
==== Front
NPJ Syst Biol Appl
NPJ Syst Biol Appl
NPJ Systems Biology and Applications
2056-7189
Nature Publishing Group UK London

39227603
431
10.1038/s41540-024-00431-8
Article
Codon usage and expression-based features significantly improve prediction of CRISPR efficiency
Bergman Shaked 1
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4194-7068
Tuller Tamir tamirtul@tauex.tau.ac.il

12
1 https://ror.org/04mhzgx49 grid.12136.37 0000 0004 1937 0546 Department of Biomedical Engineering, Tel-Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
2 https://ror.org/04mhzgx49 grid.12136.37 0000 0004 1937 0546 The Sagol School of Neuroscience, Tel-Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
3 9 2024
3 9 2024
2024
10 10023 2 2024
27 8 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
CRISPR is a precise and effective genome editing technology; but despite several advancements during the last decade, our ability to computationally design gRNAs remains limited. Most predictive models have relatively low predictive power and utilize only the sequence of the target site as input. Here we suggest a new category of features, which incorporate the target site genomic position and the presence of genes close to it. We calculate four features based on gene expression and codon usage bias indices. We show, on CRISPR datasets taken from 3 different cell types, that such features perform comparably with 425 state-of-the-art predictive features, ranking in the top 2–12% of features. We trained new predictive models, showing that adding expression features to them significantly improves their r2 by up to 0.04 (relative increase of 39%), achieving average correlations of up to 0.38 on their validation sets; and that these features are deemed important by different feature importance metrics. We believe that incorporating the target site’s position, in addition to its sequence, in features such as we have generated here will improve our ability to predict, design and understand CRISPR experiments going forward.

Subject terms

Genetics
Synthetic biology
Systems biology
issue-copyright-statement© Springer Nature Limited 2024
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats) is a powerful technology to induce mutations in precise genomic locations, with potential to substantially aid the development of treatments to various diseases (such as cancer and AIDS), as well as basic science1–3. This technology is a marked improvement upon previous genome-editing tools, such as zinc-finger nucleases (ZFNs) and Transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALENs), both in precision and required resources; instead of engineering DNA-binding proteins, CRISPR utilizes a guide RNA (gRNA), which binds to complementary target sites and catalyzes a double stranded break (DSB) reaction performed by an endonuclease. In the process of repairing the break, a mutation could be induced – either randomly (via non-homologous end joining, or NHEJ) or by inserting a short sequence of interest (via homology-directed repair).

Despite its precision, the design of a sgRNA with high sensitivity and specificity that would efficiently affect its target and only its target remains a challenge; several computational models were developed to aid with various aspects of this task: tools that predict CRISPR efficiency at a given target site4–23; tools that predict the mutations induced by NHEJ24–28; and tools that find suitable gRNAs and potential off-target sites for an on-target or gene of interest29–48. These tools, while considerably advancing the field of CRISPR, have relatively low sensitivity and specificity49–55.

One possible explanation for the low performance is the nature of predictive features used in these models: almost exclusively sequence-based features, consisting of nucleotide identities at various target site positions, as well as thermodynamic features, which are sequence-based as well, such as the melting temperature of the DNA target site and the free energy of the gRNA. Only a few models include epigenetic features in addition to the sequence-based ones5,10,12,18. The usage of sequence-based features is related to the fact that most state-of-the-art models are trained on in vitro data or out-of-context target sites inserted via a lentivirus; in many cases, the dataset does not include the target site’s location at all and lists only its sequence. As a result, features based on the target site’s genomic location are expected to have low to negligible correlations with CRISPR efficiency, since the data does not fully reflect CRISPR action in its intended, in vivo setting. While the in vitro datasets are larger and more numerous than the ex vivo datasets, computational modeling of CRISPR should strive toward using ex vivo and in vivo datasets.

Gene expression, being the basis for life, is a complex process governed by a multitude of factors and conditions (reviewed in ref. 56). Measurements of gene expression reflect an orchestra of RNAs and proteins working in tandem to produce the correct protein at the correct time and are related to virtually every cellular process. Different aspects of gene expression are encoded in the codon sequence itself (reviewed in ref. 57), and several codon usage bias (CUB) indices were created to estimate the way codon composition affects gene expression (reviewed in ref. 58). For these reasons – the information encoded in expression levels, and the relative ease of estimating expression via CUB indices—we chose to evaluate expression data as potential predictive features of CRISPR efficiency. For example, highly expressed regions may entail a higher rate of cellular functions, which may be related to CRISPR’s ease-of-access to target sites, for example via chromatin accessibility or endogenous factors that aid CRISPR action. Here we show that expression measurements and CUB indices can be used as useful features to predict CRISPR efficiency and could be an important tool in understanding the way CRISPR works ex vivo and in vivo.

Results

The general structure of the study

In this study, we have set out to assess the viability of CUB and expression features as predictive features of CRISPR efficiency. To that end, we downloaded empirical CRISPR ex-vivo data (see “Acquiring ex-vivo CRISPR efficiency”), generated features based on their corresponding cell types (see “Calculating CUB and expression features”) and checked that our features’ relation with CRISPR efficiency is not diminished when controlling for chromatin accessibility (see “CUB/expression correlation is not explained by chromatin accessibility”). We compared our features to well-established features used in state-of-the-art models (“CUB and expression features outperform most classic features”) and checked whether they encode new information compared to these models (“CUB and expression features encode information orthogonal to state-of-the-art models”); we then checked for consistent trends in the relationship between our features and CRISPR efficiency (“High-efficiency sites reside in significantly higher-expressed genes relative to low-efficiency sites”). Finally, we trained predictive CRISPR models with the well-established features and checked whether adding our features significantly improved them, and whether our features are marked as important by various feature importance metrics (“CUB and expression features significantly improve CRISPR prediction”).

Acquiring ex-vivo CRISPR efficiency

To properly evaluate the predictive power of expression-based features, we required efficiency data measured ex vivo rather than in vitro; we downloaded the 3 largest ex vivo CRISPR efficiency datasets, which are based on 3 different cell types: T cell data from Leenay et al., including 1574 sites26; HEK293 data from TTISS, including 666 sites59; and U2OS data from GUIDE-Seq, including 260 sites60. The Leenay dataset includes on-target data, whereas the other two sets are largely off-target data.

Calculating CUB and expression features

To generate expression features, we downloaded the transcript sequences and coordinates available in Ensembl v.10961 and found for each target site its nearby genes (which we defined as genes whose genomic distance from the target sites is up to 1000 codons, or 3000nt). The features are calculated for each gene, and the feature value for each site is defined as the average feature value over its nearby genes.

We had initially generated 7 different features, 3 of which were lowly correlated with CRISPR efficiency (See methods and Supplementary Table 1). We discarded these features and continued our analysis with the remaining 4: (A) Expression, i.e. normalized mRNA levels of each gene, downloaded from the Expression Atlas62 for T, HEK293 and U2OS cells. (B) ChimeraARS63; this index captures high-dimensional patterns in gene sequences based on a reference set. We chose the top 2% expressed genes (based on the Expression Atlas data) as a reference set. (C) Normalized translational efficiency (nTE)64, which estimates the tRNA supply-and-demand in the cell and how suited the gene is to that supply. (D) Relative codon bias strength (RCBS), which estimates the codon usage bias of the transcript65. We categorize feature A as an “Expression” feature, and features B-D as “CUB” features. The first three features are calculated using transcript sequences and expression levels, based on the dataset’s cell type; whereas RCBS is based solely on transcript sequences, and is identical for the 3 cell types.

CUB/expression correlation is not explained by chromatin accessibility

Epigenetic accessibility was shown to be related to CRISPR efficiency and is used in a few predictive models5,10,12,18. To validate whether the correlations between CUB/expression and CRISPR efficiency are due to that relation, we calculated the partial correlation between our features and CRISPR efficiency when controlling for chromatin accessibility based on DNAse measurements (see the methods section for details). While the correlations were indeed reduced after controlling for accessibility, the reduction was not substantial for the highly correlative features (partial correlations around 0.1, similar to the full correlations); on the other hand, the lowly correlative features’ correlation was reduced more noticeably, with a halving (or more) of the correlation in some cases (Supplementary Table 2). This indicates that accessibility can explain some, but not all, of the CUB/expression correlations with CRISPR efficiency. We note here and in the discussion section that CUB/expression features are substantially easier to acquire and calculate for a variety of cell types and tissues, compared to chromatin accessibility.

CUB and expression features outperform most classic features

To evaluate the CUB and expression, we first calculated 425 well-established features used in most CRISPR models; of these, 420 were sequence features, indicating the identity of each nucleotide at each position, as well as the fraction of each nucleotide and dinucleotide in the target site; and 5 were thermodynamic features, estimating the free energy of different regions in the sgRNA and the melting temperature of the DNA target site (see “Calculating classic features” for more details). We then calculated the correlation between the features and CRISPR efficiency (Fig. 1a). The CUB and expression features ranked highly in all 3 datasets, with the best CUB feature ranked in the top 12%/2%/7% in the T/HEK293/U2OS datasets, respectively. The expression feature was highly correlative in the T and HEK293 dataset, ranking in the top 5%/3%, respectively.Fig. 1 CUB and Expression features are correlative with CRISPR efficiency and encode new information.

a Spearman correlations (absolute values) between predictive features and CRISPR efficiency. b Bar charts of Spearman correlations (blue) and partial correlations (orange) between 5 state-of-the-art models and CUB/expression feature with CRISPR efficiency. The partial correlation of each vector controls for all other vectors in the cell subplot.

In the T and HEK293 datasets, the CUB features outperformed the thermodynamic features: average correlation of 0.06 (CUB) vs. 0.03 (thermodynamic) in T cells, and 0.13 (expression) vs. 0.03 (thermodynamic) in HEK293. In the U2OS set, while the best thermodynamic feature was more correlative than the best CUB feature (0.11 vs. 0.1, respectively), the averages of the feature sets were similar, with a slight advantage for the CUB features (0.06 vs. 0.07).

The expression feature outperformed the thermodynamic features in the T and HEK293 sets as well, with correlations of 0.13/0.1 (expression) vs. 0.07/0.06 (best thermodynamic feature).

Since 400 out of the 425 classic features are binary while our expression features are continuous, we conducted an additional comparison by converting all continuous features to binary features. For each feature, we calculated the average of its maximal and minimal values on the dataset; we then defined feature values higher than that average as 1 and features lower (or equal) than 0. We calculated the median efficiencies of sites with feature value 1/0 and took the ratio between the lower and higher values such that the ratio is ≤1. We expect this ratio to be lower for more informative features since this would denote a clearer difference between high-efficiency and low-efficiency sites (Supplementary Fig. 1). The best CUB feature was ranked in the top 13%/37%/46% out of all features and the expression feature was ranked in the top 14%/32%/7% out of all features, for the T cell/HEK293/U2OS dataset, respectively. When comparing these features only to the 29 features that were originally continuous, the best CUB feature was ranked 3rd/12th/12th, and the expression feature was ranked 5th/9th/1st.

From these results, we concluded that CUB and expression features perform well compared to the classic features and should be considered for use in predictive models.

CUB and expression features encode information orthogonal to state-of-the-art models

Next, we assessed whether our features encode information that is not included in current state-of-the-art prediction models; to that end, we used 5 such models to predict CRISPR efficiency: Azimuth66, DeepSpCas967, CHOPCHOP47 (using the Moreno-Mateos4, i.e., CRISPRscan, scoring scheme), DeepHF16 and sgRNA Scorer9. For each dataset we found the best CUB/expression feature (based on its correlation with CRISPR efficiency) and calculated its partial correlation with CRISPR efficiency when controlling for the 5 model scores (Fig. 1b). For all 3 datasets, the partial correlation was almost identical to the full correlation, indicating that the CUB/expression features’ information is not included in the state-of-the-art models and cannot be explained by them.

High-efficiency sites reside in significantly higher-expressed genes relative to low-efficiency sites

We compared the CUB and expression feature values of sites with the top 20% to sites with bottom 20% efficiency, to discern whether these values differ significantly between the two groups, and whether the direction of the relationship between expression and efficiency is consistent (Fig. 2); for each dataset, 2–4 out of the 4 features were significantly different between the groups (p-values were calculated using Wilcoxon’s rank-sum test and appear in Supplementary Table 3), and in all cases the high-efficiency sites resided in regions with higher expression than the low-efficiency sites. Thus, CUB and expression significantly differ between high-efficiency and low-efficiency sites and is consistently positively related to CRISPR efficiency.Fig. 2 High-efficiency sites reside in higher-expression regions.

Boxplots of the CUB/expression features for the sites with top/bottom 20% efficiency (orange/blue plots, respectively) in the T cell, HEK293 and U2OS datasets. Asterisks denote significance of difference between the top and bottom sites using Wilcoxon’s rank-sum test. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.

CUB and expression features significantly improve CRISPR prediction

In order to check whether using expression-based features can aid in predicting CRISPR efficiency, we trained models on the 3 datasets using repeated 5-fold cross validation (with 200 repeats). For each train-test split, we trained a model using only the classic features, and – separately – a model using these classic features and our 4 CUB/expression features. Thus, we received a distribution of 1000 correlations for each feature set (classic vs. classic + CUB/expression) in each cell type, and compared their performances (Fig. 3). We conducted this analysis for LASSO and xgboost models (using the Python scikit-learn and xgboost packages, respectively).Fig. 3 CUB and expression features significantly improve CRISPR prediction.

Histograms of the correlations between measured and predicted efficiency in the T cell, HEK293 and U2OS datasets, when testing LASSO and xgboost models. The blue/orange histogram indicates the model with/without the CUB and expression features, and the average correlation is marked with a solid/dashed line, respectively. Arrow: direction and magnitude of difference between histograms’ averages. p-values were calculated using Wilcoxon’s signed rank test.

In all 6 cases, the models were significantly improved when adding the CUB/expression features. The average r2 of the T cell/HEK293/U2OS dataset increased by 0.01/0.04/0.01 (4%/39%/11%) in the LASSO models, and 0.02/0.03/0.01 (15%/32%/15%) in the xgboost models, respectively.

We then evaluated our features’ importance in the trained models relative to the classic features (Fig. 4, Supplementary Table 4). For the LASSO models, we counted the number of times each feature was selected out of the 1000 cross validation repeats, as well as its permutation feature importance (using scikit-learn). For xgboost, we used the permutation feature importance, xgboost’s built-in “gain” importance measure, and the popular SHAP importance68. The features were ranked highly, with the best CUB/expression feature being ranked in the top 21 features (out of 429) across all 5 measures and 3 cell types. In 14 out of the 15 per-cell measures, the best CUB/expression features ranked in the top 10 features. These results demonstrate that CUB/expression features can be used to improve CRISPR predictive models.Fig. 4 CUB and expression features rank highly compared to classic features.

Ranks of features used in the LASSO and xgboost models, averaged over the 1000 cross validation iterations; a higher rank indicates a more important feature. The classic and CUB/expression features are marked with blue and orange dots, respectively. a Number of times each feature was selected in the LASSO models. b Feature rank based on LASSO permutation importance. c Feature rank based on xgboost permutation importance. d Feature rank based on xgboost’s “gain” importance. e Feature rank based on SHAP values of the xgboost models.

Discussion

In this paper, we have analyzed the value of using predictive CUB and expression features, that are based on the position – rather than only the sequence – of CRISPR target sites. After generating 4 CUB/expression features – based on mRNA levels, ChimeraARS score, nTE score and RCBS – we evaluated them on the 3 largest ex vivo CRISPR datasets that were published. The 3 dataset experiments were conducted on 3 different cell types: T cells, HEK293 and U2OS.

Comparing the CUB and expression features to classic, sequence- and thermodynamics-based features that are used in most CRISPR prediction models, we found the CUB/expression features to correlate relatively highly with CRISPR efficiency - with the best CUB/expression feature in each dataset ranking in the top 2–12% of features. In 2 of the 3 datasets, the CUB and expression features clearly outperformed established thermodynamic features, and in the third database the two types of features performed relatively similarly. Our features’ correlations with CRISPR efficiency were not substantially reduced when controlling for 5 state-of-the-art models, indicating our features indeed bring new information to the table, information not encoded in current models.

The expression feature performed well on the T cell and HEK293 datasets, but had a relatively low correlation on the U2OS dataset; whereas the CUB features as a whole were highly correlative on all 3 datasets, with different features being ranked the best in each one. Codons encode multiple aspects of gene function via complex and high-level codes57, and it is possible the CUB indices capture some of these codes better than the direct gene expression measurements, which – despite having evolved considerably in the last decades – can still be noisy, biased, and do not capture all gene expression steps (e.g., the post transcriptional steps). Thus, we believe incorporating both expression-based and CUB-based features would lead to the best results.

We also found that gene expression was significantly different between high-efficiency and low-efficiency sites, with high-efficiency sites residing in regions with higher expression. This is consistent with the correlations between the features and efficiency, which were all positive.

We evaluated the predictive power our features confer by training LASSO and xgboost models with and without the CUB and expression features, and comparing their performances; adding the 4 CUB/expression features significantly improved the models, by up to 0.04 (relative increase of 39%), and the predictive models achieved average correlations of up to 0.38 on their validation sets. We believe the fact that only 4 features achieve that much shows their potential for CRISPR prediction, especially considering new CRISPR models continue to include sequence-based features almost exclusively. The features were also ranked as highly important in their models by the number of times they were selected by LASSO, permutation importance, xgboost’s “gain” importance and SHAP values.

As described in the previous paragraphs, we endeavored to assess our features using multiple angles and tests: correlation vs. other features, full/partial correlation vs. other models, separation between high-efficiency and low-efficiency sites, model improvement, feature selection and importance. Correlations in the field are relatively low – this is the current state of CRISPR prediction efficiency, which we aim to improve here. Correlations of up to 0.2 were observed in multiple previous studies17,52–55; this is demonstrated by the model performance shown in Fig. 1b as well, where state-of-the-art models achieve correlations of up to 0.2 – and in some cases considerably lower – with CRISPR efficiency. These 5 models are well established in the field and cited in numerous papers; they mark the de facto state-of-the-art in CRISPR prediction.

Our features are based on ex vivo conditions, and as such have to be evaluated on such data. Ex vivo measurements are a better representation of the true efficiency of CRISPR in the cell, compared to in vitro measurements – but they include more noise, heterogeneity, and relevant affecting variables compared to in vitro measurements, making CRISPR prediction a challenge.

Since gene expression is an outcome of many different processes, it is hard to pinpoint the exact reason for which expression is useful in predicting CRISPR efficiency. We hypothesize that highly expressed regions are more active regions, in which the CRISPR complex can find its way more easily to its target – for example, by a higher physical accessibility of the target sites due to the three-dimensional conformation of the DNA, or a higher presence of endogenous factors in these areas which could aid CRISPR action. We have shown that the correlation between expression/CUB and CRISPR efficiency is reduced, but not completely diminished, when controlling for chromatin accessibility; indicating some (but not all) of the expression-CRISPR relation may be attributed to accessibility. Such regions may have a lower density of DNA, leading to fewer sites with partial complementarity to the gRNA; these sites can compete with the CRISPR on-target, thus having fewer sites nearby is expected to increase CRISPR efficiency69.

One major advantage of CUB/expression features, compared to other position-based features such as those based on epigenetics, is that expression levels (measured by RNA-seq) are available for a large number of cells and tissues, since they are relatively simpler and cheaper to acquire. In the case of non-model organisms, for which experimental data is scarce, many CUB features (such as the ChimeraARS and RCBS used here) require only gene sequences to calculate, and so can be generated on them as well. Thus, these features could easily be calculated for the vast majority of CRISPR experiments.

The main limitation of our work remains the relatively scarce measurements of ex vivo CRISPR efficiency; there is a growing trend of conversion from in vitro measurements to ex vivo measurements, but the largest datasets are still measured in vitro. While certainly useful to the field, the intended use of CRISPR is, naturally, in vivo. Since ex vivo experiments can prove to be very different from in vitro ones, additional ex vivo CRISPR datasets would allow more accurate assessments of CRISPR usage in real-world situations. In addition, while we assessed three different cell types, all three were eukaryotic cells – and specifically, human cells. It remains to be seen whether our features could improve CRISPR prediction in other organisms; for example, since chromatin is absent in prokaryotes, our hypothesis regarding the accessibility information contained in our features would be relevant to a lesser extent there. Nevertheless, since expression levels are the culmination of numerous cell processes, we believe it feasible for expression-based features to be informative in prokaryotes as well, perhaps indicating other favorable conditions for CRISPR action.

This study demonstrates the usefulness of using features that are based on the wealth of information accumulated regarding each genomic location. Incorporating such features, specific to the cell type in which the CRISPR experiment is conducted, would enhance our ability to predict, understand and utilize CRISPR technology.

Methods

Acquiring CRISPR efficiency measurements

For T cells we used the “MutationEfficiency”, “IndelCounts” and “Insertion” files published by Leenay et al.26; we filtered out sites with fewer than 1000 mapped reads, and calculated the efficiency as the fraction of edited reads out of all reads mapped to the site. For HEK293 cells we used the TTISS dataset59; we defined each site’s efficiency as the average number of SpCas9 Seq reads mapped to it, keeping only sites with at least one such read. For U2OS cells we used the number of GUIDE-Seq reads mapped to each site as efficiency scores60.

Acquiring gene expression levels

We downloaded mRNA levels from the Expression Atlas62. For the T cell and HEK293 datasets, we used normalized expression values from accession IDs E-GEOD-36766 and E-GEOD-14429, respectively. For the U2OS dataset, we used the TPM values from the osteosarcoma (MG63) measurements in E-MTAB-2706.

Calculating CUB features

We calculated two versions of the codon adaptation index (CAI)70 scores for each gene, using two different reference sets: the whole human transcriptome, and transcripts with the top 2% expression. For each codon in each reference set, we calculated its CAI weight as its frequency in the set relative to the most frequent synonymous codon. The CAI weight of a gene is then the geometric mean of its codons’ CAI weights.

We calculated the ChimeraARS score for each gene using the ChimeraUGEM program63, setting the reference set as the transcripts with the top 2% expression for each cell type. ChimeraARS calculates the similarity between a given sequence and a reference set by finding the longest substring, common to the gene and the set, in each position of the sequence.

We calculated the tRNA adaptation index (tAI)71 using human tAI weights from ref. 72; the tAI score of a gene is the geometric mean of its codons’ tAI weights.

We used these same weights, and the downloaded per-cell mRNA levels, to calculate the nTE weights; a codon’s nTE weight is defined as its tAI weight (the “tRNA supply”) divided by its number of appearances in the transcriptome (i.e., the sum of its appearances in each transcript, multiplied by the transcript’s abundance; this is the “tRNA demand”).

We defined each genomic target site’s CUB/expression feature as the average corresponding feature value of all genes which reside up to 3000nt away from the target site.

Calculating epigenetic features

We downloaded DNAse bigwig files from ENCODE73, and defined the accessibility feature as the average value over the target site’s coordinates. The accession ID and files used are listed in Supplementary Table 5.

Calculating classic features

We calculated 420 sequence-based features and 5 thermodynamic features.

For the sequence-based features, we used binary features denoting the identity of each nucleotide and dinucleotide along the 20nt target site (e.g., the feature pos5_G is 1 if there is a G in position 5, 0 otherwise). This results in 4 × 20 (nucleotide at each position) + 16 × 20 (dinucleotide at each position), i.e, 400, features. We also calculated the overall frequency of each nucleotide and each dinucleotide over the target site, resulting in 20 features.

The method of calculating thermodynamic features was taken from DeepHF16: 4 features denoting the melting temperatures of various regions along the DNA target site (positions 1–20, 1–4, 5–12 and 13–20), and the gRNA’s free energy. Melting temperatures were calculated with using Biopython, and free energy was calculated using RNAfold74.

The evaluation metric r2

We report the percentage increase in the performances on the r2 values. r2 is a well-established metric that was used in previous studies in the field as it estimates the percentage in the variance of the CRISPR efficiency that can be explained by our models. We believe that the percentage of improvement is a very important metric as it provides a good comparison to the current “state-of-the-art”.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1038/s41540-024-00431-8.

Acknowledgements

S.B. is supported by a fellowship from the Edmond J. Safra Center for Bioinformatics at Tel Aviv University. The study was also supported by CRISPR-IL consortium. The funders played no role in study design, data collection, analysis and interpretation of data, or the writing of this manuscript.

Author contributions

S.B. and T.T. conceived the study and designed the methodologies. S.B. collected the data and performed all the analyses under the guidance of T.T.; S.B. and T.T. wrote the manuscript. Both authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Data availability

The datasets utilized in this study have been downloaded from publicly available datasets. CRISPR efficiency datasets were downloaded from refs. 26,59,60. mRNA levels were downloaded from Expression Atlas62 (accession IDs E-GEOD-36766, E-GEOD-14429, E-MTAB-2706). tAI weights were downloaded from ref. 72. DNAse data was downloaded from ENCODE73 (accession IDs ENCFF268DVI, ENCFF412ONC, ENCFF437CNA, ENCFF526NOL, ENCFF635ZUA, ENCFF529BOG, ENCFF418OBI).

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
==== Refs
References

1. Doudna JA Charpentier E The new frontier of genome engineering with CRISPR-Cas9 Science 2014 346 1258096 10.1126/science.1258096 25430774
Doudna, J. A. & Charpentier, E. The new frontier of genome engineering with CRISPR-Cas9. Science 346, 1258096 (2014).25430774 10.1126/science.1258096
2. Pickar-Oliver A Gersbach CA The next generation of CRISPR–Cas technologies and applications Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2019 20 490 507 10.1038/s41580-019-0131-5 31147612
Pickar-Oliver, A. & Gersbach, C. A. The next generation of CRISPR–Cas technologies and applications. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 20, 490–507 (2019).31147612 10.1038/s41580-019-0131-5
3. Li H Applications of genome editing technology in the targeted therapy of human diseases: mechanisms, advances and prospects Signal Transduct. Target. Ther. 2020 5 1 10.1038/s41392-019-0089-y 32296011
Li, H. et al. Applications of genome editing technology in the targeted therapy of human diseases: mechanisms, advances and prospects. Signal Transduct. Target. Ther. 5, 1 (2020).32296011 10.1038/s41392-019-0089-y
4. Moreno-Mateos MA CRISPRscan: designing highly efficient sgRNAs for CRISPR-Cas9 targeting in vivo Nat. Methods 2015 12 982 988 10.1038/nmeth.3543 26322839
Moreno-Mateos, M. A. et al. CRISPRscan: designing highly efficient sgRNAs for CRISPR-Cas9 targeting in vivo. Nat. Methods 12, 982–988 (2015).26322839 10.1038/nmeth.3543
5. Singh R Kuscu C Quinlan A Qi Y Adli M Cas9-chromatin binding information enables more accurate CRISPR off-target prediction Nucleic Acids Res. 2015 43 e118 e118 10.1093/nar/gkv575 26032770
Singh, R., Kuscu, C., Quinlan, A., Qi, Y. & Adli, M. Cas9-chromatin binding information enables more accurate CRISPR off-target prediction. Nucleic Acids Res. 43, e118–e118 (2015).26032770 10.1093/nar/gkv575
6. Xu H Sequence determinants of improved CRISPR sgRNA design Genome Res. 2015 25 1147 1157 10.1101/gr.191452.115 26063738
Xu, H. et al. Sequence determinants of improved CRISPR sgRNA design. Genome Res. 25, 1147–1157 (2015).26063738 10.1101/gr.191452.115
7. Kaur K Gupta AK Rajput A Kumar M ge-CRISPR - an integrated pipeline for the prediction and analysis of sgRNAs genome editing efficiency for CRISPR/Cas system Sci. Rep. 2016 6 30870 10.1038/srep30870 27581337
Kaur, K., Gupta, A. K., Rajput, A. & Kumar, M. ge-CRISPR - an integrated pipeline for the prediction and analysis of sgRNAs genome editing efficiency for CRISPR/Cas system. Sci. Rep. 6, 30870 (2016).27581337 10.1038/srep30870
8. Labuhn M Refined sgRNA efficacy prediction improves large- and small-scale CRISPR–Cas9 applications Nucleic Acids Res. 2018 46 1375 1385 10.1093/nar/gkx1268 29267886
Labuhn, M. et al. Refined sgRNA efficacy prediction improves large- and small-scale CRISPR–Cas9 applications. Nucleic Acids Res. 46, 1375–1385 (2018).29267886 10.1093/nar/gkx1268
9. Chari R Yeo NC Chavez A Church GM sgRNA Scorer 2.0: a species-independent model to predict CRISPR/Cas9 activity ACS Synth. Biol. 2017 6 902 904 10.1021/acssynbio.6b00343 28146356
Chari, R., Yeo, N. C., Chavez, A. & Church, G. M. sgRNA Scorer 2.0: a species-independent model to predict CRISPR/Cas9 activity. ACS Synth. Biol. 6, 902–904 (2017).28146356 10.1021/acssynbio.6b00343
10. Abadi S Yan WX Amar D Mayrose I A machine learning approach for predicting CRISPR-Cas9 cleavage efficiencies and patterns underlying its mechanism of action PLOS Comput. Biol. 2017 13 e1005807 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005807 29036168
Abadi, S., Yan, W. X., Amar, D. & Mayrose, I. A machine learning approach for predicting CRISPR-Cas9 cleavage efficiencies and patterns underlying its mechanism of action. PLOS Comput. Biol. 13, e1005807 (2017).29036168 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005807
11. Listgarten J Prediction of off-target activities for the end-to-end design of CRISPR guide RNAs Nat. Biomed. Eng. 2018 2 38 47 10.1038/s41551-017-0178-6 29998038
Listgarten, J. et al. Prediction of off-target activities for the end-to-end design of CRISPR guide RNAs. Nat. Biomed. Eng. 2, 38–47 (2018).29998038 10.1038/s41551-017-0178-6
12. Chuai G DeepCRISPR: optimized CRISPR guide RNA design by deep learning Genome Biol. 2018 19 80 10.1186/s13059-018-1459-4 29945655
Chuai, G. et al. DeepCRISPR: optimized CRISPR guide RNA design by deep learning. Genome Biol. 19, 80 (2018).29945655 10.1186/s13059-018-1459-4
13. Lin J Wong K-C Off-target predictions in CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing using deep learning Bioinformatics 2018 34 i656 i663 10.1093/bioinformatics/bty554 30423072
Lin, J. & Wong, K.-C. Off-target predictions in CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing using deep learning. Bioinformatics 34, i656–i663 (2018).30423072 10.1093/bioinformatics/bty554
14. Peng H Zheng Y Blumenstein M Tao D Li J CRISPR/Cas9 cleavage efficiency regression through boosting algorithms and Markov sequence profiling Bioinformatics 2018 34 3069 3077 10.1093/bioinformatics/bty298 29672669
Peng, H., Zheng, Y., Blumenstein, M., Tao, D. & Li, J. CRISPR/Cas9 cleavage efficiency regression through boosting algorithms and Markov sequence profiling. Bioinformatics 34, 3069–3077 (2018).29672669 10.1093/bioinformatics/bty298
15. Alkan F Wenzel A Anthon C Havgaard JH Gorodkin J CRISPR-Cas9 off-targeting assessment with nucleic acid duplex energy parameters Genome Biol. 2018 19 177 10.1186/s13059-018-1534-x 30367669
Alkan, F., Wenzel, A., Anthon, C., Havgaard, J. H. & Gorodkin, J. CRISPR-Cas9 off-targeting assessment with nucleic acid duplex energy parameters. Genome Biol. 19, 177 (2018).30367669 10.1186/s13059-018-1534-x
16. Wang D Optimized CRISPR guide RNA design for two high-fidelity Cas9 variants by deep learning Nat. Commun. 2019 10 4284 10.1038/s41467-019-12281-8 31537810
Wang, D. et al. Optimized CRISPR guide RNA design for two high-fidelity Cas9 variants by deep learning. Nat. Commun. 10, 4284 (2019).31537810 10.1038/s41467-019-12281-8
17. Xue L Tang B Chen W Luo J Prediction of CRISPR sgRNA activity using a deep convolutional neural network J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2019 59 615 624 10.1021/acs.jcim.8b00368 30485088
Xue, L., Tang, B., Chen, W. & Luo, J. Prediction of CRISPR sgRNA activity using a deep convolutional neural network. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 59, 615–624 (2019).30485088 10.1021/acs.jcim.8b00368
18. Zhang G Dai Z Dai X A novel hybrid CNN-SVR for CRISPR/Cas9 guide RNA activity prediction Front. Genet. 2019 10 1303 10.3389/fgene.2019.01303 31969902
Zhang, G., Dai, Z. & Dai, X. A novel hybrid CNN-SVR for CRISPR/Cas9 guide RNA activity prediction. Front. Genet. 10, 1303 (2019).31969902 10.3389/fgene.2019.01303
19. Dimauro G CRISPRLearner: a deep learning-based system to predict CRISPR/Cas9 sgRNA on-target cleavage efficiency, GiovanniAU - Colagrande Electronics 2019 8 1478 10.3390/electronics8121478
Dimauro, G. et al. CRISPRLearner: a deep learning-based system to predict CRISPR/Cas9 sgRNA on-target cleavage efficiency, GiovanniAU - Colagrande. Electronics 8, 1478 (2019).10.3390/electronics8121478
20. Hiranniramol K Chen Y Liu W Wang X Generalizable sgRNA design for improved CRISPR/Cas9 editing efficiency Bioinformatics 2020 36 2684 2689 10.1093/bioinformatics/btaa041 31971562
Hiranniramol, K., Chen, Y., Liu, W. & Wang, X. Generalizable sgRNA design for improved CRISPR/Cas9 editing efficiency. Bioinformatics 36, 2684–2689 (2020).31971562 10.1093/bioinformatics/btaa041
21. Niu R Peng J Zhang Z Shang X R-CRISPR: a deep learning network to predict off-target activities with mismatch, insertion and deletion in CRISPR-Cas9 system Genes 2021 12 1878 10.3390/genes12121878 34946828
Niu, R., Peng, J., Zhang, Z. & Shang, X. R-CRISPR: a deep learning network to predict off-target activities with mismatch, insertion and deletion in CRISPR-Cas9 system. Genes 12, 1878 (2021).34946828 10.3390/genes12121878
22. Zhang G Dai Z Dai X C-RNNCrispr: prediction of CRISPR/Cas9 sgRNA activity using convolutional and recurrent neural networks Comput. Struct. Biotechnol. J. 2020 18 344 354 10.1016/j.csbj.2020.01.013 32123556
Zhang, G., Dai, Z. & Dai, X. C-RNNCrispr: prediction of CRISPR/Cas9 sgRNA activity using convolutional and recurrent neural networks. Comput. Struct. Biotechnol. J. 18, 344–354 (2020).32123556 10.1016/j.csbj.2020.01.013
23. Konstantakos V Nentidis A Krithara A Paliouras G CRISPRedict: a CRISPR-Cas9 web tool for interpretable efficiency predictions Nucleic Acids Res. 2022 50 W191 W198 10.1093/nar/gkac466 35670672
Konstantakos, V., Nentidis, A., Krithara, A. & Paliouras, G. CRISPRedict: a CRISPR-Cas9 web tool for interpretable efficiency predictions. Nucleic Acids Res. 50, W191–W198 (2022).35670672 10.1093/nar/gkac466
24. Shen MW Predictable and precise template-free CRISPR editing of pathogenic variants Nature 2018 563 646 651 10.1038/s41586-018-0686-x 30405244
Shen, M. W. et al. Predictable and precise template-free CRISPR editing of pathogenic variants. Nature 563, 646–651 (2018).30405244 10.1038/s41586-018-0686-x
25. Chen W Massively parallel profiling and predictive modeling of the outcomes of CRISPR/Cas9-mediated double-strand break repair Nucleic Acids Res. 2019 47 7989 8003 10.1093/nar/gkz487 31165867
Chen, W. et al. Massively parallel profiling and predictive modeling of the outcomes of CRISPR/Cas9-mediated double-strand break repair. Nucleic Acids Res. 47, 7989–8003 (2019).31165867 10.1093/nar/gkz487
26. Leenay RT Large dataset enables prediction of repair after CRISPR–Cas9 editing in primary T cells Nat. Biotechnol. 2019 37 1034 1037 10.1038/s41587-019-0203-2 31359007
Leenay, R. T. et al. Large dataset enables prediction of repair after CRISPR–Cas9 editing in primary T cells. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 1034–1037 (2019).31359007 10.1038/s41587-019-0203-2
27. Allen F Predicting the mutations generated by repair of Cas9-induced double-strand breaks Nat. Biotechnol. 2019 37 64 72 10.1038/nbt.4317
Allen, F. et al. Predicting the mutations generated by repair of Cas9-induced double-strand breaks. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 64–72 (2019).10.1038/nbt.4317
28. Li VR Zhang Z Troyanskaya OG CROTON: an automated and variant-aware deep learning framework for predicting CRISPR/Cas9 editing outcomes Bioinformatics 2021 37 i342 i348 10.1093/bioinformatics/btab268 34252931
Li, V. R., Zhang, Z. & Troyanskaya, O. G. CROTON: an automated and variant-aware deep learning framework for predicting CRISPR/Cas9 editing outcomes. Bioinformatics 37, i342–i348 (2021).34252931 10.1093/bioinformatics/btab268
29. Zhu LJ Holmes BR Aronin N Brodsky MH CRISPRseek: a Bioconductor package to identify target-specific guide RNAs for CRISPR-Cas9 genome-editing systems PLoS One 2014 9 e108424 10.1371/journal.pone.0108424 25247697
Zhu, L. J., Holmes, B. R., Aronin, N. & Brodsky, M. H. CRISPRseek: a Bioconductor package to identify target-specific guide RNAs for CRISPR-Cas9 genome-editing systems. PLoS One 9, e108424 (2014).25247697 10.1371/journal.pone.0108424
30. Xie S Shen B Zhang C Huang X Zhang Y sgRNAcas9: a software package for designing CRISPR sgRNA and evaluating potential off-target cleavage sites PLoS One 2014 9 e100448 10.1371/journal.pone.0100448 24956386
Xie, S., Shen, B., Zhang, C., Huang, X. & Zhang, Y. sgRNAcas9: a software package for designing CRISPR sgRNA and evaluating potential off-target cleavage sites. PLoS One 9, e100448 (2014).24956386 10.1371/journal.pone.0100448
31. Bae S Park J Kim J-S Cas-OFFinder: a fast and versatile algorithm that searches for potential off-target sites of Cas9 RNA-guided endonucleases Bioinformatics 2014 30 1473 1475 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu048 24463181
Bae, S., Park, J. & Kim, J.-S. Cas-OFFinder: a fast and versatile algorithm that searches for potential off-target sites of Cas9 RNA-guided endonucleases. Bioinformatics 30, 1473–1475 (2014).24463181 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu048
32. Xiao A CasOT: a genome-wide Cas9/gRNA off-target searching tool Bioinformatics 2014 30 1180 1182 10.1093/bioinformatics/btt764 24389662
Xiao, A. et al. CasOT: a genome-wide Cas9/gRNA off-target searching tool. Bioinformatics 30, 1180–1182 (2014).24389662 10.1093/bioinformatics/btt764
33. Heigwer F Kerr G Boutros M E-CRISP: fast CRISPR target site identification Nat. Methods 2014 11 122 123 10.1038/nmeth.2812 24481216
Heigwer, F., Kerr, G. & Boutros, M. E-CRISP: fast CRISPR target site identification. Nat. Methods 11, 122–123 (2014).24481216 10.1038/nmeth.2812
34. Cradick TJ Qiu P Lee CM Fine EJ Bao G COSMID: a web-based tool for identifying and validating CRISPR/Cas off-target sites Mol. Ther. Nucleic Acids. 2014 3 e214 10.1038/mtna.2014.64 25462530
Cradick, T. J., Qiu, P., Lee, C. M., Fine, E. J. & Bao, G. COSMID: a web-based tool for identifying and validating CRISPR/Cas off-target sites. Mol. Ther. Nucleic Acids. 3, e214 (2014).25462530 10.1038/mtna.2014.64
35. Stemmer M Thumberger T del Sol Keyer M Wittbrodt J Mateo JL CCTop: an intuitive, flexible and reliable CRISPR/Cas9 target prediction tool PLoS One 2015 10 e0124633 10.1371/journal.pone.0124633 25909470
Stemmer, M., Thumberger, T., del Sol Keyer, M., Wittbrodt, J. & Mateo, J. L. CCTop: an intuitive, flexible and reliable CRISPR/Cas9 target prediction tool. PLoS One 10, e0124633 (2015).25909470 10.1371/journal.pone.0124633
36. Liu H CRISPR-ERA: a comprehensive design tool for CRISPR-mediated gene editing, repression and activation Bioinformatics 2015 31 3676 3678 10.1093/bioinformatics/btv423 26209430
Liu, H. et al. CRISPR-ERA: a comprehensive design tool for CRISPR-mediated gene editing, repression and activation. Bioinformatics 31, 3676–3678 (2015).26209430 10.1093/bioinformatics/btv423
37. Peng D Tarleton R EuPaGDT: a web tool tailored to design CRISPR guide RNAs for eukaryotic pathogens Microb. Genom. 2015 1 e000033 28348817
Peng, D. & Tarleton, R. EuPaGDT: a web tool tailored to design CRISPR guide RNAs for eukaryotic pathogens. Microb. Genom. 1, e000033 (2015).28348817
38. Oliveros JC Breaking-Cas—interactive design of guide RNAs for CRISPR-Cas experiments for ENSEMBL genomes Nucleic Acids Res. 2016 44 W267 W271 10.1093/nar/gkw407 27166368
Oliveros, J. C. et al. Breaking-Cas—interactive design of guide RNAs for CRISPR-Cas experiments for ENSEMBL genomes. Nucleic Acids Res. 44, W267–W271 (2016).27166368 10.1093/nar/gkw407
39. Pulido-Quetglas C Scalable design of paired CRISPR guide RNAs for genomic deletion PLOS Comput. Biol. 2017 13 e1005341 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005341 28253259
Pulido-Quetglas, C. et al. Scalable design of paired CRISPR guide RNAs for genomic deletion. PLOS Comput. Biol. 13, e1005341 (2017).28253259 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005341
40. Perez AR GuideScan software for improved single and paired CRISPR guide RNA design Nat. Biotechnol. 2017 35 347 349 10.1038/nbt.3804 28263296
Perez, A. R. et al. GuideScan software for improved single and paired CRISPR guide RNA design. Nat. Biotechnol. 35, 347–349 (2017).28263296 10.1038/nbt.3804
41. Liu H CRISPR-P 2.0: an improved CRISPR-Cas9 tool for genome editing in plants Mol. Plant 2017 10 530 532 10.1016/j.molp.2017.01.003 28089950
Liu, H. et al. CRISPR-P 2.0: an improved CRISPR-Cas9 tool for genome editing in plants. Mol. Plant 10, 530–532 (2017).28089950 10.1016/j.molp.2017.01.003
42. Xie X CRISPR-GE: a convenient software toolkit for CRISPR-based genome editing Mol. Plant 2017 10 1246 1249 10.1016/j.molp.2017.06.004 28624544
Xie, X. et al. CRISPR-GE: a convenient software toolkit for CRISPR-based genome editing. Mol. Plant 10, 1246–1249 (2017).28624544 10.1016/j.molp.2017.06.004
43. Concordet J-P Haeussler M CRISPOR: intuitive guide selection for CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing experiments and screens Nucleic Acids Res. 2018 46 W242 W245 10.1093/nar/gky354 29762716
Concordet, J.-P. & Haeussler, M. CRISPOR: intuitive guide selection for CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing experiments and screens. Nucleic Acids Res. 46, W242–W245 (2018).29762716 10.1093/nar/gky354
44. McKenna A Shendure J FlashFry: a fast and flexible tool for large-scale CRISPR target design BMC Biol. 2018 16 74 10.1186/s12915-018-0545-0 29976198
McKenna, A. & Shendure, J. FlashFry: a fast and flexible tool for large-scale CRISPR target design. BMC Biol. 16, 74 (2018).29976198 10.1186/s12915-018-0545-0
45. Peng H Zheng Y Zhao Z Liu T Li J Recognition of CRISPR/Cas9 off-target sites through ensemble learning of uneven mismatch distributions Bioinformatics 2018 34 i757 i765 10.1093/bioinformatics/bty558 30423065
Peng, H., Zheng, Y., Zhao, Z., Liu, T. & Li, J. Recognition of CRISPR/Cas9 off-target sites through ensemble learning of uneven mismatch distributions. Bioinformatics 34, i757–i765 (2018).30423065 10.1093/bioinformatics/bty558
46. Jacquin ALS Odom DT Lukk M Crisflash: open-source software to generate CRISPR guide RNAs against genomes annotated with individual variation Bioinformatics 2019 35 3146 3147 10.1093/bioinformatics/btz019 30649181
Jacquin, A. L. S., Odom, D. T. & Lukk, M. Crisflash: open-source software to generate CRISPR guide RNAs against genomes annotated with individual variation. Bioinformatics 35, 3146–3147 (2019).30649181 10.1093/bioinformatics/btz019
47. Labun K CHOPCHOP v3: expanding the CRISPR web toolbox beyond genome editing Nucleic Acids Res. 2019 47 W171 W174 10.1093/nar/gkz365 31106371
Labun, K. et al. CHOPCHOP v3: expanding the CRISPR web toolbox beyond genome editing. Nucleic Acids Res. 47, W171–W174 (2019).31106371 10.1093/nar/gkz365
48. Minkenberg B Zhang J Xie K Yang Y CRISPR-PLANT v2: an online resource for highly specific guide RNA spacers based on improved off-target analysis Plant Biotechnol. J. 2019 17 5 8 10.1111/pbi.13025 30325102
Minkenberg, B., Zhang, J., Xie, K. & Yang, Y. CRISPR-PLANT v2: an online resource for highly specific guide RNA spacers based on improved off-target analysis. Plant Biotechnol. J. 17, 5–8 (2019).30325102 10.1111/pbi.13025
49. Bao XR Pan Y Lee CM Davis TH Bao G Tools for experimental and computational analyses of off-target editing by programmable nucleases Nat. Protoc. 2021 16 10 26 10.1038/s41596-020-00431-y 33288953
Bao, X. R., Pan, Y., Lee, C. M., Davis, T. H. & Bao, G. Tools for experimental and computational analyses of off-target editing by programmable nucleases. Nat. Protoc. 16, 10–26 (2021).33288953 10.1038/s41596-020-00431-y
50. Newman A Starrs L Burgio G Cas9 cuts and consequences; detecting, predicting, and mitigating CRISPR/Cas9 on- and off-target damage BioEssays 2020 42 2000047 10.1002/bies.202000047
Newman, A., Starrs, L. & Burgio, G. Cas9 cuts and consequences; detecting, predicting, and mitigating CRISPR/Cas9 on- and off-target damage. BioEssays 42, 2000047 (2020).10.1002/bies.202000047
51. Sledzinski P Nowaczyk M Olejniczak M Computational tools and resources supporting CRISPR-Cas experiments Cells 2020 9 1288 10.3390/cells9051288 32455882
Sledzinski, P., Nowaczyk, M. & Olejniczak, M. Computational tools and resources supporting CRISPR-Cas experiments. Cells 9, 1288 (2020).32455882 10.3390/cells9051288
52. Wang J Zhang X Cheng L Luo Y An overview and metanalysis of machine and deep learning-based CRISPR gRNA design tools RNA Biol. 2020 17 13 22 10.1080/15476286.2019.1669406 31533522
Wang, J., Zhang, X., Cheng, L. & Luo, Y. An overview and metanalysis of machine and deep learning-based CRISPR gRNA design tools. RNA Biol. 17, 13–22 (2020).31533522 10.1080/15476286.2019.1669406
53. Konstantakos V Nentidis A Krithara A Paliouras G CRISPR–Cas9 gRNA efficiency prediction: an overview of predictive tools and the role of deep learning Nucleic Acids Res. 2022 50 3616 3637 10.1093/nar/gkac192 35349718
Konstantakos, V., Nentidis, A., Krithara, A. & Paliouras, G. CRISPR–Cas9 gRNA efficiency prediction: an overview of predictive tools and the role of deep learning. Nucleic Acids Res. 50, 3616–3637 (2022).35349718 10.1093/nar/gkac192
54. Alipanahi R Safari L Khanteymoori A CRISPR genome editing using computational approaches: a survey Front. Bioinforma. 2023 2 1001131 10.3389/fbinf.2022.1001131
Alipanahi, R., Safari, L. & Khanteymoori, A. CRISPR genome editing using computational approaches: a survey. Front. Bioinforma. 2, 1001131 (2023).10.3389/fbinf.2022.1001131
55. Liu G Zhang Y Zhang T Computational approaches for effective CRISPR guide RNA design and evaluation Comput. Struct. Biotechnol. J. 2020 18 35 44 10.1016/j.csbj.2019.11.006 31890142
Liu, G., Zhang, Y. & Zhang, T. Computational approaches for effective CRISPR guide RNA design and evaluation. Comput. Struct. Biotechnol. J. 18, 35–44 (2020).31890142 10.1016/j.csbj.2019.11.006
56. Buccitelli C Selbach M mRNAs, proteins and the emerging principles of gene expression control Nat. Rev. Genet. 2020 21 630 644 10.1038/s41576-020-0258-4 32709985
Buccitelli, C. & Selbach, M. mRNAs, proteins and the emerging principles of gene expression control. Nat. Rev. Genet. 21, 630–644 (2020).32709985 10.1038/s41576-020-0258-4
57. Bergman S Tuller T Widespread non-modular overlapping codes in the coding regions Phys. Biol. 2020 17 31002 10.1088/1478-3975/ab7083
Bergman, S. & Tuller, T. Widespread non-modular overlapping codes in the coding regions. Phys. Biol. 17, 31002 (2020).10.1088/1478-3975/ab7083
58. Bahiri-Elitzur S Tuller T Codon-based indices for modeling gene expression and transcript evolution Comput. Struct. Biotechnol. J. 2021 19 2646 2663 10.1016/j.csbj.2021.04.042 34025951
Bahiri-Elitzur, S. & Tuller, T. Codon-based indices for modeling gene expression and transcript evolution. Comput. Struct. Biotechnol. J. 19, 2646–2663 (2021).34025951 10.1016/j.csbj.2021.04.042
59. Schmid-Burgk JL Highly parallel profiling of Cas9 variant specificity Mol. Cell 2020 78 794 800.e8 10.1016/j.molcel.2020.02.023 32187529
Schmid-Burgk, J. L. et al. Highly parallel profiling of Cas9 variant specificity. Mol. Cell 78, 794–800.e8 (2020).32187529 10.1016/j.molcel.2020.02.023
60. Tsai SQ GUIDE-seq enables genome-wide profiling of off-target cleavage by CRISPR-Cas nucleases Nat. Biotechnol. 2015 33 187 197 10.1038/nbt.3117 25513782
Tsai, S. Q. et al. GUIDE-seq enables genome-wide profiling of off-target cleavage by CRISPR-Cas nucleases. Nat. Biotechnol. 33, 187–197 (2015).25513782 10.1038/nbt.3117
61. Martin FJ Ensembl 2023 Nucleic Acids Res. 2023 51 D933 D941 10.1093/nar/gkac958 36318249
Martin, F. J. et al. Ensembl 2023. Nucleic Acids Res. 51, D933–D941 (2023).36318249 10.1093/nar/gkac958
62. Moreno P Expression Atlas update: gene and protein expression in multiple species Nucleic Acids Res. 2022 50 D129 D140 10.1093/nar/gkab1030 34850121
Moreno, P. et al. Expression Atlas update: gene and protein expression in multiple species. Nucleic Acids Res. 50, D129–D140 (2022).34850121 10.1093/nar/gkab1030
63. Diament, A. et al. ChimeraUGEM: unsupervised gene expression modeling in any given organism. Bioinformatics10.1093/bioinformatics/btz080 (2019).
64. Pechmann S Frydman J Evolutionary conservation of codon optimality reveals hidden signatures of cotranslational folding Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 2013 20 237 243 10.1038/nsmb.2466 23262490
Pechmann, S. & Frydman, J. Evolutionary conservation of codon optimality reveals hidden signatures of cotranslational folding. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 20, 237–243 (2013).23262490 10.1038/nsmb.2466
65. Roymondal U Das S Sahoo S Predicting gene expression level from relative codon usage bias: an application to Escherichia coli genome DNA Res. 2009 16 13 30 10.1093/dnares/dsn029 19131380
Roymondal, U., Das, S. & Sahoo, S. Predicting gene expression level from relative codon usage bias: an application to Escherichia coli genome. DNA Res. 16, 13–30 (2009).19131380 10.1093/dnares/dsn029
66. Doench JG Optimized sgRNA design to maximize activity and minimize off-target effects of CRISPR-Cas9 Nat. Biotechnol. 2016 34 184 191 10.1038/nbt.3437 26780180
Doench, J. G. et al. Optimized sgRNA design to maximize activity and minimize off-target effects of CRISPR-Cas9. Nat. Biotechnol. 34, 184–191 (2016).26780180 10.1038/nbt.3437
67. Kwon KH SpCas9 activity prediction by DeepSpCas9, a deep learning–based model with high generalization performance Sci. Adv. 2022 5 eaax9249
Kwon, K. H. et al. SpCas9 activity prediction by DeepSpCas9, a deep learning–based model with high generalization performance. Sci. Adv. 5, eaax9249 (2022).
68. Lundberg SM From local explanations to global understanding with explainable AI for trees Nat. Mach. Intell. 2020 2 56 67 10.1038/s42256-019-0138-9 32607472
Lundberg, S. M. et al. From local explanations to global understanding with explainable AI for trees. Nat. Mach. Intell. 2, 56–67 (2020).32607472 10.1038/s42256-019-0138-9
69. Sternberg SH Redding S Jinek M Greene EC Doudna JA DNA interrogation by the CRISPR RNA-guided endonuclease Cas9 Nature 2014 507 62 67 10.1038/nature13011 24476820
Sternberg, S. H., Redding, S., Jinek, M., Greene, E. C. & Doudna, J. A. DNA interrogation by the CRISPR RNA-guided endonuclease Cas9. Nature 507, 62–67 (2014).24476820 10.1038/nature13011
70. Sharp PM Li WH The codon Adaptation Index-a measure of directional synonymous codon usage bias, and its potential applications Nucleic Acids Res. 1987 15 1281 1295 10.1093/nar/15.3.1281 3547335
Sharp, P. M. & Li, W. H. The codon Adaptation Index-a measure of directional synonymous codon usage bias, and its potential applications. Nucleic Acids Res. 15, 1281–1295 (1987).3547335 10.1093/nar/15.3.1281
71. Reis MD Savva R Wernisch L Solving the riddle of codon usage preferences: a test for translational selection Nucleic Acids Res. 2004 32 5036 5044 10.1093/nar/gkh834 15448185
Reis, M. D., Savva, R. & Wernisch, L. Solving the riddle of codon usage preferences: a test for translational selection. Nucleic Acids Res. 32, 5036–5044 (2004).15448185 10.1093/nar/gkh834
72. Tuller T An evolutionarily conserved mechanism for controlling the efficiency of protein translation Cell 2010 141 344 354 10.1016/j.cell.2010.03.031 20403328
Tuller, T. et al. An evolutionarily conserved mechanism for controlling the efficiency of protein translation. Cell 141, 344–354 (2010).20403328 10.1016/j.cell.2010.03.031
73. Luo Y New developments on the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) data portal Nucleic Acids Res. 2020 48 D882 D889 10.1093/nar/gkz1062 31713622
Luo, Y. et al. New developments on the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) data portal. Nucleic Acids Res. 48, D882–D889 (2020).31713622 10.1093/nar/gkz1062
74. Lorenz R ViennaRNA package 2.0 Algorithms Mol. Biol. 2011 6 26 10.1186/1748-7188-6-26 22115189
Lorenz, R. et al. ViennaRNA package 2.0. Algorithms Mol. Biol. 6, 26 (2011).22115189 10.1186/1748-7188-6-26
