Benchmarking CRISPR on‐target sgRNA design

&NA; CRISPR (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats)‐based gene editing has been widely implemented in various cell types and organisms. A major challenge in the effective application of the CRISPR system is the need to design highly efficient single‐guide RNA (sgRNA) with minimal off‐target cleavage. Several tools are available for sgRNA design, while limited tools were compared. In our opinion, benchmarking the performance of the available tools and indicating their applicable scenarios are important issues. Moreover, whether the reported sgRNA design rules are reproducible across different sgRNA libraries, cell types and organisms remains unclear. In our study, a systematic and unbiased benchmark of the sgRNA predicting efficacy was performed on nine representative on‐target design tools, based on six benchmark data sets covering five different cell types. The benchmark study presented here provides novel quantitative insights into the available CRISPR tools.

[1]  Meagan E. Sullender,et al.  Optimized sgRNA design to maximize activity and minimize off-target effects of CRISPR-Cas9 , 2015, Nature Biotechnology.

[2]  Ciaran M Lee,et al.  Nuclease Target Site Selection for Maximizing On-target Activity and Minimizing Off-target Effects in Genome Editing , 2016, Molecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy.

[3]  Xiaowei Wang,et al.  WU-CRISPR: characteristics of functional guide RNAs for the CRISPR/Cas9 system , 2015, bioRxiv.

[4]  G. Church,et al.  Unraveling CRISPR-Cas9 genome engineering parameters via a library-on-library approach , 2015, Nature Methods.

[5]  Guohui Chuai,et al.  In Silico Meets In Vivo: Towards Computational CRISPR-Based sgRNA Design. , 2017, Trends in biotechnology.

[6]  Charles E. Vejnar,et al.  CRISPRscan: designing highly efficient sgRNAs for CRISPR/Cas9 targeting in vivo , 2015, Nature Methods.

[7]  Sangsu Bae,et al.  Microhomology-based choice of Cas9 nuclease target sites , 2014, Nature Methods.

[8]  M. Boutros,et al.  E-CRISP: fast CRISPR target site identification , 2014, Nature Methods.

[9]  Vinita Periwal,et al.  A comprehensive overview of computational resources to aid in precision genome editing with engineered nucleases , 2016, Briefings Bioinform..

[10]  Jaana Kekäläinen,et al.  Cumulated gain-based evaluation of IR techniques , 2002, TOIS.

[11]  Jin-Soo Kim,et al.  Cas-Designer: a web-based tool for choice of CRISPR-Cas9 target sites , 2015, Bioinform..

[12]  George M. Church,et al.  CHOPCHOP: a CRISPR/Cas9 and TALEN web tool for genome editing , 2014, Nucleic Acids Res..

[13]  M. Friedman.  The Use of Ranks to Avoid the Assumption of Normality Implicit in the Analysis of Variance , 1937 .

[14]  Daniel Gaston,et al.  CRISPR MultiTargeter: A Web Tool to Find Common and Unique CRISPR Single Guide RNA Targets in a Set of Similar Sequences , 2015, PloS one.

[15]  Clifford A. Meyer,et al.  Sequence determinants of improved CRISPR sgRNA design , 2015, Genome research.

[16]  Qin Ma,et al.  Deciphering relationship between microhomology and in-frame mutation occurrence in human CRISPR-based gene knockout , 2016, Molecular therapy. Nucleic acids.

[17]  J. Kent,et al.  Evaluation of off-target and on-target scoring algorithms and integration into the guide RNA selection tool CRISPOR , 2016, Genome Biology.