Comprehensive benchmarking of genome editing quantification methods for plant applications

IF 4.6 2区 综合性期刊 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
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) ,&nbsp;Yan Zhang (张妍) ,&nbsp;Di Xia ,&nbsp;Sohye Yoon ,&nbsp;Peter Alexander Crisp ,&nbsp;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.
植物基因组编辑量化方法的综合标杆分析
高灵敏度地准确检测和定量CRISPR编辑对于开发新的植物基因组编辑应用至关重要。这在分析异质群体时尤其重要,这些异质群体采用基于瞬时表达的方法用于技术开发,以及评估植物中的引导RNA (gRNA)性能。然而,目前的研究采用了截然不同的技术来量化基因组编辑结果,限制了结果的可比性和可重复性。在这项研究中,我们系统地评估和比较了在广泛的效率范围内量化植物基因组编辑的实验技术。我们使用不同的技术测量了20个瞬时表达的Cas9靶点的基因组编辑效率,包括靶向扩增子测序(AmpSeq)、PCR-限制性片段长度多态性(RFLP)测定、T7核酸内切酶1 (T7E1)测定、扩增子产物的Sanger测序(使用三种算法进行反卷积和分析)、PCR-毛细管电泳/扩增子分析InDel检测(PCR- ce /IDAA)和微滴数字PCR (ddPCR)。我们以AmpSeq为基准,根据其准确性、灵敏度和成本对方法进行了评估。此外,我们还讨论了每种技术的优缺点,优化过程中面临的问题以及我们设计的解决方案。该研究将对该领域的新老研究人员有用,为标准化数据输出提供建议和指导,并为不同植物应用的基因组编辑量化提供最合适的技术建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
iScience
iScience Multidisciplinary-Multidisciplinary
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
1.70%
发文量
1972
审稿时长
6 weeks
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信