37bc410dee52a5ace2a6bc4e7c6edc959a26a263 kuhn Tue Feb 22 14:32:04 2022 -0800 added definition of acronym diff --git src/hg/makeDb/trackDb/crispr.html src/hg/makeDb/trackDb/crispr.html index 82384d5..bee42ee 100644 --- src/hg/makeDb/trackDb/crispr.html +++ src/hg/makeDb/trackDb/crispr.html @@ -59,31 +59,32 @@ also shown in parentheses after the percentile.
  • The Moreno-Mateos 2015 Efficiency score should be used instead of the Doench 2016 score when transcribing the guide in vitro with a T7 promoter, e.g. for injections in mouse, zebrafish or Xenopus embryos. The Moreno-Mateos score is given in percentiles and the raw value in parentheses, see the note above.
  • Click onto features to show all scores and predicted off-targets with up to four mismatches. The Out-of-Frame score by Bae et al. 2014 is correlated with the probability that mutations induced by the guide RNA will disrupt the open reading frame. The authors recommend out-of-frame scores > 66 to create knock-outs with a single guide efficiently.

    -

    Off-target sites are sorted by the CFD score (Off-target sites are sorted by the CFD (Cutting Frequency Determination) +score (Doench et al. 2016). The higher the CFD score, the more likely there is off-target cleavage at that site. Off-targets with a CFD score < 0.023 are not shown on this page, but are availble when following the link to the external CRISPOR tool. When compared against experimentally validated off-targets by Haeussler et al. 2016, the large majority of predicted off-targets with CFD scores < 0.023 were false-positives.

    Methods

    Relationship between predictions and experimental data

    Like most algorithms, the MIT specificity score is not always a perfect predictor of off-target effects. Despite low scores, many tested guides