This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Schaefer, K.A. et al. Nat. Methods 14, 547–548 (2017).
Iyer, V. et al. Nat. Methods 12, 479 (2015).
Smith, C. et al. Cell Stem Cell 15, 12–13 (2014).
Veres, A. et al. Cell Stem Cell 15, 27–30 (2014). dd
Oey, H. et al. Epigenetics Chromatin 8, 54 (2015).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
A.B., M.L.M., D.R., C.J.W., C.C.-R., C.A.F., E.M., L.A.B., H.J., C.F.A., G.F.C. and V.E.M. are full-time employees of Editas Medicine. T.F. is a paid consultant of Editas Medicine. G.M.C. is an advisor to Editas Medicine, and his competing interests are covered here: http://arep.med.harvard.edu/gmc/
Supplementary information
Supplementary Text and Figures
Supplementary Figure 1, Supplementary Tables 1–4, Supplementary Note 1 and Supplementary Methods (PDF 77 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wilson, C., Fennell, T., Bothmer, A. et al. Response to “Unexpected mutations after CRISPR–Cas9 editing in vivo”. Nat Methods 15, 236–237 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.4552
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.4552
- Springer Nature America, Inc.
This article is cited by
-
Cytosine base editor 4 but not adenine base editor generates off-target mutations in mouse embryos
Communications Biology (2020)
-
Trio deep-sequencing does not reveal unexpected off-target and on-target mutations in Cas9-edited rhesus monkeys
Nature Communications (2019)
-
Optimized CRISPR guide RNA design for two high-fidelity Cas9 variants by deep learning
Nature Communications (2019)
-
Illuminating the genome-wide activity of genome editors for safe and effective therapeutics
Genome Biology (2018)
-
Inconclusive studies on possible CRISPR-Cas off-targets should moderate expectations about enzymes that have evolved to be non-specific
Journal of Biosciences (2018)