Zheng Gong (龚政) , Yan Zhang (张妍) , Di Xia , Sohye Yoon , Peter Alexander Crisp , José Ramón Botella
{"title":"Comprehensive benchmarking of genome editing quantification methods for plant applications","authors":"Zheng Gong (龚政) , Yan Zhang (张妍) , Di Xia , Sohye Yoon , Peter Alexander Crisp , José Ramón Botella","doi":"10.1016/j.isci.2025.112350","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Accurately detecting and quantifying CRISPR edits with high sensitivity is crucial for developing new genome editing applications in plants. This is especially important when analyzing heterogeneous populations from transient expression-based approaches used for technology development as well as evaluating of guide RNA (gRNA) performance <em>in planta</em>. However, current studies employ vastly different techniques to quantify genome editing outcomes, limiting the comparability and repeatability of results. In this study, we systematically evaluated and compared experimental techniques for quantifying plant genome editing across a wide range of efficiencies. We measured genome editing efficiency from 20 transiently expressed Cas9 targets using different techniques, including targeted amplicon sequencing (AmpSeq), PCR-restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) assays, T7 endonuclease 1 (T7E1) assays, Sanger sequencing of amplicon products (deconvoluted and analyzed using three algorithms), PCR-capillary electrophoresis/InDel detection by amplicon analysis (PCR-CE/IDAA), and droplet digital PCR (ddPCR). We assessed methods based on their accuracy, sensitivity, and cost, benchmarked to AmpSeq. Furthermore, we discuss the advantages and drawbacks of each technique, the issues faced during optimization and the solutions we devised. This study will be useful to experienced and new researchers in the field, providing suggestions and guidelines to standardize data output and advice about the most suitable technique/s to quantify genome edits for different plant applications.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":342,"journal":{"name":"iScience","volume":"28 6","pages":"Article 112350"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"iScience","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S258900422500611X","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Accurately detecting and quantifying CRISPR edits with high sensitivity is crucial for developing new genome editing applications in plants. This is especially important when analyzing heterogeneous populations from transient expression-based approaches used for technology development as well as evaluating of guide RNA (gRNA) performance in planta. However, current studies employ vastly different techniques to quantify genome editing outcomes, limiting the comparability and repeatability of results. In this study, we systematically evaluated and compared experimental techniques for quantifying plant genome editing across a wide range of efficiencies. We measured genome editing efficiency from 20 transiently expressed Cas9 targets using different techniques, including targeted amplicon sequencing (AmpSeq), PCR-restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) assays, T7 endonuclease 1 (T7E1) assays, Sanger sequencing of amplicon products (deconvoluted and analyzed using three algorithms), PCR-capillary electrophoresis/InDel detection by amplicon analysis (PCR-CE/IDAA), and droplet digital PCR (ddPCR). We assessed methods based on their accuracy, sensitivity, and cost, benchmarked to AmpSeq. Furthermore, we discuss the advantages and drawbacks of each technique, the issues faced during optimization and the solutions we devised. This study will be useful to experienced and new researchers in the field, providing suggestions and guidelines to standardize data output and advice about the most suitable technique/s to quantify genome edits for different plant applications.
期刊介绍:
Science has many big remaining questions. To address them, we will need to work collaboratively and across disciplines. The goal of iScience is to help fuel that type of interdisciplinary thinking. iScience is a new open-access journal from Cell Press that provides a platform for original research in the life, physical, and earth sciences. The primary criterion for publication in iScience is a significant contribution to a relevant field combined with robust results and underlying methodology. The advances appearing in iScience include both fundamental and applied investigations across this interdisciplinary range of topic areas. To support transparency in scientific investigation, we are happy to consider replication studies and papers that describe negative results.
We know you want your work to be published quickly and to be widely visible within your community and beyond. With the strong international reputation of Cell Press behind it, publication in iScience will help your work garner the attention and recognition it merits. Like all Cell Press journals, iScience prioritizes rapid publication. Our editorial team pays special attention to high-quality author service and to efficient, clear-cut decisions based on the information available within the manuscript. iScience taps into the expertise across Cell Press journals and selected partners to inform our editorial decisions and help publish your science in a timely and seamless way.