A benchmark of computational CRISPR-Cas9 guide design methods.

Clicks: 231
ID: 24413
2019
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #53 of 137 articles by views in PLoS computational biology

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 137 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
The popularity of CRISPR-based gene editing has resulted in an abundance of tools to design CRISPR-Cas9 guides. This is also driven by the fact that designing highly specific and efficient guides is a crucial, but not trivial, task in using CRISPR for gene editing. Here, we thoroughly analyse the performance of 18 design tools. They are evaluated based on runtime performance, compute requirements, and guides generated. To achieve this, we implemented a method for auditing system resources while a given tool executes, and tested each tool on datasets of increasing size, derived from the mouse genome. We found that only five tools had a computational performance that would allow them to analyse an entire genome in a reasonable time, and without exhausting computing resources. There was wide variation in the guides identified, with some tools reporting every possible guide while others filtered for predicted efficiency. Some tools also failed to exclude guides that would target multiple positions in the genome. We also considered two collections with over a thousand guides each, for which experimental data is available. There is a lot of variation in performance between the datasets, but the relative order of the tools is partially conserved. Importantly, the most striking result is a lack of consensus between the tools. Our results show that CRISPR-Cas9 guide design tools need further work in order to achieve rapid whole-genome analysis and that improvements in guide design will likely require combining multiple approaches.
Reference Key
bradford2019aplos Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Bradford, Jacob;Perrin, Dimitri;
Journal PLoS computational biology
Year 2019
DOI
10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007274
URL
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.