$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
Genome engineering has seen significant advancements over the past twenty years, with a major milestone being the discovery of clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)-Cas9 in 20121. Leveraging the programmable nature of bacterial DNA endonucleases, CRISPR-Cas9 technology enables precise targeting and modification of almost any DNA sequence. Since its inception, the system has been optimized to rely only on the Cas9 endonuclease and a guide RNA (gRNA) to edit specific genomic regions. CRISPR-Cas9's potential as a curative therapy has been demonstrated in clinical trials for various conditions such as Leber's congenital amaurosis, transthyretin amyloidosis, and sickle cell anemia, among others2,3,4.
CRISPR-Cas9 induces double-stranded breaks (DSBs), which are typically resolved by one of two mechanisms: the error-prone non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) or the more precise homology-directed repair (HDR), provided a template DNA is available. The tendency of CRISPR-Cas9 to cause NHEJ-associated insertions and deletions (indels), along with cleavage at unintended genomic sites, limits its application in clinical settings5,6,7,8,9,10. Additionally, unintended genomic modifications can create cryptic splice sites, nonsense or missense mutations, induce chromothripsis, or confer oncogenic potential to cells-outcomes that have been observed in several genome editing trials11,12,13,14,15. In conclusion, accurately identifying the off-target activity of CRISPR-Cas9 is crucial for its clinical applications, particularly in systemic gene therapies that may alter billions of cells.
Various methods can be employed to identify CRISPR-Cas9 off-target cleavage sites, including Genome-wide Unbiased Identification of Double-stranded breaks (GUIDE)-seq16, which uses double-stranded oligodeoxynucleotides to tag DSBs in living cells. Nevertheless, a criticism of this method is that false positives can arise from random DSBs or from PCR artifacts, which must be discarded by excluding captured sites that show poor similarity to the on-target sites. The method based on the use of Integrase-Defective Lentiviral Vector (IDLV) is less sensitive and likely to miss many off-target sites17. Other in situ methods like DSBCapture, BLESS, and BLISS18,19,20 involve fixed cells and label DSBs directly, however they are constrained by their dependency on immediate DSB capture and the absence of exogenous DNA. Digenome-seq21, an in vitro method, and Selective enrichment and Identification of Tagged genomic DNA Ends by sequencing (SITE-seq)22 both provide sequencing solutions but have their limitations in background noise and single-end analysis, respectively. Discovery of in situ Cas off-targets and verification by sequencing (Discover-Seq)23 offers in vivo and in situ identification of Cas9 activity via MRE11 binding, but only detects DSBs that exist at the time of sample preparation24. Lastly, Inference of CRISPR Edits (ICE) uses a bioinformatics approach to robustly analyze CRISPR edits using Sanger data25.
This article describes a detailed procedure for Circularization for In Vitro Reporting of Cleavage Effects by Sequencing (CIRCLE-seq): an in vitro technique that sensitively and impartially maps the genome-wide off-target activity of Cas9 nuclease in a complex with the gRNA of interest26. This approach begins with culturing the cells of interest and isolating DNA, followed by random shearing through focused ultrasonication, then exonuclease and ligase treatment. This process ultimately produces circular double-stranded DNA molecules, which are then purified through plasmid-safe DNase treatment. This circular DNA is then exposed to the Cas9-gRNA complex, which cleaves at both intended and unintended cleavage sites, leaving behind exposed DNA ends that act as substrates for Illumina adapter ligation. This process produces a diverse library of genomic DNA (gDNA) containing both ends of each nuclease-induced DSB, ensuring that each read has all the information necessary for each cleavage site. This allows for the use of Illumina sequencing with lower sequencing coverage requirements, setting CIRCLE-seq apart from other similar methods mentioned above. It is important to note that while CIRCLE-seq does have higher off-target sensitivity than other protocols as an in vitro method, this comes at the cost of higher false-positives due to the absence of the epigenetic landscape that is present in other methods such as GUIDE-seq16. Additionally, DSB DNA repair and its associated machinery are not present in CIRCLE-seq, abrogating indels or proper repair that would otherwise be observed.
In addition to describing the step-by-step protocol to perform CIRCLE-seq, the protocol is validated by identifying genome-wide unintended cleavage sites of CRISPR-Cas9 that occur during the modification of the AAVS1 locus, as an example. This easy-to-follow protocol provides detailed instructions, from the culture of induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) and gDNA isolation to gDNA circularization, Cas9-gRNA cleavage, library preparation, sequencing, and pipeline analysis. Given the low sequencing coverage requirements, CIRCLE-seq is available to any lab with access to next-generation sequencing.