Pacesa, M., Pelea, O. & Jinek, M. Past, present, and future of CRISPR genome editing technologies. Cell 187, 1076–1100 (2024).
Anders, C., Niewoehner, O., Duerst, A. & Jinek, M. Structural basis of PAM-dependent target DNA recognition by the Cas9 endonuclease. Nature 513, 569–573 (2014).
Szczelkun, M. D. et al. Direct observation of R-loop formation by single RNA-guided Cas9 and Cascade effector complexes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 9798–9803 (2014).
Guo, C., Ma, X., Gao, F. & Guo, Y. Off-target effects in CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 11, 1143157 (2023).
Liu, M. S. et al. Engineered CRISPR/Cas9 enzymes improve discrimination by slowing DNA cleavage to allow release of off-target DNA. Nat. Commun. 11, 3576 (2020).
Murugan, K., Suresh, S. K., Seetharam, A. S., Severin, A. J. & Sashital, D. G. Systematic in vitro specificity profiling reveals nicking defects in natural and engineered CRISPR-Cas9 variants. Nucleic Acids Res. 49, 4037–4053 (2021).
Bravo, J. P. K. et al. Structural basis for mismatch surveillance by CRISPR–Cas9. Nature 603, 343–347 (2022).
Pacesa, M. et al. Structural basis for Cas9 off-target activity. Cell 185, 4067–4081 (2022).
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).
Singh, D., Sternberg, S. H., Fei, J., Doudna, J. A. & Ha, T. Real-time observation of DNA recognition and rejection by the RNA-guided endonuclease Cas9. Nat. Commun. 7, 12778 (2016).
Chen, J. S. et al. Enhanced proofreading governs CRISPR–Cas9 targeting accuracy. Nature 550, 407–410 (2017).
Dagdas, Y. S., Chen, J. S., Sternberg, S. H., Doudna, J. A. & Yildiz, A. A conformational checkpoint between DNA binding and cleavage by CRISPR-Cas9. Sci. Adv. 3, eaao0027 (2017).
Shi, Y.-J. et al. DNA topology regulates PAM-Cas9 interaction and DNA unwinding to enable near-PAMless cleavage by thermophilic Cas9. Mol. Cell 82, 4160–4175 (2022).
Newton, M. D. et al. DNA stretching induces Cas9 off-target activity. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 26, 185–192 (2019).
Ivanov, I. E. et al. Cas9 interrogates DNA in discrete steps modulated by mismatches and supercoiling. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 5853–5860 (2020).
Newton, M. D. et al. Negative DNA supercoiling induces genome-wide Cas9 off-target activity. Mol. Cell 83, 3533–3545 (2023).
Bates, A. D. & Maxwell, A. DNA Topology (Oxford Univ. Press, 2005).
Naughton, C. et al. Transcription forms and remodels supercoiling domains unfolding large-scale chromatin structures. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 20, 387–395 (2013).
Ma, J. & Wang, M. Interplay between DNA supercoiling and transcription elongation. Transcription 5, e28636 (2014).
Lia, G. et al. Direct observation of DNA distortion by the RSC complex. Mol. Cell 21, 417–425 (2006).
Gilbert, N. & Allan, J. Supercoiling in DNA and chromatin. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 25, 15–21 (2014).
Magnan, D. & Bates, D. Regulation of DNA replication initiation by chromosome structure. J. Bacteriol. 197, 3370–3377 (2015).
Le, T. T. et al. Synergistic coordination of chromatin torsional mechanics and topoisomerase activity. Cell 179, 619–631 (2019).
Dittmore, A., Brahmachari, S., Takagi, Y., Marko, J. F. & Neuman, K. C. Supercoiling DNA locates mismatches. Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 147801 (2017).
Pommier, Y., Nussenzweig, A., Takeda, S. & Austin, C. Human topoisomerases and their roles in genome stability and organization. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 23, 407–427 (2022).
Lee, J. K. et al. Directed evolution of CRISPR-Cas9 to increase its specificity. Nat. Commun. 9, 3048 (2018).
Kim, Y.-h. et al. Sniper2L is a high-fidelity Cas9 variant with high activity. Nat. Chem. Biol. 10, 972–980 (2023).
Slaymaker, I. M. et al. Rationally engineered Cas9 nucleases with improved specificity. Science 351, 84–88 (2016).
Fogg, J. M. et al. Exploring writhe in supercoiled minicircle DNA. J. Phys. Condens. Matter 18, S145–S159 (2006).
Irobalieva, R. N. et al. Structural diversity of supercoiled DNA. Nat. Commun. 6, 8440 (2015).
Pyne, A. L. B. et al. Base-pair resolution analysis of the effect of supercoiling on DNA flexibility and major groove recognition by triplex-forming oligonucleotides. Nat. Commun. 12, 1053 (2021).
Vayssières, M. et al. Structural basis of DNA crossover capture by Escherichia coli DNA gyrase. Science 384, 227–232 (2024).
Beton, J. G. et al. TopoStats—a program for automated tracing of biomolecules from AFM images. Methods 193, 68–79 (2021).
Sutthibutpong, T. et al. Long-range correlations in the mechanics of small DNA circles under topological stress revealed by multi-scale simulation. Nucleic Acids Res. 44, 9121–9130 (2016).
Nishimasu, H. et al. Crystal structure of Cas9 in complex with guide RNA and target DNA. Cell 156, 935–949 (2014).
Jinek, M. et al. Structures of Cas9 endonucleases reveal RNA-mediated conformational activation. Science 343, 1247997 (2014).
Jiang, F. et al. Structures of a CRISPR-Cas9 R-loop complex primed for DNA cleavage. Science 351, 867–871 (2016).
Zhu, X. et al. Cryo-EM structures reveal coordinated domain motions that govern DNA cleavage by Cas9. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 26, 679–685 (2019).
Pacesa, M. et al. R-loop formation and conformational activation mechanisms of Cas9. Nature 609, 191–196 (2022).
Eslami-Mossallam, B. et al. A kinetic model predicts SpCas9 activity, improves off-target classification, and reveals the physical basis of targeting fidelity. Nat. Commun. 13, 1367 (2022).
Palermo, G. et al. Key role of the REC lobe during CRISPR–Cas9 activation by ‘sensing’, ‘regulating’, and ‘locking’ the catalytic HNH domain. Q. Rev. Biophys. 51, e9 (2018).
Jinek, M. et al. A programmable dual-RNA-guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity. Science 337, 816–821 (2012).
Zhang, L. et al. Systematic in vitro profiling of off-target affinity, cleavage and efficiency for CRISPR enzymes. Nucleic Acids Res. 48, 5037–5053 (2020).
Zuo, Z. & Liu, J. Cas9-catalyzed DNA cleavage generates staggered ends: evidence from molecular dynamics simulations. Sci. Rep. 6, 37584 (2016).
King, G. A., Burla, F., Peterman, E. J. G. & Wuite, G. J. L. Supercoiling DNA optically. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 26534–26539 (2019).
Cong, L. et al. Multiplex genome engineering using CRISPR/Cas systems. Science 339, 819–823 (2013).
Mali, P., Esvelt, K. M. & Church, G. M. Cas9 as a versatile tool for engineering biology. Nat. Methods 10, 957–963 (2013).
Kleinstiver, B. P. et al. High-fidelity CRISPR–Cas9 nucleases with no detectable genome-wide off-target effects. Nature 529, 490–495 (2016).
Vakulskas, C. A. et al. A high-fidelity Cas9 mutant delivered as a ribonucleoprotein complex enables efficient gene editing in human hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells. Nat. Med. 24, 1216–1224 (2018).
Huai, C. et al. Structural insights into DNA cleavage activation of CRISPR-Cas9 system. Nat. Commun. 8, 1375 (2017).
Sternberg, S. H., LaFrance, B., Kaplan, M. & Doudna, J. A. Conformational control of DNA target cleavage by CRISPR–Cas9. Nature 527, 110–113 (2015).
Skeens, E. et al. High-fidelity, hyper-accurate, and evolved mutants rewire atomic-level communication in CRISPR-Cas9. Sci. Adv. 10, eadl1045 (2024).
Jones, D. L. et al. Kinetics of dCas9 target search in Escherichia coli. Science 357, 1420–1424 (2017).
Reginato, G. et al. HLTF disrupts Cas9-DNA post-cleavage complexes to allow DNA break processing. Nat. Commun. 15, 5789 (2024).
Shibata, M. et al. Real-space and real-time dynamics of CRISPR-Cas9 visualized by high-speed atomic force microscopy. Nat. Commun. 8, 1430 (2017).
Fu, Y., Sander, J. D., Reyon, D., Cascio, V. M. & Joung, J. K. Improving CRISPR-Cas nuclease specificity using truncated guide RNAs. Nat. Biotechnol. 32, 279–284 (2014).
Liu, Y. et al. Very fast CRISPR on demand. Science 368, 1265–1269 (2020).
Kramer, P. R., Bat, O. & Sinden, R. R. in Methods in Enzymology Vol. 304 (eds Wassarman, P. M. & Wolffe, A. P.) 639–650 (Academic Press, 1999).
Senavirathne, G. et al. Activation-induced deoxycytidine deaminase (AID) co-transcriptional scanning at single-molecule resolution. Nat. Commun. 6, 10209 (2015).
Gasiunas, G. et al. A catalogue of biochemically diverse CRISPR-Cas9 orthologs. Nat. Commun. 11, 5512 (2020).
Crothers, D. M., Haran, T. E. & Nadeau, J. G. Intrinsically bent DNA. J. Biol. Chem. 265, 7093–7096 (1990).
Pasi, M. et al. DNA minicircles clarify the specific role of DNA structure on retroviral integration. Nucleic Acids Res. 44, 7830–7847 (2016).
Cui, Y. et al. Cyclization of secondarily structured oligonucleotides to single-stranded rings by using: Taq DNA ligase at high temperatures. RSC Adv. 8, 18972–18979 (2018).
Haynes, P. J., Main, K. H. S., Akpinar, B. & Pyne, A. L. B. in Chromosome Architecture: Methods and Protocols 2nd edn (ed. Leake, M. C.) 43–62 (Humana, 2022).
Scheres, S. H. W. RELION: implementation of a Bayesian approach to cryo-EM structure determination. J. Struct. Biol. 180, 519–530 (2012).
Rohou, A. & Grigorieff, N. CTFFIND4: fast and accurate defocus estimation from electron micrographs. J. Struct. Biol. 192, 216–221 (2015).
Zheng, S. Q. et al. MotionCor2—anisotropic correction of beam-induced motion for improved cryo-electron microscopy. Nat. Methods 14, 331–332 (2017).
Bepler, T. et al. Positive-unlabeled convolutional neural networks for particle picking in cryo-electron micrographs. Nat. Methods 16, 1153–1160 (2019).
Emsley, P., Lohkamp, B., Scott, W. G. & Cowtan, K. Features and development of Coot. Acta Crystalogr. D 66, 486–501 (2010).
Meng, E. C. et al. UCSF ChimeraX: tools for structure building and analysis. Protein Sci. 32, e4792 (2023).
Kidmose, R. T. et al. Namdinator—automatic molecular dynamics flexible fitting of structural models into cryo-EM and crystallography experimental maps. IUCrJ 6, 526–531 (2019).
