High-throughput functional genomics using CRISPR–Cas9

Article metrics

Abstract

Forward genetic screens are powerful tools for the discovery and functional annotation of genetic elements. Recently, the RNA-guided CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeat)-associated Cas9 nuclease has been combined with genome-scale guide RNA libraries for unbiased, phenotypic screening. In this Review, we describe recent advances using Cas9 for genome-scale screens, including knockout approaches that inactivate genomic loci and strategies that modulate transcriptional activity. We discuss practical aspects of screen design, provide comparisons with RNA interference (RNAi) screening, and outline future applications and challenges.

Key Points

  • The RNA-mediated simple programmability of Cas9 opens new and exciting avenues for genome-scale functional interrogation of the genome.

  • Cas9 can be used for both nuclease-mediated gene knockout and transcriptional modulation approaches. The mechanisms of these perturbations differ substantially from the more established RNA interference (RNAi) approaches for targeted genetic screens.

  • Screening applications can be carried out in a wide range of formats using different molecular reagents and delivery vehicles. These will have an effect on the possible applications, readout and perturbation kinetics.

  • Initial Cas9-based screens displayed remarkable results: high consistency across unique reagents that target the same genetic elements, high rates of editing and large phenotypic effects.

  • There are still several challenges in the further development of Cas9-based genetic screens, such as unbiased investigation into false-negative rates, more unbiased evaluation of off-target effects, increased efficacy of designed reagents and improved readout methods.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: Molecular mechanisms underlying gene perturbation via lentiviral delivery of RNA interference reagents, Cas9 nuclease and dCas9 transcriptional effectors.
Figure 2: dCas9-mediated transcriptional modulation.
Figure 3: Screening strategies in either arrayed or pooled formats.
Figure 4: Distinct expression distributions for knockdown and knockout of a gene.

References

  1. 1

    Boutros, M. & Ahringer, J. The art and design of genetic screens: RNA interference. Nature Rev. Genet. 9, 554–566 (2008).

  2. 2

    Kile, B. T. & Hilton, D. J. The art and design of genetic screens: mouse. Nature Rev. Genet. 6, 557–567 (2005).

  3. 3

    Grimm, S. The art and design of genetic screens: mammalian culture cells. Nature Rev. Genet. 5, 179–189 (2004).

  4. 4

    Jorgensen, E. M. & Mango, S. E. The art and design of genetic screens: Caenorhabditis elegans. Nature Rev. Genet. 3, 356–369 (2002).

  5. 5

    St Johnston, D. The art and design of genetic screens: Drosophila melanogaster. Nature Rev. Genet. 3, 176–188 (2002).

  6. 6

    Patton, E. E. & Zon, L. I. The art and design of genetic screens: zebrafish. Nature Rev. Genet. 2, 956–966 (2001).

  7. 7

    Forsburg, S. L. The art and design of genetic screens: yeast. Nature Rev. Genet. 2, 659–668 (2001).

  8. 8

    Page, D. R. & Grossniklaus, U. The art and design of genetic screens: Arabidopsis thaliana. Nature Rev. Genet. 3, 124–136 (2002).

  9. 9

    Shuman, H. A. & Silhavy, T. J. The art and design of genetic screens: Escherichia coli. Nature Rev. Genet. 4, 419–431 (2003).

  10. 10

    Sundaram, M. V. The love–hate relationship between Ras and Notch. Genes Dev. 19, 1825–1839 (2005).

  11. 11

    Nüsslein-Volhard, C., Frohnhöfer, H. G. & Lehmann, R. Determination of anteroposterior polarity in Drosophila. Science 238, 1675–1681 (1987).

  12. 12

    Nüsslein-Volhard, C. & Wieschaus, E. Mutations affecting segment number and polarity in Drosophila. Nature 287, 795–801 (1980).

  13. 13

    Driever, W. et al. A genetic screen for mutations affecting embryogenesis in zebrafish. Development 123, 37–46 (1996).

  14. 14

    Haffter, P. et al. The identification of genes with unique and essential functions in the development of the zebrafish, Danio rerio. Development 123, 1–36 (1996).

  15. 15

    Schneeberger, K. Using next-generation sequencing to isolate mutant genes from forward genetic screens. Nature Rev. Genet. 15, 662–676 (2014).

  16. 16

    Copeland, N. G. & Jenkins, N. A. Harnessing transposons for cancer gene discovery. Nature Rev. Cancer 10, 696–706 (2010).

  17. 17

    Dupuy, A. J., Akagi, K., Largaespada, D. A., Copeland, N. G. & Jenkins, N. A. Mammalian mutagenesis using a highly mobile somatic Sleeping Beauty transposon system. Nature 436, 221–226 (2005).

  18. 18

    Rad, R. et al. PiggyBac transposon mutagenesis: a tool for cancer gene discovery in mice. Science 330, 1104–1107 (2010).

  19. 19

    Kotecki, M., Reddy, P. S. & Cochran, B. H. Isolation and characterization of a near-haploid human cell line. Exp. Cell Res. 252, 273–280 (1999).

  20. 20

    Carette, J. E. et al. Haploid genetic screens in human cells identify host factors used by pathogens. Science 326, 1231–1235 (2009).

  21. 21

    Guo, G., Wang, W. & Bradley, A. Mismatch repair genes identified using genetic screens in Blm-deficient embryonic stem cells. Nature 429, 891–895 (2004).

  22. 22

    Fire, A. et al. Potent and specific genetic interference by double-stranded RNA in Caenorhabditis elegans. Nature 391, 806–811 (1998). This paper reports the discovery of RNAi in Caenorhabditis elegans.

  23. 23

    Ketting, R. F. The many faces of RNAi. Dev. Cell 20, 148–161 (2011).

  24. 24

    Meister, G. & Tuschl, T. Mechanisms of gene silencing by double-stranded RNA. Nature 431, 343–349 (2004).

  25. 25

    McManus, M. T. & Sharp, P. A. Gene silencing in mammals by small interfering RNAs. Nature Rev. Genet. 3, 737–747 (2002).

  26. 26

    Root, D. E., Hacohen, N., Hahn, W. C., Lander, E. S. & Sabatini, D. M. Genome-scale loss-of-function screening with a lentiviral RNAi library. Nature Methods 3, 715–719 (2006).

  27. 27

    Silva, J. M. et al. Second-generation shRNA libraries covering the mouse and human genomes. Nature Genet. 37, 1281–1288 (2005).

  28. 28

    Chang, K., Elledge, S. J. & Hannon, G. J. Lessons from nature: microRNA-based shRNA libraries. Nature Methods 3, 707–714 (2006).

  29. 29

    Paddison, P. J. et al. A resource for large-scale RNA-interference-based screens in mammals. Nature 428, 427–431 (2004).

  30. 30

    Moffat, J. & Sabatini, D. M. Building mammalian signalling pathways with RNAi screens. Nature Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 7, 177–187 (2006).

  31. 31

    Berns, K. et al. A large-scale RNAi screen in human cells identifies new components of the p53 pathway. Nature 428, 431–437 (2004).

  32. 32

    Boutros, M. et al. Genome-wide RNAi analysis of growth and viability in Drosophila cells. Science 303, 832–835 (2004).

  33. 33

    Jackson, A. L. & Linsley, P. S. Recognizing and avoiding siRNA off-target effects for target identification and therapeutic application. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 9, 57–67 (2010).

  34. 34

    Birmingham, A. et al. 3′ UTR seed matches, but not overall identity, are associated with RNAi off-targets. Nature Methods 3, 199–204 (2006).

  35. 35

    Jackson, A. L. et al. Expression profiling reveals off-target gene regulation by RNAi. Nature Biotech. 21, 635–637 (2003).

  36. 36

    Bolotin, A., Quinquis, B., Sorokin, A. & Ehrlich, S. D. Clustered regularly interspaced short palindrome repeats (CRISPRs) have spacers of extrachromosomal origin. Microbiology 151, 2551–2561 (2005).

  37. 37

    Garneau, J. E. et al. The CRISPR/Cas bacterial immune system cleaves bacteriophage and plasmid DNA. Nature 468, 67–71 (2010). This paper reports that Cas9 facilitates the cleavage of target DNA in bacterial cells.

  38. 38

    Deltcheva, E. et al. CRISPR RNA maturation by trans-encoded small RNA and host factor RNase III. Nature 471, 602–607 (2011). This paper reports that processing of CRISPR RNA is facilitated by small non-coding transactivating crRNA (tracrRNA).

  39. 39

    Sapranauskas, R. et al. The Streptococcus thermophilus CRISPR/Cas system provides immunity in Escherichia coli. Nucleic Acids Res. 39, 9275–9282 (2011). This paper reports that the Cas9 system is modular and can be transplanted into distant bacterial species to target plasmid DNA.

  40. 40

    Gasiunas, G., Barrangou, R., Horvath, P. & Siksnys, V. Cas9–crRNA ribonucleoprotein complex mediates specific DNA cleavage for adaptive immunity in bacteria. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, E2579–E2586 (2012).

  41. 41

    Jinek, M. et al. A programmable dual-RNA-guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity. Science 337, 816–821 (2012). This paper, along with reference 40, characterizes Cas9-mediated DNA cleavage in vitro . This paper also shows that Cas9 can cleave DNA in vitro using chimeric sgRNAs containing a truncated tracrRNA.

  42. 42

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

  43. 43

    Mali, P. et al. RNA-guided human genome engineering via Cas9. Science 339, 823–826 (2013). References 42 and 43 describe the successful harnessing of Cas9 for genome editing.

  44. 44

    Shalem, O. et al. Genome-scale CRISPR–Cas9 knockout screening in human cells. Science 343, 84–87 (2014).

  45. 45

    Wang, T., Wei, J. J., Sabatini, D. M. & Lander, E. S. Genetic screens in human cells using the CRISPR–Cas9 system. Science 343, 80–84 (2014). References 44 and 45 describe the development of lentiviral genome-scale sgRNA libraries and the application for positive and negative selection genetic screening in human cells.

  46. 46

    Koike-Yusa, H., Li, Y., Tan, E.-P., Velasco-Herrera, M. D. C. & Yusa, K. Genome-wide recessive genetic screening in mammalian cells with a lentiviral CRISPR-guide RNA library. Nature Biotech. 32, 267–273 (2014). This paper describes the development of lentiviral genome-scale sgRNA libraries and the application for positive and negative selection genetic screening in mouse cells.

  47. 47

    Zhou, Y. et al. High-throughput screening of a CRISPR/Cas9 library for functional genomics in human cells. Nature 509, 487–491 (2014).

  48. 48

    Gilbert, L. A. et al. Genome-scale CRISPR-mediated control of gene repression and activation. Cell 159, 647–661 (2014). This paper describes the development and application of lentiviral genome-scale dCas9-mediated gene activation and repression for gain-of-function and loss-of-function screening.

  49. 49

    Konermann, S. et al. Genome-scale transcriptional activation by an engineered CRISPR–Cas9 complex. Nature 517, 583–588 (2015). This paper describes structure-guided engineering of a robust Cas9-based transcriptional activator and the development of a genome-scale sgRNA library for gain-of-function genetic screening.

  50. 50

    Kim, H. & Kim, J.-S. A guide to genome engineering with programmable nucleases. Nature Rev. Genet. 15, 321–334 (2014).

  51. 51

    Hsu, P. D., Lander, E. S. & Zhang, F. Development and applications of CRISPR–Cas9 for genome engineering. Cell 157, 1262–1278 (2014).

  52. 52

    Rouet, P., Smih, F. & Jasin, M. Introduction of double-strand breaks into the genome of mouse cells by expression of a rare-cutting endonuclease. Mol. Cell. Biol. 14, 8096–8106 (1994).

  53. 53

    Doench, J. G. et al. Rational design of highly active sgRNAs for CRISPR–Cas9-mediated gene inactivation. Nature Biotech. 32, 1262–1267 (2014).

  54. 54

    Echeverri, C. J. & Perrimon, N. High-throughput RNAi screening in cultured cells: a user's guide. Nature Rev. Genet. 7, 373–384 (2006).

  55. 55

    Mohr, S. E., Smith, J. A., Shamu, C. E., Neumüller, R. A. & Perrimon, N. RNAi screening comes of age: improved techniques and complementary approaches. Nature Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 15, 591–600 (2014).

  56. 56

    Schramek, D. et al. Direct in vivo RNAi screen unveils myosin IIa as a tumor suppressor of squamous cell carcinomas. Science 343, 309–313 (2014).

  57. 57

    Beronja, S. et al. RNAi screens in mice identify physiological regulators of oncogenic growth. Nature 501, 185–190 (2013).

  58. 58

    Zhou, P. et al. In vivo discovery of immunotherapy targets in the tumour microenvironment. Nature 506, 52–57 (2014).

  59. 59

    He, L. & Hannon, G. J. MicroRNAs: small RNAs with a big role in gene regulation. Nature Rev. Genet. 5, 522–531 (2004).

  60. 60

    Maillard, P. V. et al. Antiviral RNA interference in mammalian cells. Science 342, 235–238 (2013).

  61. 61

    Li, Y., Lu, J., Han, Y., Fan, X. & Ding, S.-W. RNA interference functions as an antiviral immunity mechanism in mammals. Science 342, 231–234 (2013).

  62. 62

    Burgess, D. J. Small RNAs: antiviral RNAi in mammals. Nature Rev. Genet. 14, 821 (2013).

  63. 63

    Pan, Q., van der Laan, L. J. W., Janssen, H. L. A. & Peppelenbosch, M. P. A dynamic perspective of RNAi library development. Trends Biotechnol. 30, 206–215 (2012).

  64. 64

    Qi, L. S. et al. Repurposing CRISPR as an RNA-guided platform for sequence-specific control of gene expression. Cell 152, 1173–1183 (2013).

  65. 65

    Larson, M. H. et al. CRISPR interference (CRISPRi) for sequence-specific control of gene expression. Nature Protoc. 8, 2180–2196 (2013).

  66. 66

    Gilbert, L. A. et al. CRISPR-mediated modular RNA-guided regulation of transcription in eukaryotes. Cell 154, 442–451 (2013).

  67. 67

    Bikard, D. et al. Programmable repression and activation of bacterial gene expression using an engineered CRISPR–Cas system. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, 7429–7437 (2013).

  68. 68

    Konermann, S. et al. Optical control of mammalian endogenous transcription and epigenetic states. Nature 500, 472–476 (2013).

  69. 69

    Yang, X. et al. A public genome-scale lentiviral expression library of human ORFs. Nature Methods 8, 659–661 (2011).

  70. 70

    Maeder, M. L. et al. CRISPR RNA-guided activation of endogenous human genes. Nature Methods 10, 977–979 (2013).

  71. 71

    Perez-Pinera, P. et al. RNA-guided gene activation by CRISPR–Cas9-based transcription factors. Nature Methods 10, 973–976 (2013).

  72. 72

    Cheng, A. W. et al. Multiplexed activation of endogenous genes by CRISPR-on, an RNA-guided transcriptional activator system. Cell Res. 23, 1163–1171 (2013).

  73. 73

    Mali, P. et al. CAS9 transcriptional activators for target specificity screening and paired nickases for cooperative genome engineering. Nature Biotech. 31, 833–838 (2013).

  74. 74

    Tanenbaum, M. E., Gilbert, L. A., Qi, L. S., Weissman, J. S. & Vale, R. D. A protein-tagging system for signal amplification in gene expression and fluorescence imaging. Cell 159, 635–646 (2014).

  75. 75

    Nishimasu, H. et al. Crystal structure of Cas9 in complex with guide RNA and target DNA. Cell 156, 935–949 (2014).

  76. 76

    Zalatan, J. G. et al. Engineering complex synthetic transcriptional programs with CRISPR RNA scaffolds. Cell 160, 339–350 (2015).

  77. 77

    Bregman, A. et al. Promoter elements regulate cytoplasmic mRNA decay. Cell 147, 1473–1483 (2011).

  78. 78

    Trcek, T., Larson, D. R., Moldón, A., Query, C. C. & Singer, R. H. Single-molecule mRNA decay measurements reveal promoter-regulated mRNA stability in yeast. Cell 147, 1484–1497 (2011).

  79. 79

    Hasson, S. A. et al. High-content genome-wide RNAi screens identify regulators of parkin upstream of mitophagy. Nature 504, 291–295 (2013).

  80. 80

    Moffat, J. et al. A lentiviral RNAi library for human and mouse genes applied to an arrayed viral high-content screen. Cell 124, 1283–1298 (2006).

  81. 81

    Neumann, B. et al. High-throughput RNAi screening by time-lapse imaging of live human cells. Nature Methods 3, 385–390 (2006).

  82. 82

    LeProust, E. M. et al. Synthesis of high-quality libraries of long (150mer) oligonucleotides by a novel depurination controlled process. Nucleic Acids Res. 38, 2522–2540 (2010).

  83. 83

    Cleary, M. A. et al. Production of complex nucleic acid libraries using highly parallel in situ oligonucleotide synthesis. Nature Methods 1, 241–248 (2004).

  84. 84

    Malina, A. et al. Repurposing CRISPR/Cas9 for in situ functional assays. Genes Dev. 27, 2602–2614 (2013).

  85. 85

    Zender, L. et al. An oncogenomics-based in vivo RNAi screen identifies tumor suppressors in liver cancer. Cell 135, 852–864 (2008).

  86. 86

    Rudalska, R. et al. In vivo RNAi screening identifies a mechanism of sorafenib resistance in liver cancer. Nature Med. 20, 1138–1146 (2014).

  87. 87

    Cheung, H. W. et al. Systematic investigation of genetic vulnerabilities across cancer cell lines reveals lineage-specific dependencies in ovarian cancer. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 12372–12377 (2011).

  88. 88

    Whitehurst, A. W. et al. Synthetic lethal screen identification of chemosensitizer loci in cancer cells. Nature 446, 815–819 (2007).

  89. 89

    Hsu, P. D. et al. DNA targeting specificity of RNA-guided Cas9 nucleases. Nature Biotech. 31, 827–832 (2013).

  90. 90

    Bassik, M. C. et al. Rapid creation and quantitative monitoring of high coverage shRNA libraries. Nature Methods 6, 443–445 (2009).

  91. 91

    Whittaker, S. R. et al. A genome-scale RNA interference screen implicates NF1 loss in resistance to RAF inhibition. Cancer Discov. 3, 350–362 (2013).

  92. 92

    Birmingham, A. et al. Statistical methods for analysis of high-throughput RNA interference screens. Nature Methods 6, 569–575 (2009).

  93. 93

    Hoffman, G. R. et al. Functional epigenetics approach identifies BRM/SMARCA2 as a critical synthetic lethal target in BRG1-deficient cancers. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 3128–3133 (2014).

  94. 94

    Wu, X. et al. Genome-wide binding of the CRISPR endonuclease Cas9 in mammalian cells. Nature Biotech. 32, 670–676 (2014).

  95. 95

    Bae, S., Kweon, J., Kim, H. S. & Kim, J.-S. Microhomology-based choice of Cas9 nuclease target sites. Nature Methods 11, 705–706 (2014).

  96. 96

    Hendel, A. et al. Quantifying genome-editing outcomes at endogenous loci with SMRT sequencing. Cell Rep. 7, 293–305 (2014).

  97. 97

    Pattanayak, V. et al. High-throughput profiling of off-target DNA cleavage reveals RNA-programmed Cas9 nuclease specificity. Nature Biotech. 31, 839–843 (2013).

  98. 98

    Fu, Y. et al. High-frequency off-target mutagenesis induced by CRISPR–Cas nucleases in human cells. Nature Biotech. 31, 822–826 (2013).

  99. 99

    Lin, Y. et al. CRISPR/Cas9 systems have off-target activity with insertions or deletions between target DNA and guide RNA sequences. Nucleic Acids Res. 42, 7473–7485 (2014).

  100. 100

    Sanjana, N. E., Shalem, O. & Zhang, F. Improved vectors and genome-wide libraries for CRISPR screening. Nature Methods 11, 783–784 (2014).

  101. 101

    Veres, A. et al. Low incidence of off-target mutations in individual CRISPR–Cas9 and TALEN targeted human stem cell clones detected by whole-genome sequencing. Cell Stem Cell 15, 27–30 (2014).

  102. 102

    Smith, C. et al. Whole-genome sequencing analysis reveals high specificity of CRISPR/Cas9 and TALEN-based genome editing in human iPSCs. Cell Stem Cell 15, 12–13 (2014).

  103. 103

    Frock, R. L. et al. Genome-wide detection of DNA double-stranded breaks induced by engineered nucleases. Nature Biotech. 33, 179–186 (2015).

  104. 104

    Tsai, S. Q. et al. GUIDE-seq enables genome-wide profiling of off-target cleavage by CRISPR–Cas nucleases. Nature Biotech. 33, 187–197 (2015).

  105. 105

    Kuscu, C., Arslan, S., Singh, R., Thorpe, J. & Adli, M. Genome-wide analysis reveals characteristics of off-target sites bound by the Cas9 endonuclease. Nature Biotech. 32, 677–683 (2014).

  106. 106

    Sternberg, S. H., Redding, S., Jinek, M., Greene, E. C. & Doudna, J. A. DNA interrogation by the CRISPR RNA-guided endonuclease Cas9. Nature 507, 62–67 (2014).

  107. 107

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

  108. 108

    Fu, Y., Sander, J. D., Reyon, D., Cascio, V. M. & Joung, J. K. Improving CRISPR–Cas nuclease specificity using truncated guide RNAs. Nature Biotech. 32, 279–284 (2014).

  109. 109

    Ran, F. A. et al. Double nicking by RNA-guided CRISPR Cas9 for enhanced genome editing specificity. Cell 154, 1380–1389 (2013).

  110. 110

    Jinek, M. et al. Structures of Cas9 endonucleases reveal RNA-mediated conformational activation. Science 343, 1247997 (2014).

  111. 111

    Ran, F. A. et al. In vivo genome editing with Staphylococcus aureus Cas9. Nature (in the press).

  112. 112

    Esvelt, K. M. et al. Orthogonal Cas9 proteins for RNA-guided gene regulation and editing. Nature Methods 10, 1116–1121 (2013).

  113. 113

    Qiu, S., Adema, C. M. & Lane, T. A computational study of off-target effects of RNA interference. Nucleic Acids Res. 33, 1834–1847 (2005).

  114. 114

    Buehler, E. et al. siRNA off-target effects in genome-wide screens identify signaling pathway members. Sci. Rep. 2, 428 (2012).

  115. 115

    Franceschini, A. et al. Specific inhibition of diverse pathogens in human cells by synthetic microRNA-like oligonucleotides inferred from RNAi screens. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 4548–4553 (2014).

  116. 116

    Zhong, R. et al. Computational detection and suppression of sequence-specific off-target phenotypes from whole genome RNAi screens. Nucleic Acids Res. 42, 8214–8222 (2014).

  117. 117

    Gu, S. et al. The loop position of shRNAs and pre-miRNAs is critical for the accuracy of dicer processing in vivo. Cell 151, 900–911 (2012).

  118. 118

    Frank, F., Sonenberg, N. & Nagar, B. Structural basis for 5′-nucleotide base-specific recognition of guide RNA by human AGO2. Nature 465, 818–822 (2010).

  119. 119

    Platt, R. J. et al. CRISPR–Cas9 knockin mice for genome editing and cancer modeling. Cell 159, 440–455 (2014).

  120. 120

    Swiech, L. et al. In vivo interrogation of gene function in the mammalian brain using CRISPR–Cas9. Nature Biotech. 33, 102–106 (2015).

  121. 121

    Dorsett, Y. & Tuschl, T. siRNAs: applications in functional genomics and potential as therapeutics. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 3, 318–329 (2004).

  122. 122

    Bartel, D. P. MicroRNAs: genomics, biogenesis, mechanism, and function. Cell 116, 281–297 (2004).

  123. 123

    Wang, H. et al. One-step generation of mice carrying mutations in multiple genes by CRISPR/Cas-mediated genome engineering. Cell 153, 910–918 (2013).

  124. 124

    Bassik, M. C. et al. A systematic mammalian genetic interaction map reveals pathways underlying ricin susceptibility. Cell 152, 909–922 (2013).

  125. 125

    Findlay, G. M., Boyle, E. A., Hause, R. J., Klein, J. C. & Shendure, J. Saturation editing of genomic regions by multiplex homology-directed repair. Nature 513, 120–123 (2014).

  126. 126

    Kellis, M. et al. Defining functional DNA elements in the human genome. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 6131–6138 (2014).

  127. 127

    ENCODE Project Consortium. The ENCODE (ENCyclopedia Of DNA Elements) project. Science 306, 636–640 (2004).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank L. Solomon for help with illustrations, J. Wright for manuscript review and members of the Zhang Laboratory for discussions. O.S. is supported by a Klarman Family Foundation Fellowship. N.E.S. is supported by a Simons Center for the Social Brain Postdoctoral Fellowship and by the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) of the US National Institutes of Health under award number K99-HG008171. F.Z. is supported by the US National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) (DP1-MH100706), the US National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) (R01-NS07312401), a US National Science Foundation (NSF) Waterman Award, the Keck, Damon Runyon, Searle Scholars, Klingenstein, Vallee, Merkin, Simons, and New York Stem Cell Foundations, and Bob Metcalfe. F.Z. is a New York Stem Cell Foundation Robertson Investigator.

Author information

Correspondence to Ophir Shalem or Feng Zhang.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

N.E.S., O.S. and F.Z. are named on patent applications related to this work. F.Z. is a cofounder of Editas Medicine and a scientific adviser for Editas Medicine and Horizon Discovery.

PowerPoint slides

Glossary

Small interfering RNA

(siRNA). RNA molecules that are 21–23 nucleotides long and that are processed from long double-stranded RNAs; they are functional components of the RNA-induced silencing complex (RISC). siRNAs typically target and silence mRNAs by binding perfectly complementary sequences in the mRNA and causing their degradation and/or translational inhibition.

Short hairpin RNA

(shRNA). Small RNAs forming hairpins that can induce sequence-specific silencing in mammalian cells through RNA interference, both when expressed endogenously and when produced exogenously and transfected into the cell.

microRNA

(miRNA). Small RNA molecules processed from hairpin-containing RNA precursors that are produced from endogenous miRNA-encoding genes. miRNAs are 21–23 nucleotides in length and, through the RNA-induced silencing complex (RISC), they target and silence mRNAs containing imperfectly complementary sequences.

Indel

(Insertion and deletion). Mutations due to small insertions or deletions of DNA sequences.

Single guide RNA

(sgRNA). An artificial fusion of CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeat) RNA (crRNA) and transactivating crRNA (tracrRNA) with critical secondary structures for loading onto Cas9 for genome editing. It functionally substitutes the complex of crRNA and tracrRNA that occurs in natural CRISPR systems. It uses RNA–DNA hybridization to guide Cas9 to the genomic target.

Nonsense-mediated decay

(NMD). An mRNA surveillance mechanism that degrades mRNAs containing nonsense mutations to prevent the expression of truncated or erroneous proteins.

CRISPRi

An engineered transcriptional silencing complex based on catalytically inactive Cas9 (dCas9) fusions and/or single guide RNA (sgRNA) modification.

CRISPRa

An engineered transcriptional activation complex based on catalytically inactive Cas9 (dCas9) fusions and/or single guide RNA (sgRNA) modification.

False-positive

Pertaining to screening results: in a screen that results in a set of putative gene hits associated with a phenotype, a false positive is a gene that is predicted to be associated but that is actually not associated with the phenotype.

False-negative

Pertaining to screening results: in a screen that results in a set of putative gene hits associated with a phenotype, a false negative is a true hit that was missed.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shalem, O., Sanjana, N. & Zhang, F. High-throughput functional genomics using CRISPR–Cas9. Nat Rev Genet 16, 299–311 (2015) doi:10.1038/nrg3899

Download citation

Further reading