).

  18. 18.

    , & Repair of double-strand breaks induced by CRISPR-Cas9 leads to large deletions and complex rearrangements. Nat. Biotechnol. 36, 765–771 (2018).

  19. 19.

    et al. Analysis of off-target effects of CRISPR/Cas-derived RNA-guided endonucleases and nickases. Genome Res. 24, 132–141 (2014).

  20. 20.

    & Repair of a site-specific DNA cleavage: old-school lessons for Cas9-mediated gene editing. ACS Chem. Biol. 13, 397–405 (2018).

  21. 21.

    et al. Rationally engineered Cas9 nucleases with improved specificity. Science 351, 84–88 (2016).

  22. 22.

    et al. Characterization of the interplay between DNA repair and CRISPR/Cas9-induced DNA lesions at an endogenous locus. Nat. Commun. 8, 13905 (2017).

  23. 23.

    & Excision of 3′ termini by the Trex1 and TREX2 3′5′ exonucleases. Characterization of the recombinant proteins. J. Biol. Chem. 276, 17022–17029 (2001).

  24. 24.

    , , & Contribution of canonical nonhomologous end joining to chromosomal rearrangements is enhanced by ATM kinase deficiency. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 114, 728–733 (2017).

  25. 25.

    et al. Coupling endonucleases with DNA end-processing enzymes to drive gene disruption. Nat. Methods 9, 973–975 (2012).

  26. 26.

    et al. Discovery of cancer drug targets by CRISPR-Cas9 screening of protein domains. Nat. Biotechnol. 33, 661–667 (2015).

  27. 27.

    & Cas9-catalyzed DNA cleavage generates staggered ends: evidence from molecular dynamics simulations. Sci. Rep. 5, 37584 (2016).

  28. 28.

    , , , & Enhancing homology-directed genome editing by catalytically active and inactive CRISPR-Cas9 using asymmetric donor DNA. Nat. Biotechnol. 34, 339–344 (2016).

  29. 29.

    & Simple tandem DNA repeats and human genetic disease. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 92, 3636–3641 (1995).

  30. 30.

    , , & Identification of FMR2, a novel gene associated with the FRAXE CCG repeat and CpG island. Nat. Genet. 13, 109–113 (1996).

  31. 31.

    , , & Contracting CAG/CTG repeats using the CRISPR-Cas9 nickase. Nat. Commun. 7, 13272 (2016).

  32. 32.

    et al. Reversible model of RNA toxicity and cardiac conduction defects in myotonic dystrophy. Nat. Genet. 38, 1066–1070 (2006).

  33. 33.

    et al. Reversion of FMR1 methylation and silencing by editing the triplet repeats in fragile X iPSC-derived neurons. Cell Rep. 13, 234–241 (2015).

  34. 34.

    et al. A CRISPR dropout screen identifies genetic vulnerabilities and therapeutic targets in acute myeloid leukemia. Cell Rep. 17, 1193–1205 (2016).

  35. 35.

    , , & Genetic screens in human cells using the CRISPR-Cas9 system. Science 343, 80–84 (2014).

  36. 36.

    Enzymatic assembly of overlapping DNA fragments. Methods Enzymol. 498, 349–361 (2011).

  37. 37.

    et al. Multiplex genome engineering using CRISPR/Cas systems. Science 339, 819–823 (2013).

  38. 38.

    , , & PEAR: a fast and accurate Illumina Paired-End reAd mergeR. Bioinformatics 30, 614–620 (2014).

  39. 39.

    , & SciPy: open source scientific tools for Python. SciPy (2001, accessed 10 January 2018).

  40. 40.

    et al. Evaluation and design of genome-wide CRISPR/SpCas9 knockout screens. G3 (Bethesda) 7, 2719–2727 (2017).

  41. 41.

    , , & Algorithm 778: L-BFGS-B: Fortran subroutines for large-scale bound-constrained optimization. ACM Trans. Math. Softw. 23, 550–560 (1997).

  42. 42.

    & ChromHMM: automating chromatin-state discovery and characterization. Nat. Methods 9, 215–216 (2012).

  43. 43.

    ENCODE Project Consortium. An integrated encyclopedia of DNA elements in the human genome. Nature 489, 57–74 (2012).

  44. 44.

    BEDTools: The Swiss-Army tool for genome feature analysis. Curr. Protoc. Bioinformatics 47, 11.12.1–11.12.34 (2014).

  45. 45.

    et al. Computational correction of copy number effect improves specificity of CRISPR-Cas9 essentiality screens in cancer cells. Nat. Genet. 49, 1779–1784 (2017).

  46. 46.

    et al. Genomic copy number dictates a gene-independent cell response to CRISPR/Cas9 targeting. Cancer Discov. 6, 914–929 (2016).

  47. 47.

    et al. JACKS: joint analysis of CRISPR/Cas9 knock-out screens. Preprint at bioRxiv (2018).

  48. 48.

    et al. Ensembl 2018. Nucleic Acids Res. 46, D754–D761 (2018).

  49. 49.

    et al. Predicting the mutations generated by repair of Cas9-induced double-strand breaks. Code Ocean (2018).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank J. Eliasova for help with Figure 1, E. de Braekeleer from Wellcome Sanger Institute for providing the K562-Cas9 line, and A. Lawson for comments on the text. F.A. was supported by a Royal Commission for the Exhibition of 1851 Research Fellowship. L.P. was supported by Wellcome (206194) and the Estonian Research Council (IUT 34-4). H.P.H. was supported by a Wellcome Trust grant (200848/Z/16/Z) and a Wellcome Trust Strategic Award to the Cambridge Institute for Medical Research (100140). Y.G. is funded by Cancer Research UK C6/A18796 and Wellcome Trust Investigator Award 206388/Z/17/Z in the Jackson laboratory. F.M.M. was funded by a Marie Curie Intra-European Fellowship, project number 626375, DDR SYNVIA, and by Wellcome Trust Investigator Award 206388/Z/17/Z and an AstraZeneca Collaborative Award in the Jackson laboratory.

Author information

Author notes

    • Felicity Allen
    •  & Luca Crepaldi

    These authors contributed equally to this work.

Affiliations

  1. Wellcome Sanger Institute, Hinxton, UK.

    • Felicity Allen
    • , Luca Crepaldi
    • , Clara Alsinet
    • , Alexander J. Strong
    • , Vitalii Kleshchevnikov
    • , Pietro De Angeli
    • , Petra Páleníková
    • , Anton Khodak
    • , Vladimir Kiselev
    • , Michael Kosicki
    • , Andrew R. Bassett
    • , Emmanouil Metzakopian
    •  & Leopold Parts
  2. Cambridge Institute of Medical Research, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

    • Heather Harding
  3. Wellcome/Cancer Research UK Gurdon Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

    • Yaron Galanty
    • , Francisco Muñoz-Martínez
    •  & Stephen P. Jackson
  4. Department of Biochemistry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

    • Yaron Galanty
    • , Francisco Muñoz-Martínez
    •  & Stephen P. Jackson
  5. UK Dementia Research Institute, Cambridge, UK.

    • Emmanouil Metzakopian
  6. Department of Computer Science, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia.

    • Leopold Parts

Authors

  1. Search for Felicity Allen in:

  2. Search for Luca Crepaldi in:

  3. Search for Clara Alsinet in:

  4. Search for Alexander J. Strong in:

  5. Search for Vitalii Kleshchevnikov in:

  6. Search for Pietro De Angeli in:

  7. Search for Petra Páleníková in:

  8. Search for Anton Khodak in:

  9. Search for Vladimir Kiselev in:

  10. Search for Michael Kosicki in:

  11. Search for Andrew R. Bassett in:

  12. Search for Heather Harding in:

  13. Search for Yaron Galanty in:

  14. Search for Francisco Muñoz-Martínez in:

  15. Search for Emmanouil Metzakopian in:

  16. Search for Stephen P. Jackson in:

  17. Search for Leopold Parts in:

Contributions

F.A.: designed experiments, analyzed data, wrote paper. L.C.: designed experiments, performed experiments, wrote paper. C.A.: performed experiments in human iPSCs. A.J.S., E.M.: performed experiments in mouse ESCs. V. Kleshchevnikov: analyzed data, wrote paper. A.K., V. Kiselev: created web server. P.D.A., P.P.: performed experiments. M.K., A.R.B.: generated TREX2 constructs. H.H.: generated CHO-Cas9 line. Y.G., F.M.-M., S.P.J.: generated RPE-1-Cas9 and HAP1-Cas9 lines. L.P.: designed experiments, contributed to data analysis, wrote paper. All authors contributed to drafting the manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Felicity Allen or Leopold Parts.

Supplementary information

PDF files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Text and Figures

    Supplementary Figures 1–27 and Supplementary Tables 1–6

  2. 2.

    Life Sciences Reporting Summary

Text files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Data 1

    Supplementary Data 1

  2. 2.

    Supplementary Data 3

    Supplementary Data 3

Zip files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Data 2

    Supplementary Data 2

  2. 2.

    Supplementary Software

    Supplementary Software

About this article

Publication history

Received

Accepted

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.4317