ArticleBMC research notes2024
CRISPR-Cas guide RNA indel analysis using CRISPResso2 with Nanopore sequencing data.
Article in BMC research notes, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- CRISPRing through time: How cutting-edge technology is revolutionizing life sciences and medicine.Molecular therapy. Nucleic acids · 2026Review
- Leveraging DNA repair mechanisms in genetically engineered biocontrol.Current opinion in insect science · 2026Review
- Decoding thebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Microhomology-mediated end joining is the predominant form of DNA repair in the mosquito Aedes aegypti with implications for gene editing, gene drive, and transgene removal.Nucleic acids research · 2026Article
- Enhanced cleavage of genomicRNA biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveInsertion and deletion (indel) analysis of CRISPR-Cas guide RNAs (gRNAs) is crucial in gene editing to assess gRNA efficiency and indel frequency. This study evaluates the utility of CRISPResso2 with Oxford Nanopore sequencing data (nCRISPResso2) for gRNA indel screening, compared to two common Sanger sequencing-based methods, TIDE and ICE. To achieve this, sheep and horse fibroblasts were transfected with Cas9 and a gRNA targeting the myostatin (MSTN) gene. DNA was subsequently extracted, and PCR products exceeding 600 bp were sequenced using both Sanger and Nanopore sequencing. Indel profiling was then conducted using TIDE, ICE, and nCRISPResso2.
resultsComparison revealed close correspondence in indel formation among methods. For the sheep MSTN gRNA, indel percentages were 52%, 58%, and 64% for TIDE, ICE, and nCRISPResso2, respectively. Horse MSTN gRNA showed 81%, 87%, and 86% edited amplicons for TIDE, ICE, and nCRISPResso2. The frequency of each type of indel was also comparable among the three methods, with nCRISPResso2 and ICE aligning the closest. nCRISPResso2 offers a viable alternative for CRISPR-Cas gRNA indel screening, especially with large amplicons unsuitable for Illumina sequencing. CRISPResso2's compatibility with Nanopore data enables cost-effective and efficient indel profiling, yielding results comparable to common Sanger sequencing-based methods.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.