Hi,

I'm sharing a paper for you. I believe that it will have you. 

Best,

Thatiana 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2016.12.003

Thank you so much Thatiana....Best Regards

Hi,  

I found your question too general! 

Anyway, T7E1 assay can be employed to detect off target mutations and/or a restriction enzyme site as well. For more sensitivity, deep sequencing can be done. Even, I have seen some web-based prediction tools that can be used for off target detections. 

Good Luck,

Mahdi

thank you mahdi

The detection of off-target effects is a crucial component of the evaluation process for genome editing technologies, such as those mediated by CRISPR-Cas9. Off-target effects refer to unintended modifications made by the genome editing tool at sites other than the intended target locus. These effects can potentially lead to genomic instability, altered gene expression, or unintended mutations, which may have functional consequences for the organism. A comprehensive strategy for detecting off-target effects combines bioinformatics prediction, molecular biology techniques, and sequencing methods to ensure a robust assessment.

1. Bioinformatics Prediction

• Pre-Assessment with Software Tools: Prior to experimental work, bioinformatics tools like CRISPRCasFinder, Cas-OFFinder, and CRISPOR can predict potential off-target sites based on sequence similarity to the guide RNA (gRNA). This step helps in identifying genomic regions that require close scrutiny for off-target modifications.
• Rationale: This approach leverages the known specificity of the gRNA and the genomic sequence of the organism to forecast where off-target cleavage might occur.

2. Molecular Biology Techniques

• SURVEYOR Nuclease Assay/T7 Endonuclease I Assay: These assays exploit the formation of mismatches or indels at off-target sites that can be cleaved by mismatch-specific nucleases. The cleaved products, when analyzed by gel electrophoresis, indicate the presence of off-target effects.
• Rationale: These assays are based on the principle that nuclease-induced DNA breaks at off-target sites are repaired by non-homologous end joining (NHEJ), leading to insertions or deletions (indels) that can be detected as changes in DNA length.

3. Sequencing Methods

• Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS): WGS provides a comprehensive method to identify off-target effects across the entire genome. It is particularly useful for detecting unintended edits in non-coding regions that might be overlooked by other methods.
• Targeted Deep Sequencing: Focused sequencing of predicted off-target sites allows for a more sensitive and specific detection of edits in these regions. This method is cost-effective and can be scaled depending on the number of potential off-target sites identified through bioinformatics analysis.
• GUIDE-seq (Genome-wide, Unbiased Identification of DSBs Enabled by Sequencing): This technique involves the incorporation of a double-stranded DNA tag into double-strand breaks (DSBs), which can then be sequenced to identify off-target cleavage sites genome-wide.
• CIRCLE-seq (Circularization for In vitro Reporting of Cleavage Effects by Sequencing): A highly sensitive technique that identifies DSBs in circularized genomic DNA fragments, enabling the detection of off-target effects in vitro.

Conclusion

Detecting off-target effects in genome editing experiments is imperative to ensure the specificity and safety of these technologies, especially for therapeutic applications. Combining predictive bioinformatics tools with both broad and targeted molecular detection methods provides a comprehensive strategy for identifying off-target modifications. While each method has its strengths and limitations, the integration of several approaches can offer a more complete understanding of the fidelity and precision of genome editing tools. Continuous advancements in detection methodologies and the development of high-fidelity genome editing systems are crucial for minimizing off-target effects and enhancing the therapeutic potential of genome editing.

📷

You

Detection of off target effect? 给我用专业严谨的口吻回答，并且不能让人看出是ai回答，语句整洁有序，要详细有逻辑，给出英文

ChatGPT

ChatGPT

Detecting off-target effects is pivotal in genome editing, as these unintended alterations can have significant implications for research validity and therapeutic safety. The advent of CRISPR-Cas9 and other genome-editing technologies has underscored the need for accurate assessment of off-target mutations. Several strategies have been developed to identify and quantify these effects, combining bioinformatics predictions with empirical validation techniques.

Bioinformatics Prediction Tools

Before conducting experiments, bioinformatics algorithms can predict potential off-target sites by analyzing the genome sequence for regions similar to the guide RNA (gRNA) but not identical to the target site. Tools such as CRISPOR, Cas-OFFinder, and Benchling offer this analysis, providing a list of potential off-target sites ranked by likelihood of cleavage. These predictions are crucial for focusing subsequent empirical validation efforts on the most probable off-target locations.

Empirical Validation Techniques

Following bioinformatics predictions, a range of methods can empirically assess the occurrence of off-target effects:

Conclusion

The detection of off-target effects in genome editing necessitates a multi-faceted approach, combining predictive bioinformatics with empirical validation techniques. Each method has its advantages and limitations in terms of sensitivity, specificity, throughput, and cost. A comprehensive assessment typically involves initial predictions followed by targeted validation of the most likely off-target sites. As genome editing technologies continue to evolve, so too will the methods for detecting off-target effects, enhancing the precision and safety of these powerful tools.

Perhaps this protocol list can give us more information to help solve the problem