↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of off-target and on-target scoring algorithms and integration into the guide RNA selection tool CRISPOR

Overview of attention for article published in Genome Biology, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
28 X users
patent
45 patents
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
1365 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1434 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Evaluation of off-target and on-target scoring algorithms and integration into the guide RNA selection tool CRISPOR
Published in
Genome Biology, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13059-016-1012-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maximilian Haeussler, Kai Schönig, Hélène Eckert, Alexis Eschstruth, Joffrey Mianné, Jean-Baptiste Renaud, Sylvie Schneider-Maunoury, Alena Shkumatava, Lydia Teboul, Jim Kent, Jean-Stephane Joly, Jean-Paul Concordet

Abstract

The success of the CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing technique depends on the choice of the guide RNA sequence, which is facilitated by various websites. Despite the importance and popularity of these algorithms, it is unclear to which extent their predictions are in agreement with actual measurements. We conduct the first independent evaluation of CRISPR/Cas9 predictions. To this end, we collect data from eight SpCas9 off-target studies and compare them with the sites predicted by popular algorithms. We identify problems in one implementation but found that sequence-based off-target predictions are very reliable, identifying most off-targets with mutation rates superior to 0.1 %, while the number of false positives can be largely reduced with a cutoff on the off-target score. We also evaluate on-target efficiency prediction algorithms against available datasets. The correlation between the predictions and the guide activity varied considerably, especially for zebrafish. Together with novel data from our labs, we find that the optimal on-target efficiency prediction model strongly depends on whether the guide RNA is expressed from a U6 promoter or transcribed in vitro. We further demonstrate that the best predictions can significantly reduce the time spent on guide screening. To make these guidelines easily accessible to anyone planning a CRISPR genome editing experiment, we built a new website ( http://crispor.org ) that predicts off-targets and helps select and clone efficient guide sequences for more than 120 genomes using different Cas9 proteins and the eight efficiency scoring systems evaluated here.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,434 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 2 <1%
Argentina 2 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Ukraine 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
China 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 1425 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 348 24%
Researcher 231 16%
Student > Master 175 12%
Student > Bachelor 168 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 75 5%
Other 150 10%
Unknown 287 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 495 35%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 341 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 57 4%
Neuroscience 53 4%
Computer Science 31 2%
Other 135 9%
Unknown 322 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 39. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 March 2024.
All research outputs
#1,074,214
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Genome Biology
#771
of 4,520 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,064
of 376,687 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genome Biology
#14
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,520 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 376,687 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.