Advanced Detection Methods for CRISPR-Induced Mutations in Plants: A Comprehensive Guide for Researchers

Abstract

This article provides a comprehensive overview of the current methodologies for detecting and validating CRISPR-induced mutations in plants, tailored for researchers and biotechnology professionals. It covers the foundational principles of CRISPR editing outcomes, explores a range of detection techniques from conventional PCR to advanced isothermal amplification and high-throughput sequencing, and addresses common challenges in optimization and specificity. The content further delves into rigorous validation protocols and comparative analyses of different methods, emphasizing their application in ensuring regulatory compliance and advancing precise molecular breeding. By synthesizing the latest research and development in the field, this guide serves as an essential resource for the accurate characterization of gene-edited plants.

Understanding CRISPR Editing Outcomes and Detection Imperatives in Plants

The CRISPR-Cas9 system has revolutionized genetic research by providing scientists with unprecedented precision in genome editing. This technology operates as molecular scissors, creating targeted double-strand breaks (DSBs) in DNA at specific locations guided by RNA sequences. However, the CRISPR-Cas9 machinery itself does not perform the genetic modification; it merely creates the initial cut. The actual genetic editing occurs through the cell's endogenous DNA damage repair (DDR) pathways, which join the two cut ends together, leading to various genetic outcomes including knockouts, precise point mutations, or knockins [1] [2].

When DNA damage occurs, a series of DDR pathways are activated to sense and fix the disrupted sequences. These pathways are essential for maintaining genomic integrity across all organisms. Although DNA damage can affect one or both DNA strands, DSBs are particularly significant in CRISPR/Cas9 applications because they represent the type of damage intentionally created by the system [1]. Researchers strategically leverage these endogenous DNA repair pathways to generate genetically edited organisms, furthering the study of human disease, agricultural improvement, and the development of new therapeutics [1] [3] [4].

The two primary repair pathways for DSBs are non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) and homology-directed repair (HDR). Additionally, alternative pathways such as microhomology-mediated end joining (MMEJ) and single-strand annealing (SSA) play significant roles in repair outcomes, especially in the context of CRISPR-mediated gene editing [5]. Understanding the intricate interplay between these pathways is crucial for optimizing CRISPR experiments, particularly in plant research where detection of successful mutations requires careful consideration of these repair mechanisms.

DNA Repair Pathways in CRISPR-Mediated Genome Editing

Non-Homologous End Joining (NHEJ): The Efficient but Error-Prone Pathway

Non-homologous end joining represents the dominant and most efficient DSB repair pathway in most eukaryotic cells, including plants. This pathway operates throughout the cell cycle and functions by quickly rejoining broken DNA ends without requiring a homologous template. The process begins with the recognition of DSBs by the Ku70/Ku80 heterodimer, which then recruits and activates DNA-dependent protein kinase catalytic subunit (DNA-PKcs). After processing of the DNA ends by various nucleases and polymerases, the DNA ligase IV complex catalyzes the final ligation step [4] [6].

The speed of NHEJ comes at the cost of precision—this pathway often leads to small insertions or deletions (INDELs) at the repair site. A commonly observed phenomenon accompanying DSBs is the creation of very small single-stranded overhangs that can create regions of "microhomology" to guide repair. Unfortunately, imprecise repair frequently results in the loss or gain of a small number of nucleotides, effectively knocking out the gene of interest due to INDEL formation resulting in loss of function, frameshift mutations, or creation of a premature stop codon [1].

For researchers aiming to create gene knockouts, especially in plant models, NHEJ is often the preferred pathway due to its high efficiency. The consistent generation of small (1-10 base pair) INDEL errors can disrupt gene function, making NHEJ ideal for gene knockout studies where the goal is to inactivate or disrupt a gene [1] [3]. To generate knockouts using NHEJ, researchers typically need Cas9 nuclease, single guide RNAs (sgRNA), and PCR primers for validation via sequencing [1].

Distinguishing Features of NHEJ:

• Template-independent repair mechanism
• Functions throughout the cell cycle
• High efficiency but error-prone
• Generates insertions/deletions (INDELs)
• Ideal for gene knockout studies
• Faster repair kinetics compared to HDR [1] [4] [7]

Homology-Directed Repair (HDR): The Precise but Inefficient Pathway

Homology-directed repair represents a precise DNA repair mechanism that utilizes homologous sequences as templates for accurate DSB repair. Unlike NHEJ, HDR requires a DNA template containing homologous sequences to the regions flanking the DSB—this can be a sister chromatid, a donor homology plasmid, or single-stranded oligodeoxynucleotides (ssODNs). In CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing, researchers design a donor template that includes the DNA sequence they want to insert, flanked by homology arms that match the ends of the cut DNA [1] [2].

The HDR process initiates with 5' to 3' DNA end resection to generate single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) overhangs. The MRE11-RAD50-NBS1 (MRN) complex plays a crucial role in this initial step. Subsequently, replication protein A (RPA) binds to and protects the ssDNA overhangs before being replaced by RAD51 with the assistance of mediator proteins such as BRCA2. The RAD51-ssDNA filament then invades the homologous donor template, leading to DNA synthesis using the donor as a template. Finally, the newly synthesized DNA is resolved and integrated [4] [6].

HDR offers unparalleled accuracy for generating precise genetic modifications, making it the pathway of choice for knockins, point mutations, and tagging genes with fluorescent proteins for tracking gene expression. However, HDR has significantly lower efficiency compared to NHEJ, as it only occurs during specific phases of the cell cycle (S and G2) where homologous DNA is naturally available. Another important consideration when designing a gene edit with HDR is ensuring the homology arms are as close to the DSB as possible [1] [2].

Distinguishing Features of HDR:

• Template-dependent repair mechanism
• Primarily active in S and G2 cell cycle phases
• Low efficiency but high precision
• Enables precise knockins and specific mutations
• Requires donor DNA template with homology arms
• Essential for precise genome editing applications [1] [2] [7]

Alternative Repair Pathways: MMEJ and SSA

Beyond the primary NHEJ and HDR pathways, alternative repair mechanisms significantly influence CRISPR editing outcomes, particularly in plant systems. Microhomology-mediated end joining (MMEJ) represents an error-prone repair pathway that relies on short microhomology sequences (2-20 base pairs) flanking the DSB. During MMEJ, these microhomologous regions anneal, resulting in deletions of the intervening sequence. The key enzyme driving MMEJ is DNA polymerase theta (POLQ), which makes this pathway a potential target for modulation [5] [6].

Single-strand annealing (SSA) constitutes another error-prone repair pathway that requires longer homologous sequences (typically >30 base pairs) for repair. SSA depends on the RAD52 protein, which mediates the annealing of complementary single-stranded DNA sequences. This pathway typically results in deletions of the sequence between the homologous regions [5].

Recent research has demonstrated that these alternative pathways contribute substantially to imprecise repair outcomes in CRISPR-mediated gene editing. A 2025 study revealed that even with NHEJ inhibition, various patterns of imprecise repair persist in CRISPR-mediated knock-in, largely due to MMEJ and SSA activity. Specifically, suppressing either MMEJ (using POLQ inhibitors) or SSA (using Rad52 inhibitors) reduces nucleotide deletions around the cut site, thereby elevating knock-in accuracy [5].

Table 1: Comparison of Major DNA Double-Strand Break Repair Pathways

Pathway	Template Required	Key Proteins	Fidelity	Cell Cycle Phase	Main Outcome
NHEJ	No	Ku70/80, DNA-PKcs, XLF, XRCC4, Ligase IV	Error-prone	All phases	INDELs (insertions/deletions)
HDR	Yes (homologous)	MRN complex, BRCA1, BRCA2, RAD51, RAD52	High-fidelity	S and G2	Precise repair/knockin
MMEJ	No (microhomology)	PARP1, POLQ, FEN1, Ligase I/III	Error-prone	S and G2	Deletions using microhomology
SSA	Yes (direct repeats)	RAD52, ERCC1, XPF	Error-prone	S and G2	Deletions between repeats

Quantitative Comparison of NHEJ and HDR Efficiency and Outcomes

Understanding the quantitative differences between NHEJ and HDR is crucial for designing CRISPR experiments and interpreting results, particularly in plant research where detection methods must be tailored to expected mutation profiles. The efficiency disparity between these pathways is substantial, with NHEJ typically dominating the repair landscape.

Experimental data from human cell studies demonstrate that NHEJ-mediated repair occurs with significantly higher frequency than HDR across most cell types. In standard conditions without pathway modulation, NHEJ accounts for approximately 75-85% of DSB repair events, while HDR typically represents only a minor fraction [4] [6]. This efficiency gap presents a major challenge for applications requiring precise edits.

Recent research has quantified the impact of various modulation strategies on HDR efficiency. A 2025 study investigating CRISPR-mediated endogenous tagging in human cells reported that inhibition of the NHEJ pathway using Alt-R HDR Enhancer V2 increased knock-in efficiency approximately 3-fold for both Cpf1-mediated knock-in (from 5.2% to 16.8%) and Cas9-mediated knock-in (from 6.9% to 22.1%) [5]. This study also demonstrated that even with NHEJ inhibition, the proportion of perfect HDR events remained below 50% among all integration events, highlighting the significant contribution of alternative repair pathways to imprecise integration.

Table 2: Quantitative Outcomes of DNA Repair Pathways in CRISPR-Mediated Editing

Repair Pathway	Typical Efficiency	Common Mutational Signature	Impact on Gene Function	Optimal Application
NHEJ	High (75-85% of repairs)	Small INDELs (1-20 bp)	Frameshifts, premature stop codons, gene knockouts	Gene disruption studies, functional knockout screening
HDR	Low (1-20% of repairs)	Precise sequence integration	Defined sequence changes, gene correction, protein tagging	Precise mutation introduction, gene correction, epitope tagging
MMEJ	Intermediate (5-15% of repairs)	Deletions flanked by microhomology	In-frame deletions, exon skipping, gene disruption	Less characterized, often contributes to imprecise editing
SSA	Low (<10% of repairs)	Large deletions between repeats	Major genomic rearrangements, gene disruption	Less characterized, contributes to imprecise integration

The fidelity of each repair pathway also varies substantially. NHEJ typically produces INDELs ranging from 1-20 base pairs, with a predominance of deletions over insertions. HDR, when successful, achieves precise integration with near-perfect fidelity when appropriate donor templates are provided. The alternative pathways MMEJ and SSA produce more substantial deletions—MMEJ typically creates deletions of 10-100 base pairs flanked by microhomology regions, while SSA can generate large deletions exceeding hundreds of base pairs between homologous repeats [5].

In plant systems, these quantitative relationships are particularly important for designing detection methods, as the expected distribution of mutation types must be considered when selecting analytical approaches. For instance, techniques focused on detecting small INDELs (such as T7E1 assay or fragment analysis) will capture predominantly NHEJ events, while methods for verifying precise integration (such as PCR with verification sequencing) are necessary for confirming HDR outcomes.

Experimental Protocols for Studying DNA Repair Pathways in CRISPR Editing

Protocol for Assessing HDR Efficiency in Plant Systems

A standardized protocol for evaluating HDR efficiency in plant models involves the following key steps:

• Design and Synthesis of Editing Components: Design sgRNAs targeting the gene of interest, ensuring high on-target activity and minimal off-target potential. Synthesize Cas9 nuclease (as protein, mRNA, or encoded in a delivery vector) and in vitro transcribed sgRNAs. Design donor DNA templates with homology arms (typically 90-1000 bp, depending on the system) flanking the desired insertion sequence [5] [4].

• Delivery of CRISPR Components: For plant systems, common delivery methods include:

  • Agrobacterium-mediated transformation: Clone Cas9, sgRNA, and donor template into appropriate binary vectors and transform using standard Agrobacterium protocols [4] [8].
  • PEG-mediated protoplast transformation: Deliver CRISPR ribonucleoprotein (RNP) complexes directly to protoplasts along with donor DNA [8].
  • Virus-induced genome editing (VIGE): Utilize viral vectors to deliver editing components, as demonstrated in tomato with TRV-based systems [8].

• Pathway Modulation: To enhance HDR efficiency, apply pathway-specific modulators:

  • NHEJ inhibition: Use small molecule inhibitors such as Alt-R HDR Enhancer V2 or NU7026 [5] [6].
  • MMEJ inhibition: Apply ART558, a specific inhibitor of POLQ [5].
  • SSA inhibition: Utilize D-I03, a Rad52 inhibitor [5]. Treatment typically occurs for 24 hours immediately following delivery of editing components, based on evidence that HDR primarily occurs within this timeframe after Cas9 delivery [5].

• Detection and Quantification: After appropriate culture duration (typically 4-7 days for initial assessment):

  • Extract genomic DNA from edited tissue
  • Amplify target regions using PCR with flanking primers
  • Analyze editing efficiency using sequencing-based methods (Sanger sequencing with decomposition tools or next-generation sequencing)
  • For HDR-specific detection, use restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) if the edit introduces or removes a restriction site, or employ allele-specific PCR [5] [4].

• Validation: Confirm precise editing through Southern blotting, long-read sequencing (PacBio or Nanopore), or functional assays specific to the edited gene [5].

Protocol for Comparative Analysis of Multiple Repair Pathways

A comprehensive 2025 study established a robust protocol for simultaneously analyzing contributions of multiple repair pathways to CRISPR editing outcomes:

• Experimental Setup:

  • Utilize hTERT-immortalized RPE1 cells or plant protoplasts for editing experiments
  • Apply a cloning-free endogenous tagging method with donor DNA prepared by PCR using primers containing 90-base homology arms
  • Form RNP complexes by mixing recombinant Cas nucleases with in vitro transcribed guide RNAs
  • Deliver RNPs and donor DNA via electroporation (for cells) or PEG-mediated transformation (for protoplasts) [5]

• Pathway Inhibition Conditions:

  • Control: No pathway inhibitors
  • NHEJ inhibition: Alt-R HDR Enhancer V2
  • MMEJ inhibition: ART558 (POLQ inhibitor)
  • SSA inhibition: D-I03 (Rad52 inhibitor)
  • Combination treatments: NHEJi + MMEJi or NHEJi + SSAi [5]

• Outcome Analysis:

  • Perform long-read amplicon sequencing using PacBio technology 4 days post-editing
  • Conduct genotyping using computational frameworks like knock-knock for precise classification of repair outcomes
  • Categorize sequencing reads into specific repair outcomes: WT, indels, perfect HDR, or subtypes of imprecise integration [5]

• Data Interpretation:

  • Quantify the percentage of perfect HDR events under each inhibition condition
  • Calculate the reduction in specific imprecise repair patterns (large deletions, asymmetric HDR, etc.)
  • Determine statistical significance of pathway modulation on editing precision [5]

This protocol enables researchers to comprehensively map how each repair pathway contributes to final editing outcomes and identify optimal inhibition strategies for improving precise editing efficiency.

Pathway Visualization and Molecular Mechanisms

The following diagrams illustrate the key molecular pathways involved in CRISPR-mediated DNA repair, providing visual reference for understanding the complex interactions between different repair mechanisms.

CRISPR-Cas9 Induced DNA Repair Pathways

DNA Damage Response Signaling in Plants

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents for DNA Repair Studies

Successful investigation of DNA repair pathways in CRISPR editing requires specific research reagents and materials. The following table comprehensively lists essential tools for studying these mechanisms in plant and other biological systems.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Studying DNA Repair Pathways in CRISPR Editing

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Function/Application	Key Characteristics
CRISPR Nucleases	Cas9, Cpf1 (Cas12a), Cas12b	DSB induction at target sites	Different PAM requirements, cleavage patterns (staggered vs blunt ends)
Pathway Inhibitors	Alt-R HDR Enhancer V2 (NHEJi), ART558 (POLQ/MMEJi), D-I03 (Rad52/SSAi)	Modulate specific repair pathways	Enhance HDR efficiency by 2-3 fold when used strategically [5]
Donor Templates	dsDNA with homology arms, ssODNs	Template for HDR-mediated precise editing	Homology arm length (90-1000 bp), sequence-validated designs
Detection Tools	T7E1 assay, RFLP analysis, NGS platforms, Sanger sequencing	Identify and quantify editing outcomes	Different sensitivity, throughput, and cost profiles
Cell/Plant Models	RPE1 cells, Arabidopsis, tomato, rice protoplasts	Experimental systems for editing	Variable editing efficiencies, transformation protocols
Delivery Methods	Electroporation, PEG-mediated transformation, Agrobacterium, viral vectors	Introduce editing components into cells	Different efficiency, cost, and technical requirements
Analysis Software	knock-knock, CRISPResso2, TIDE	Classify and quantify editing outcomes	Specific algorithms for different repair patterns

The selection of appropriate reagents depends heavily on the specific research goals. For plant systems, the development of transgene-free editing systems using ribonucleoprotein (RNP) complexes has gained significant traction, as evidenced by recent advances in crops like citrus, where an in planta genome editing system (IPGEC) enables transgene-free, biallelic editing without tissue culture [8]. Similarly, virus-induced genome editing (VIGE) systems using tobacco rattle virus (TRV) to deliver compact editing enzymes like TnpB have shown promise for achieving heritable edits in tomato [8].

For pathway modulation, the timing of inhibitor application proves critical. Research indicates that treatment duration of 24 hours immediately following CRISPR delivery optimally enhances HDR efficiency, as this window captures the primary period when HDR occurs after Cas9-induced DSBs [5]. Combining multiple inhibitors (e.g., NHEJ and SSA inhibition) can further improve precise editing outcomes by addressing the complex interplay between different repair pathways [5].

The intricate interplay between NHEJ, HDR, and alternative repair pathways in CRISPR-mediated editing has profound implications for detecting and characterizing mutations in plant research. The predominance of error-prone repair pathways like NHEJ means that detection methods must be capable of identifying diverse mutational outcomes beyond precise integrations—including INDELs, deletions flanked by microhomology, and larger genomic rearrangements.

Effective mutation detection in plant CRISPR research requires a multi-faceted approach that considers the quantitative distribution of different repair outcomes. While HDR-based precise edits typically represent a minority of total editing events, their detection requires sensitive methods such as restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) or allele-specific PCR. In contrast, the more abundant NHEJ-mediated mutations can be detected using higher-throughput but less precise methods like T7E1 assay or fragment analysis. For comprehensive characterization of the full spectrum of editing outcomes, next-generation sequencing approaches remain the gold standard, albeit at higher cost and computational requirements [5] [4].

Recent advances in understanding alternative repair pathways like MMEJ and SSA further complicate the detection landscape, as these pathways produce distinct mutational signatures that may be misinterpreted or overlooked with standard detection methods. The demonstration that SSA suppression reduces asymmetric HDR—a specific imprecise integration pattern where only one side of donor DNA is precisely integrated—highlights the need for detection methods with single-nucleotide resolution to accurately characterize editing outcomes [5].

As CRISPR applications in plant research continue to expand—from disease resistance enhancement in crops like rice and tomato to nutritional quality improvement in barley and soybean [8]—the development of refined detection methods that account for the complex behaviors of DNA repair pathways will be essential for accurate characterization of edited lines and regulatory compliance. The strategic modulation of repair pathways through chemical inhibitors or other approaches offers promising avenues for improving the efficiency of desired edits, but simultaneously demands increasingly sophisticated detection capabilities to verify both on-target precision and off-target safety.

The advent of CRISPR-Cas technologies has revolutionized plant functional genomics and crop improvement by enabling precise modifications to DNA sequences. A comprehensive understanding of the spectrum of mutations induced by different CRISPR-Cas systems—ranging from small insertions and deletions (indels) to base edits and large deletions—is essential for selecting the appropriate tools for specific applications. This knowledge is equally critical for choosing effective detection methods to identify and characterize these genetic changes. The complex nature of plant genomes, particularly polyploid species like wheat, further underscores the need for sensitive and accurate screening techniques [9]. This guide provides a systematic comparison of CRISPR-induced mutations in plants, detailing their molecular characteristics, the technologies that generate them, and the experimental protocols required for their detection and validation.

CRISPR systems generate a diverse array of mutations through distinct molecular mechanisms. The choice of CRISPR tool directly determines the type and size of the genetic alteration, which in turn influences the strategic approach for mutation detection.

Table 1: Spectrum of CRISPR-Induced Mutations in Plants

Mutation Type	CRISPR System	Molecular Mechanism	Typical Size Range	Primary Applications in Plants
Small Indels	Cas9, Cas12a	NHEJ repair of DSBs	1 bp to <10 bp (Cas9); 6-14 bp (Cas12a) [10]	Gene knockouts, loss-of-function mutations [11]
Base Edits	Base editors (Cytidine/ Adenosine deaminase fusions)	Direct chemical conversion of bases without DSBs	Single nucleotide changes	Amino acid substitutions, introducing herbicide resistance [11]
Large Deletions	Exonuclease-fused Cas9/Cas12a, paired gRNAs	Exonuclease resection or deletion between distant cuts	>15 bp to hundreds of bp [10]	cis-regulatory element editing, noncoding RNA knockout [10]
Precise Insertions	Prime editing, HDR-based approaches	Reverse transcription from pegRNA or donor template	Up to 15 bp demonstrated in rice [11]	Specific amino acid changes, small tag insertions

The following diagram illustrates the mechanistic pathways leading to these different mutation types:

Mutation Detection Methods: Comparative Analysis

Detecting CRISPR-induced mutations requires methods with varying levels of sensitivity, scalability, and resolution. The optimal choice depends on the mutation type, throughput requirements, and available resources.

Table 2: Comparison of Mutation Detection Methods for CRISPR-Edited Plants

Detection Method	Detection Principle	Sensitivity	Resolution	Throughput	Best Suited Mutation Types	Key Limitations
PCR/RNP Assay [9]	CRISPR nuclease cleavage of wild-type PCR products	High (detects 1:20 mutant:wild-type ratio) [9]	Low (presence/absence of mutation)	Medium	Small indels, large deletions	Does not identify exact sequence change
Sanger Sequencing [11]	Dideoxy chain termination sequencing	~15% allele frequency [11]	Nucleotide level	Low	All mutation types	Difficult to deconvolute complex mixtures
Next-Generation Sequencing [11]	Massively parallel sequencing	0.1-1% allele frequency [11]	Nucleotide level	High	All mutation types	Higher cost, bioinformatics expertise required
High-Resolution Melting (HRM) [12]	DNA melting curve analysis	Medium	Low (sequence variant detection)	High	SNPs, small indels	Does not identify exact sequence change
T7 Endonuclease I Assay [9]	Mismatch cleavage in heteroduplex DNA	Medium	Low (presence/absence of mutation)	Medium	Small indels	Cannot distinguish homozygous mutants from wild-type [9]

Experimental Protocols for Mutation Detection

PCR/RNP Mutation Detection Protocol

The PCR/RNP method offers a highly sensitive approach for identifying edited mutations without requiring restriction enzyme sites, making it particularly valuable for polyploid plants like wheat where single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) near target sites can complicate analysis [9].

Materials Required:

• Purified CRISPR ribonucleoprotein complexes (SpCas9, FnCpf1, or AsCpf1)
• Target-specific guide RNA (sgRNA for Cas9, crRNA for Cpf1)
• PCR amplification reagents
• Agarose gel electrophoresis equipment

Step-by-Step Protocol:

• PCR Amplification: Amplify the target region from plant genomic DNA using gene-specific primers flanking the edited site.
• RNP Complex Assembly: Pre-assemble CRISPR RNP complexes by incubating 500 ng of purified Cas protein with guide RNA in appropriate buffer (e.g., NEBuffer 3.1) for 10-15 minutes at room temperature.
• In Vitro Cleavage: Add the RNP complexes to purified PCR products and incubate at 37°C for 2-3 hours to allow complete digestion of wild-type sequences.
• Analysis: Separate cleavage products by agarose gel electrophoresis. Mutant alleles remain uncut due to mismatches with the guide RNA, while wild-type sequences are cleaved into smaller fragments [9].

Critical Parameters:

• RNP dosage must be optimized for each guide RNA based on its cleavage activity
• Extended incubation times (2-3 hours) ensure complete digestion of wild-type amplicons
• This method successfully detected DNA-free tagw2 mutations induced by purified TALEN protein in wheat [9]

High-Throughput Screening Protocol Using NGS and HRM

For large-scale screening of non-transgenic mutant plants, particularly in asexually propagated perennial crops, a combination of NGS and HRM provides an efficient workflow [12].

Materials Required:

• Illumina sequencing platform
• High-resolution melting instrument (e.g., LightScanner, QuantStudio)
• DNA extraction and PCR reagents
• Barcoded primers for multiplexing

Step-by-Step Protocol:

• Initial Pooled Screening: Combine leaf tissue from multiple regenerated shoots (e.g., 1:41 mutant-to-wild-type ratio) and extract genomic DNA.
• Target Amplification: PCR-amplify target regions using barcoded primers for multiplexed analysis.
• NGS Analysis: Sequence pooled amplicons to ~60,000-100,000x coverage. Identify potential mutants by elevated nucleotide variant frequency (NVF) at target positions.
• HRM Validation: Screen individual plants from positive pools using HRM analysis to confirm editing events. Mutant samples show distinct melting curves compared to wild-type [12].

Critical Parameters:

• Pooling strategies must be optimized based on expected mutation rates
• NVF elevation at specific nucleotide positions indicates potential mutations
• HRM provides rapid validation without sequencing costs

Detection of Base Editing and Large Deletions

Advanced CRISPR applications require specialized detection approaches to identify precise genetic changes.

Base Editing Detection: Base editors create specific point mutations (C→T or A→G) without double-strand breaks. Detection methods include:

• High-Fidelity Cas9 variants: Can distinguish base-edited mutations from wild-type when used in PCR/RNP assays [9]
• Allele-Specific PCR: Primers specifically designed to amplify edited but not wild-type sequences
• Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism: Introduction or elimination of restriction sites by base editing

Large Deletion Detection: Exonuclease-fused CRISPR systems significantly increase deletion sizes:

• Exonuclease Fusion Systems: Fusion of exonucleases (e.g., sbcB, TREX2) to Cas9 or Cas12a increases deletion sizes >15 bp [10]
• sbcB-Cas12a Fusion: Shows 3.6-fold increase in deletions >15 bp compared to standard Cas12a [10]
• PCR Fragment Analysis: Large deletions can be detected through size differences in PCR amplicons
• Amplicon Sequencing: NGS reveals precise deletion boundaries and microhomology patterns

Research Reagent Solutions

Successful detection of CRISPR-induced mutations relies on specialized reagents and tools optimized for plant genomics applications.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for CRISPR Mutation Detection

Reagent/Tool	Specific Example	Application	Key Features
CRISPR Nucleases	SpCas9, FnCpf1, LbCas12a	Indel induction, PCR/RNP assays	SpCas9: blunt-end DSBs; Cas12a: staggered-end DSBs with larger deletions [10]
High-Fidelity Cas Variants	SpCas9-HF1, HypaCas9	Base editing detection, reduced off-target effects	Distinguish base-edited mutations from wild-type in PCR/RNP assays [9]
Exonuclease Fusions	sbcB-LbCas12a, TREX2-SpCas9	Large deletion generation	sbcB fusion increases proportion of deletions >15 bp by 3.6-fold [10]
Detection Enzymes	T7 Endonuclease I, Purified RNP complexes	Mutation screening	T7EI detects heteroduplex mismatches; RNP cleaves only wild-type sequences [9]
Bioinformatics Tools	CRISPResso2, SMAP haplotype-window, TIDE	NGS/Sanger data analysis	SMAP analyzes entire read sequence as allele; TIDE deconvolutes Sanger traces [11]

The expanding spectrum of CRISPR-induced mutations in plants—from small indels to base edits and large deletions—requires researchers to employ carefully matched detection methodologies. Each detection platform offers distinct advantages: PCR/RNP assays provide sensitivity for identifying edited lines without sequencing, NGS enables comprehensive characterization of complex editing outcomes, and HRM facilitates high-throughput screening. The choice of detection method must align with the specific CRISPR tool employed, the mutation type expected, and the throughput requirements of the research project. As CRISPR technologies continue to evolve toward more precise and complex genome modifications, detection methods will similarly advance to provide researchers with comprehensive tools for validating genetic changes in plant systems.

The Critical Role of Detection in Functional Genomics and Regulatory Compliance

In plant functional genomics, the precision of CRISPR-induced mutations is paramount. Confirming these genetic alterations reliably is a cornerstone of both rigorous research and regulatory compliance. While traditional detection methods like Sanger sequencing have been widely used, emerging CRISPR-based diagnostics offer a new paradigm in sensitivity and specificity. This guide objectively compares the performance of established and novel detection platforms, providing plant scientists with the experimental data and protocols needed to select the optimal tool for validating genome edits in their research.

Comparative Analysis of Detection Method Performance

The following table summarizes the key performance metrics of traditional and novel CRISPR-based detection methods, highlighting their applicability in plant research.

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Mutation Detection Methods

Detection Method	Theoretical Sensitivity	Time to Result	Key Advantage	Key Limitation	Suitability for Plant Research
Sanger Sequencing	N/A (Direct sequencing)	Several hours to days [13]	High accuracy for confirming exact sequence changes [13]	Time-consuming; low throughput for screening [13]	High - Gold standard for final validation
T7 Endonuclease I (T7EI) Assay	Low (Moderate ~ >5% Indel)	Several hours [13]	Detects mismatches in heteroduplex DNA without needing sequencing [13]	Lower sensitivity; requires specialized reagents [13]	Moderate - Useful for initial, low-cost screening
Cleavage Assay (CA)	Information Missing	~4-5 hours [13]	Cost-effective; uses the same RNP complex from editing for validation [13]	Primarily indicates presence/absence of edit, not its nature [13]	High - Efficient pre-screening before sequencing
CRISPR/Cas12-based (e.g., DETECTR)	attomolar (aM) level [14]	Hours (e.g., <2 hours) [14]	Ultra-high sensitivity; potential for in-field use [14]	Susceptible to performance drop in non-ideal conditions (e.g., high humidity) [14]	Emerging - Potentially high for pathogen detection in plants
CRISPR/Cas13-based (e.g., SHERLOCK)	attomolar (aM) level [14] [15]	Hours [14] [15]	Ultra-high sensitivity; specifically targets RNA [14] [15]	Susceptible to performance drop in non-ideal conditions [14]	Emerging - Potentially high for gene expression studies

Experimental Protocols for Key Detection Methodologies

Cleavage Assay for Pre-Screening CRISPR Edits

This protocol, adapted from a mouse embryo model for plant research, offers a rapid and cost-effective method to pre-screen for successful gene editing before undertaking more extensive and expensive sequencing.

Table 2: Research Reagent Solutions for the Cleavage Assay

Essential Material/Reagent	Function in the Experiment
dCas9 or Cas9 Nuclease	Core enzyme of the CRISPR system; binds or cleaves the target DNA.
Target-Specific crRNA	Guide RNA that directs the Cas protein to the specific genomic locus intended for editing.
tracrRNA	Universal RNA that hybridizes with crRNA to form the functional guide RNA (gRNA).
Nuclease-Free Duplex Buffer	Provides the ideal ionic conditions for the annealing of crRNA and tracrRNA.
Opti-MEM I Medium	A low-serum, specialized medium used for diluting and handling RNP complexes.
Agarose Gel Electrophoresis System	Standard molecular biology setup to separate and visualize DNA fragments by size.

Detailed Workflow:

• gRNA Preparation: In a nuclease-free tube, mix equal amounts (e.g., 0.5 µL each of 100 µM stocks) of crRNA and tracrRNA with 49 µL of Nuclease-Free Duplex Buffer. Anneal the RNA by incubating at 95°C for 3 minutes, then allow it to cool slowly to room temperature over 30 minutes to form the guide RNA (gRNA) complex [13].
• RNP Complex Formation: Dilute a commercial Cas9 protein (e.g., NLS-Cas9) to 1 µM concentration using Opti-MEM I medium. Combine the diluted Cas9 with the annealed gRNA to form the Ribonucleoprotein (RNP) complex [13].
• Post-Editing Genomic DNA Extraction: Extract genomic DNA from the CRISPR-edited plant tissue (e.g., leaf disc, callus) using a standard CTAB or silica-column based method. Resuspend the purified DNA in nuclease-free water or TE buffer [13].
• Cleavage Reaction: Set up a new reaction mixture containing the same RNP complex used for the initial genetic editing. Add the extracted genomic DNA from the previous step as the substrate for this assay. Incubate the reaction at 37°C for 30-60 minutes to allow the RNP to cleave any unmodified, wild-type DNA targets [13].
• Result Analysis: Analyze the reaction products via agarose gel electrophoresis. The persistence of an intact DNA band indicates a successfully modified target locus that the RNP can no longer recognize or cleave. The disappearance of the band, or appearance of cleavage fragments, suggests the presence of unedited wild-type alleles [13].

CRISPR-Cas13-based SHERLOCK for RNA Detection

This protocol leverages the collateral activity of Cas13 to detect specific RNA transcripts, which can be used in plant research to validate the knockdown of a gene or the expression of a newly introduced trait.

Detailed Workflow:

• Sample RNA Extraction: Isolate total RNA from the plant tissue of interest using a standard method, ensuring RNA integrity and purity.
• Target Pre-amplification (Optional but common): To achieve high sensitivity, the RNA target is first converted to cDNA via reverse transcription. This is followed by an isothermal amplification step (e.g., RPA or LAMP) that incorporates a T7 promoter. The amplified DNA is then transcribed into RNA, creating numerous copies of the target sequence [15].
• Cas13 Detection Reaction: The amplified RNA is incubated with a Cas13-gRNA complex programmed to recognize the target sequence and a quenched fluorescent reporter RNA. Upon target binding, Cas13's collateral RNase activity is activated, cleaving the reporter molecules and producing a fluorescent signal [15].
• Signal Readout: The fluorescence can be measured quantitatively using a plate reader or visually assessed using a lateral flow dipstick for a simple yes/no result, making it adaptable for various settings [15].

Molecular Mechanisms of CRISPR-Based Detection

The power of CRISPR diagnostics lies in the specific molecular mechanisms of different Cas enzymes. Cas9 is primarily used for editing due to its cis-cleavage (target-specific) activity. In contrast, Cas12 and Cas13 are favored for diagnostics due to their trans-cleavage (collateral) activity, which provides signal amplification [14] [15].

The selection of a detection method is a critical decision that balances sensitivity, throughput, cost, and regulatory needs. For the final confirmation of a plant's genetic sequence, Sanger sequencing remains the definitive standard. However, for efficient screening and potentially for monitoring gene expression changes, newer methods like the Cleavage Assay and CRISPR-based diagnostics like SHERLOCK offer compelling advantages in speed and sensitivity. As plant science continues to advance, integrating these robust detection protocols will be essential for accelerating functional genomics and meeting the evidentiary standards for regulatory compliance.

Navigating Global Regulatory Frameworks for Gene-Edited Plants (SDN-1, SDN-2, SDN-3)

Gene-editing technologies, particularly CRISPR-based systems, have revolutionized plant breeding by enabling precise genomic modifications. These edits are commonly categorized into three main types based on the mechanism involved: SDN-1 (Site-Directed Nuclease 1), which introduces random mutations via non-homologous end joining without a repair template; SDN-2, which uses a supplied DNA template to create specific, predefined nucleotide changes through homology-directed repair; and SDN-3, which introduces larger DNA sequences, such as entire genes, into a specific genomic location [16].

The global regulatory landscape for these technologies is complex and diverse, with significant implications for research, commercialization, and international trade. This guide objectively compares how different regulatory frameworks approach these distinct categories of gene-edited plants, with particular emphasis on the detection methodologies required for compliance and verification. Understanding these frameworks is essential for researchers, developers, and policymakers navigating the pathway from laboratory discovery to commercial application [17].

Global Regulatory Approaches for SDN-1, SDN-2, and SDN-3

International regulations for gene-edited plants have evolved with considerable divergence, largely influenced by pre-existing governance of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The regulatory approaches can be classified into four main categories based on their stringency and methodology [16].

Table 1: Classification of Global Regulatory Approaches for Gene-Edited Plants

Approach	How Product is Treated	Applied Regulatory Oversight	Representative Countries/Regions
Approach 1	Regulated as GMO	Full GMO regulations applied	European Union (current), New Zealand [16]
Approach 2	Regulated as GMO	Simplified GMO regulations	China, United Kingdom (under consideration) [18] [16]
Approach 3	Not considered GMO	Exempt from GMO regulations, but requires official confirmation	Japan, Argentina, India, Philippines [18] [16]
Approach 4	Not considered GMO	Exempt from GMO regulations, no prior confirmation required	United States (USDA), Australia [18] [16]

A crucial differentiator among these frameworks is whether they are process-triggered (focused on the method used to create the plant) or product-triggered (focused on the characteristics of the final plant) [17]. This fundamental distinction explains much of the global variation in regulating SDN-1, SDN-2, and SDN-3 applications.

Table 2: Specific Regulatory Treatment of SDN Types Across Jurisdictions

Country/Region	SDN-1	SDN-2	SDN-3
United States (USDA)	Generally exempt from regulation [19]	Exempt if using a template from the plant's gene pool [19]	Subject to regulation [16]
European Union	Regulated as GMO [16]	Regulated as GMO [16]	Regulated as GMO [16]
Japan	Exempt after confirmation [16]	Exempt after confirmation (case-by-case) [16]	Regulated as GMO [16]
Argentina	Exempt after confirmation [16]	Exempt after confirmation (case-by-case) [16]	Regulated as GMO [16]
India	Exempt if no foreign DNA [17]	Exempt if no foreign DNA [17]	Regulated as GMO [17]
China	Simplified regulation [18] [17]	Simplified regulation [18] [17]	Regulated as GMO [17]

SDN-3 applications, which involve the insertion of foreign DNA, are almost universally regulated as GMOs across all major jurisdictions [16]. The greatest regulatory divergence lies in the treatment of SDN-1 and SDN-2 products, particularly when the edits mimic what could occur naturally or through conventional breeding, and when the final product contains no foreign DNA [17].

Figure 1: A simplified decision pathway for the regulation of gene-edited plants, showing how the classification (SDN-1, SDN-2, SDN-3) and the presence of foreign DNA or novel traits trigger different regulatory outcomes in various global frameworks.

Detection Methods for CRISPR-Induced Mutations

Robust detection and verification methods are fundamental to enforcing regulations and ensuring product transparency. The technical challenge varies significantly with the type of edit, influencing regulatory feasibility.

Case Study: Detecting a Single-Base Deletion in Tomato

A comprehensive detection strategy for an SDN-1 type gene-edited tomato (with a single-base pair deletion in the SlPL gene for improved shelf life) demonstrates a multi-tiered workflow [20].

Experimental Protocol:

• Initial Screening (LAMP/PCR): Rapid screening via Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification (LAMP) and conventional Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) assays targeting the Cas9 protein gene to identify plants that have undergone the editing process at an early stage [20].
• Verification (Multiplex Real-time PCR): A multiplex TaqMan real-time PCR assay using dual fluorescently labelled probes simultaneously targets the edited and wild-type sequences. This method operates on a principle of negative selection, where the presence of the mutation is confirmed by the absence of a fluorescent signal from the wild-type probe. This sensitive method can detect edits at a level of 0.1% and verifies the specific single-base deletion [20].
• Transgenic Element Check (Real-time PCR): To confirm the non-transgenic nature of the SDN-1 edited line and distinguish it from SDN-3 products, a final real-time PCR is performed targeting common genetic elements (e.g., promoters, terminators) found in globally approved transgenic GM tomato events [20].

Figure 2: A tiered experimental workflow for the detection and verification of an SDN-1 type gene edit in tomato, from initial screening to final confirmation of its non-transgenic status [20].

Comparison of Detection Methodologies

The applicability and complexity of detection methods depend on the nature of the genetic modification.

Table 3: Comparison of Detection Methods for Different SDN Types

SDN Type	Example Methods	Key Challenge	Distinguishability from Natural Mutation
SDN-1	PCR + Capillary Electrophoresis, NGS, RPA	Detecting small InDels without a known reference	Often indistinguishable [20]
SDN-2	PCR-RFLP, Sanger Sequencing, NGS	Verifying a specific, precise nucleotide change	Often indistinguishable [20]
SDN-3	Quantitative PCR (qPCR), LAMP, ELISA	Detecting the presence of foreign genetic elements	Easily distinguishable [20]

A significant challenge in regulating SDN-1 and SDN-2 products is that the resulting genetic changes are often indistinguishable from natural mutations or those achieved through conventional mutagenesis. This creates a technical and regulatory dilemma, as it makes process-based traceability and enforcement functionally impossible in many cases [17]. In contrast, SDN-3 products, which contain foreign DNA, are readily detectable with well-established methods.

Essential Research Reagents and Tools

Progress in gene editing and the development of compliant plant varieties rely on a suite of specialized reagents and tools.

Table 4: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Gene Editing and Detection

Reagent / Tool	Function	Example Application
CRISPR-Cas9 System	Creates targeted double-strand breaks in DNA.	Generating SDN-1 knockouts in crops like wheat and tomato [8] [21].
CRISPR-dCas9 Activators	Regulates gene expression without altering DNA sequence (CRISPRa).	Gain-of-function studies; activating endogenous disease resistance genes [3].
Lipid Nanoparticles (LNPs)	Delivers editing components in vivo.	Used in medical applications; potential for plant delivery systems [22].
TaqMan Probes	Fluorescently labelled probes for quantitative real-time PCR.	Sensitive verification of single-base edits in tomato [20].
LAMP Assay Kits	Isothermal amplification for rapid, equipment-light detection.	Initial screening for the presence of Cas9 transgenes [20].
Agrobacterium Strains	Delivers T-DNA containing editing machinery into plant cells.	Creating transgene-free edited citrus through an in planta system [8].

The global regulatory landscape for gene-edited plants is defined by a fundamental tension between process-based and product-based approaches, leading to a "patchwork" of international regulations [16]. While SDN-3 products are consistently regulated as GMOs worldwide, the treatment of SDN-1 and SDN-2 products varies dramatically, with trends showing a move toward more product-based, flexible frameworks in many countries [16] [17].

The technical capacity for detection plays a critical role in this landscape. Reliable methods, like the multiplex real-time PCR developed for tomato, are essential for regulatory compliance, verification of claims, and food traceability [20]. However, the inherent indistinguishability of many small edits from natural mutations presents a core challenge for process-based regulatory systems, suggesting that a product-based, evidence-driven approach may offer a more scientifically valid and practicable path forward for SDN-1 and SDN-2 technologies [17]. This ongoing evolution underscores the need for continued dialogue and efforts toward international harmonization to balance innovation, safety, and trade.

A Practical Guide to Mutation Detection Techniques: From Lab to Validation

Conventional and High-Resolution Melting (HRM) PCR for Initial Screening

In the rapidly evolving field of plant genetic research, the precise detection of CRISPR-induced mutations presents a significant methodological challenge. As CRISPR technologies advance, enabling increasingly sophisticated edits from simple knockouts to precise nucleotide substitutions, the demand for efficient, accurate, and accessible genotyping methods has grown substantially [3]. While next-generation sequencing (NGS) offers comprehensive detail, its cost and complexity often render it impractical for the initial screening of large plant populations. Consequently, PCR-based methods remain the workhorse for preliminary identification of edited lines [23].

Among these, Conventional PCR and High-Resolution Melting (HRM) PCR have emerged as two prominent techniques for initial mutation screening. Conventional PCR, typically analyzed by gel electrophoresis, identifies edits based on amplicon size differences, while HRM PCR detects sequence variations by analyzing the thermal denaturation profile of PCR products in the presence of saturating DNA dyes [24] [25]. This guide provides an objective comparison of these two methods, focusing on their performance, protocols, and suitability for detecting CRISPR-induced mutations in plant research.

Technical Comparison: Conventional PCR vs. HRM PCR

The following table summarizes the core characteristics and performance metrics of Conventional PCR and HRM PCR for mutation screening, drawing on data from clinical, microbiological, and genetic studies that provide measurable outcomes.

Table 1: Performance Comparison for Mutation Screening

Feature	Conventional PCR	High-Resolution Melting (HRM) PCR
Basic Principle	Amplification of target DNA region followed by size-based separation via gel electrophoresis.	Amplification with saturating DNA dyes, followed by high-resolution analysis of dissociation curves [24].
Mutation Detection Basis	Indels causing significant size changes; cannot detect single-nucleotide changes.	Sequence composition (GC content, length, heterozygosity); sensitive to single-nucleotide variants (SNVs) [24] [26].
Typical Sensitivity	Lower; limited by gel resolution. Often requires >5-10% mutant allele in a wild-type background [27].	High; can reliably detect down to 5% mutant allele, with some assays reporting limits of 0.8%-5% depending on optimization [27] [28].
Typical Specificity	Moderate; dependent on primer specificity and gel resolution.	Very High; a meta-analysis for EGFR mutation detection reported a pooled specificity of 0.99 [95% CI: 0.99–0.99] [28].
Workflow & Hands-on Time	Longer; requires post-PCR handling (gel casting, loading, staining, imaging) which is time-consuming and increases contamination risk.	Shorter; closed-tube method. PCR and analysis are performed in the same tube, minimizing post-PCR steps and contamination risk [24] [29].
Cost & Accessibility	Lower initial instrument cost; widely accessible.	Higher initial instrument cost (requires real-time PCR with HRM capability); reagents (saturating dyes) are moderately priced [25].
Key Advantage	Simple, low-cost, and provides a direct visual result.	Fast, closed-tube, high sensitivity for SNVs, and non-destructive [24] [28].
Key Limitation	Low throughput, poor sensitivity for small indels and SNVs, and cannot differentiate all sequence variations.	Requires optimized protocols and controls; performance can be affected by DNA quality and concentration [27] [29].

Experimental Protocols for Plant Genotyping

This section outlines detailed methodologies for applying both techniques to screen for CRISPR-induced mutations in plant samples.

Protocol 1: Conventional PCR with Gel Electrophoresis

This protocol is adapted from standard nested PCR approaches used in pathogen detection [30].

• Step 1: DNA Extraction

  • Use a commercial kit (e.g., Qiagen DNeasy Plant Mini Kit) to extract high-quality genomic DNA from leaf tissue of CRISPR-treated and wild-type control plants.
  • Quantify DNA concentration using a spectrophotometer (e.g., NanoDrop) and normalize all samples to a working concentration (e.g., 10-50 ng/µL).

• Step 2: First-Round PCR

  • Prepare a 20 µL reaction mixture containing: 1x PCR buffer, 2.5 mM MgCl₂, 200 µM dNTPs, 200 nM of each forward and reverse primer (flanking the CRISPR target site), 1U of Taq DNA polymerase, and ~10-50 ng of plant DNA template.
  • Perform PCR amplification with the following cycling conditions: Initial denaturation at 95°C for 5 min; 35 cycles of denaturation at 94°C for 45 s, annealing at 60°C for 45 s, extension at 72°C for 70 s; and a final elongation at 72°C for 10 min [30].

• Step 3: Nested PCR

  • Dilute the first-round PCR product 1:1000.
  • Prepare a second 20 µL reaction mixture similar to the first, using 3 µL of the diluted product as the template and nested primers that bind internally to the first amplicon. This increases specificity and yield.
  • Use similar cycling conditions: 95°C for 4 min; 35 cycles of 94°C for 20 s, 60°C for 20 s, 72°C for 45 s; final extension at 72°C for 10 min [30].

• Step 4: Gel Electrophoresis & Analysis

  • Mix 5-10 µL of the nested PCR product with DNA loading dye and load onto a 2-3% agarose gel stained with ethidium bromide or a safer alternative like GelRed.
  • Run the gel alongside a DNA ladder at a constant voltage (e.g., 100V) until sufficient separation is achieved.
  • Visualize the gel under UV light. CRISPR-induced indels will appear as bands of different sizes compared to the wild-type control.

Protocol 2: HRM PCR Analysis

This protocol is based on optimized HRM applications for SNP genotyping and species identification [30] [24] [26].

• Step 1: DNA Extraction and Quantification

  • Follow the same procedure as in Protocol 1. Consistent DNA quality and accurate quantification are critical for reproducible HRM results.

• Step 2: HRM PCR Reaction Setup

  • Prepare reactions in a dedicated real-time PCR plate. A 20 µL reaction should contain: 1x HRM-capable PCR master mix, a saturating dsDNA dye (e.g., EvaGreen or SYTO 9), 200 nM of each forward and reverse primer (designed to produce a 50-150 bp amplicon spanning the edit site), and ~10-20 ng of plant DNA.
  • Include wild-type control DNA and a no-template control (NTC) in every run. For homozygous variant discrimination, consider adding a known reference genotype to samples to force heteroduplex formation [24].

• Step 3: Real-Time PCR Amplification and Melting

  • Run the plate on a real-time PCR instrument with HRM capability (e.g., Roche LightCycler 96, Applied Biosystems QuantStudio).
  • Use the following cycling protocol: Polymerase activation at 95°C for 10 min; 40 cycles of denaturation at 95°C for 15 s and annealing/extension at 60°C for 1 min (acquire fluorescence).
  • After amplification, proceed directly to the HRM step: Denature at 95°C for 1 min, re-anneal at 40°C for 1 min, and then continuously heat from 65°C to 95°C with a ramp rate of 0.02°C/s while acquiring high-resolution fluorescence data [30] [25].

• Step 4: Melting Curve Analysis

  • Use the instrument's HRM software to normalize and shift the melting curves.
  • Analyze the data using difference plots, which highlight subtle curve shape differences compared to the wild-type control. Samples with CRISPR edits will display distinct melting curve profiles, allowing for genotyping.

The workflow below visualizes the key procedural differences between the two methods.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Successful implementation of these screening methods relies on specific reagents and instruments.

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions

Item	Function in Screening	Example Application
Saturating DNA Dyes (e.g., EvaGreen, SYTO 9)	Fluorescently label dsDNA during HRM PCR without inhibiting PCR or redistribating during melting. Essential for generating high-fidelity melting curves [24].	Distinguishing between wild-type and edited SlWRKY29 gene in tomato based on melting temperature (Tm) shifts [3].
HRM-Capable Real-Time PCR System	Instrument platform that provides precise temperature control and high-resolution fluorescence data capture during the melting phase.	Roche LightCycler 96 used for malaria species differentiation; Applied Biosystems QuantStudio series [30] [25].
Optimized Primer Pairs	Short, specific primers generating amplicons of 50-150 bp. Critical for HRM sensitivity, as shorter amplicons maximize Tm differences from single-base changes [24].	Primers targeting the Strumpellin gene for discriminating Leishmania species via HRM [26]. Primers designed close to the CRISPR target site.
DNA Size Ladder	A molecular weight marker for gel electrophoresis, allowing estimation of PCR product size and identification of size shifts caused by indels.	Used in conventional nested PCR to confirm the expected size of amplicons and detect larger insertions or deletions [30].
Internal Temperature Standards	Synthetic oligonucleotides with defined melting temperatures used in highly multiplexed HRM assays to calibrate and normalize temperature data across wells, improving genotyping accuracy [24].	Improving genotyping accuracy for lactose intolerance (LCT) SNP analysis by bracketing the target Tm [24].

Both Conventional PCR and HRM PCR are viable for the initial screening of CRISPR-induced mutations in plants, yet they serve different needs and resource environments. Conventional PCR with gel electrophoresis remains a valuable, low-cost tool for detecting large indels when the budget is constrained and the required sensitivity is low. In contrast, HRM PCR offers a superior, closed-tube solution for high-throughput settings where sensitivity, specificity, and the ability to detect single-nucleotide variants are paramount. Its application is particularly crucial as CRISPR technologies advance beyond simple knockouts to facilitate precise base editing, where the screening method must be capable of discerning the most subtle genetic alterations. The choice between them ultimately depends on the specific editing objectives, scale of the project, and available laboratory resources.

In plant genome editing research, accurately detecting and quantifying CRISPR-induced mutations is crucial for evaluating the efficiency of guide RNAs (gRNAs) and the success of editing experiments [31]. Among the various techniques available, enzyme-based detection methods remain widely used due to their accessibility, cost-effectiveness, and minimal equipment requirements. The Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism (RFLP) assay and the T7 Endonuclease I (T7EI) assay are two fundamental enzyme-based techniques for identifying successful genome editing events [32]. This guide provides an objective comparison of these two methods, situating them within the broader context of detection methods for CRISPR-induced mutations in plant research, and summarizes key experimental data to help researchers select the appropriate technique for their specific applications.

Principle of Operation and Workflow

T7 Endonuclease I (T7EI) Assay

The T7EI assay operates by recognizing and cleaving mismatched DNA heteroduplexes formed when edited and wild-type DNA strands hybridize [32]. After CRISPR-Cas9 induces a double-strand break, the cell's error-prone non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) repair pathway often introduces small insertions or deletions (indels) at the target site. When PCR amplicons from this heterogeneous pool of DNA are denatured and reannealed, heteroduplexes form between wild-type and indel-containing strands, creating structural mismatches. The T7EI enzyme specifically recognizes and cleaves these mismatched sites, producing DNA fragments of predictable sizes that can be separated and visualized via gel electrophoresis [33].

Experimental Protocol for T7EI Assay:

• DNA Extraction: Isolate genomic DNA from CRISPR-treated plant tissue (e.g., agroinfiltrated Nicotiana benthamiana leaves) [31].
• PCR Amplification: Amplify the target region using gene-specific primers that flank the CRISPR target site [32].
• Heteroduplex Formation: Denature and reanneal the PCR products to allow formation of heteroduplexes between wild-type and mutant strands.
• T7EI Digestion: Incubate the heteroduplex DNA with T7 Endonuclease I enzyme (commercially available from suppliers such as New England Biolabs) [32].
• Analysis: Separate the digestion products using agarose or polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis. Stain with Ethidium Bromide or GelRed and image the gel to visualize cleavage bands [32].
• Efficiency Calculation: Quantify editing efficiency by comparing band intensities using densitometric analysis software with this formula: Editing efficiency (%) = [1 - √(1 - (b + c)/(a + b + c))] × 100, where a is the integrated intensity of the undigested PCR product, and b and c are the intensities of the cleavage products [32].

Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism (RFLP) Assay

The RFLP assay detects CRISPR edits through the disruption or creation of restriction enzyme recognition sites at the target locus [33]. Successful genome editing alters the DNA sequence, which can eliminate a pre-existing restriction site or create a novel one. After PCR amplification of the target region, digestion with an appropriate restriction enzyme produces different fragment patterns for wild-type and edited alleles when separated by gel electrophoresis. Traditional RFLP is limited by the natural occurrence of restriction sites, but this limitation can be overcome using RGEN-mediated RFLP (using CRISPR-derived RNA-guided engineered nucleases), where the Cas9-gRNA complex itself serves as the restriction enzyme [33].

Experimental Protocol for RFLP Assay:

• DNA Extraction and PCR: Extract genomic DNA and amplify the target region as described for the T7EI assay [31].
• Restriction Digestion: Incubate PCR products with an appropriate restriction enzyme (for conventional RFLP) or with pre-assembled RGEN complexes (for RGEN-RFLP) [33]. For RGEN-RFLP, complex recombinant Cas9 protein with in vitro transcribed guide RNAs complementary to the DNA sequences of interest.
• Electrophoresis: Separate digested fragments by gel electrophoresis and visualize as above.
• Efficiency Calculation: Editing efficiency is calculated based on the ratio of digested to undigested fragments. For heterozygotes, expect three bands (two cleaved and one uncleaved); for homozygous mutants, expect complete loss of cleavage [33].

The following diagram illustrates the conceptual workflow and fundamental difference in how these two assays detect mutations:

Performance Comparison and Experimental Data

Quantitative Comparison of Key Parameters

When benchmarked against targeted amplicon sequencing (AmpSeq) as the gold standard, both RFLP and T7EI assays show distinct performance characteristics [31]. The following table summarizes their comparative performance based on recent plant genome editing studies:

Table 1: Performance Comparison Between T7EI and RFLP Assays

Parameter	T7 Endonuclease I (T7EI) Assay	Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism (RFLP) Assay
Detection Principle	Recognizes and cleaves mismatched heteroduplexes [32]	Detects loss or creation of restriction enzyme sites [33]
Accuracy	Semi-quantitative, tends to underestimate efficiency, especially at high editing rates [31] [33]	More accurate for detecting specific mutations, particularly with RGEN-RFLP [33]
Sensitivity	Limited sensitivity for low-frequency edits (<5%) and homozygous biallelic mutants [31] [33]	Can detect homozygous mutants; sensitivity depends on enzyme efficiency [33]
Quantification Capability	Semi-quantitative with densitometric analysis [32]	Semi-quantitative to quantitative with appropriate controls [33]
Throughput	Medium, requires optimization of heteroduplex formation [31]	Medium to high, especially for known mutations [33]
Cost	Low to moderate [31]	Low (conventional RFLP) to moderate (RGEN-RFLP) [31] [33]
Advantages	Does not require sequence-specific restriction sites; works for various indels [32]	Distinguishes homozygous from heterozygous mutants; not affected by sequence polymorphisms [33]
Limitations	Cannot detect homozygous biallelic mutants with identical sequences; affected by sequence polymorphisms [33]	Limited by availability of restriction sites (conventional RFLP) [33]

Key Experimental Findings

Comparative analysis in plant systems reveals significant methodological differences. A comprehensive benchmarking study analyzing 20 sgRNA targets in Nicotiana benthamiana found that both T7EI and RFLP showed variations in quantified editing frequency when compared to the AmpSeq benchmark [31]. The study noted that T7EI assays are particularly challenged when analyzing heterogeneous plant populations resulting from transient expression-based editing approaches [31].

RGEN-RFLP analysis demonstrates a critical advantage over T7EI: it successfully distinguishes compound heterozygous (-/-) clones from heterozygous (+/-) clones, while T7EI fails to make this distinction [33]. In quantitative experiments mixing wild-type and mutant DNA, RFLP cleavage was proportional to the wild-type to mutant ratio, while T7EI correlation was poor, especially at high mutation percentages where complementary mutant sequences form homoduplexes [33].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Successful implementation of T7EI and RFLP assays requires specific reagents and materials. The following table details essential components for establishing these methods in plant genome editing research:

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents for Enzyme-Based Detection Methods

Reagent/Material	Function	Application in Both/ Specific Assays
PCR Reagents (polymerase, dNTPs, buffer, primers)	Amplification of target genomic region surrounding CRISPR cut site	Both assays [31] [32]
T7 Endonuclease I	Recognizes and cleaves mismatched heteroduplex DNA	T7EI assay specifically [32]
Restriction Enzymes or RGEN Components (Cas9 protein, guide RNA)	Digests DNA at specific recognition sequences	RFLP assay (conventional or RGEN-based) [33]
Gel Electrophoresis System (agarose, buffers, staining dye, imaging)	Separation and visualization of DNA fragments	Both assays [32] [33]
DNA Extraction Kits	Isolation of high-quality genomic DNA from plant tissues	Both assays [31]
Densitometry Software	Quantification of band intensities for efficiency calculation	Both assays [32]

Both T7EI and RFLP assays provide valuable, accessible methods for initial screening of CRISPR editing efficiency in plant research. The T7EI assay offers the advantage of not requiring specific restriction sites and can detect various indels, making it suitable for preliminary screening. However, it has significant limitations in accurately quantifying editing efficiency and cannot detect homozygous biallelic mutants with identical sequences. The RFLP assay, particularly in its RGEN-based format, provides more reliable detection of different zygosity states and is not confounded by sequence polymorphisms near the target site. When selecting between these methods, researchers should consider the specific requirements of their experiment, including the need for quantitative accuracy, sensitivity threshold, and available resources. For critical applications requiring precise quantification, these enzyme-based methods are increasingly being supplemented or replaced by more quantitative approaches such as digital PCR or targeted amplicon sequencing [31].

The rapid advancement of CRISPR technologies in plant research has necessitated the development of robust, sensitive, and specific detection methods for verifying editing success. This guide compares the performance of multiplex TaqMan real-time PCR against other prominent techniques for identifying single-nucleotide mutations. While TaqMan assays offer proven quantitative capabilities and compatibility with standardized protocols, emerging data-driven approaches and alternative chemistries present compelling advantages for complex multiplexing and cost-effective applications. The choice of method ultimately depends on the specific requirements of the research, including the need for quantification, throughput, scalability, and the number of targets detected simultaneously.

The precision of CRISPR-Cas9 and other new genomic techniques (NGTs) allows for the creation of plant variants with targeted single-nucleotide changes, such as point mutations and small indels [34]. However, these subtle modifications present a significant challenge for molecular detection. Unlike traditional transgenesis, which introduces foreign DNA sequences, the edits in site-directed nuclease (SDN)-1 and SDN-2 category plants can be as small as a single base pair, making them difficult to distinguish from wild-type sequences or natural variations [35] [34]. Robust detection and identification methods are crucial for multiple aspects of plant research: validating editing success in early transformation events, screening subsequent generations for stable inheritance, and complying with regulatory requirements for traceability in many countries [35] [34].

Among the available techniques, probe-based real-time PCR methods, particularly multiplex TaqMan assays, are widely used due to their robustness and quantitative nature. This guide objectively compares the performance of advanced multiplex TaqMan protocols with other detection alternatives, providing a clear framework for scientists to select the optimal method for their specific application.

Methodological Comparison of Detection Techniques

Various methods have been developed to identify CRISPR-induced mutations, each with distinct strengths and limitations. The table below provides a high-level comparison of the most prominent techniques.

Table 1: Comparison of Key Detection Methods for CRISPR-Induced Mutations

Method	Key Principle	Best For	Multiplexing Capacity	Sensitivity & Specificity
Multiplex TaqMan qPCR	Hydrolysis probes (e.g., TaqMan) with different fluorescent dyes enable simultaneous target detection [36] [37].	Quantitative detection and validation of known, specific SNPs or indels [34].	Moderate (up to 4-6 targets per reaction with distinct dyes) [38] [37].	High specificity from dual priming (primers + probe); sensitivity down to ~10-100 copies [36] [34].
qPCR with HRM Analysis	Intercalating dye (e.g., SYBR Green) and post-amplification melting curve analysis detect sequence-dependent Tm shifts [39] [40].	Rapid, cost-effective screening for unknown edits within a targeted amplicon [40].	Low (single target per reaction, but can detect multiple mutation types).	High sensitivity (can detect 1% mutant in wild-type background); specificity depends on amplicon design [40].
LNA-Modified qPCR	Locked Nucleic Acid (LNA) primers or probes increase hybridization stringency to discriminate single-base differences [34].	Achieving absolute specificity for challenging single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) [34].	Low to Moderate (similar to standard TaqMan).	Very high specificity for SNP detection; successful in differentiating edited from wild-type alleles [34].
Data-Driven Analysis (ML + qPCR)	Machine learning (ML) algorithms analyze amplification or melting curves to classify multiple targets beyond the fluorescence channel limit [38].	Highly multiplexed detection using standard hardware and chemistry without probe constraints [38].	High (limited by software, not hardware).	Promising high accuracy; performance depends on training data and model [38].

Experimental Protocols for Key Methods

Development of a Multiplex TaqMan Real-Time PCR Assay

A validated protocol for developing a multiplex TaqMan assay for mobile colistin resistance (mcr) genes illustrates a generalizable work-flow [36]:

• Primer and Probe Design: Download all available gene family sequences (e.g., mcr-1 to mcr-10). Use sequence alignment software (e.g., CLC Sequence Viewer) to identify conserved regions without mutation points. Design primers and TaqMan-MGB probes using specialized software (e.g., Primer Express), applying degenerate bases if necessary for variant coverage [36].
• Assay Optimization: Before multiplexing, optimize each primer-probe set individually in a single-plex reaction. Use a recombinant plasmid as a template to optimize primer concentration (100–500 nM), probe concentration (50–500 nM), and annealing temperature (56.6–62.6°C). Select optimal conditions based on Ct values, fluorescence signal intensity, and amplification efficiency (ideally 90–110%) [36].
• Multiplexing and Validation: Combine optimized primer-probe sets into a single reaction. The mcr gene assay, for example, used 8 sets of primers and probes distributed across 4 reaction tubes. Evaluate the multiplex system for sensitivity (limit of detection of 10² copies/μL), specificity (no cross-reactivity with non-target strains), and reproducibility (low intra- and inter-assay variation) [36].

qPCR-HRM for Mutation Screening in Rice

A protocol for identifying CRISPR/Cas9-edited rice plants using qPCR coupled with High-Resolution Melting (HRM) analysis offers a sensitive, non-probe-based alternative [40]:

• DNA Extraction and PCR Amplification: Extract genomic DNA from plant material. Perform qPCR with primers flanking the edited region using a saturating intercalating dye like SYTO-9.
• High-Resolution Melting: After amplification, slowly heat the amplicons from 65°C to 95°C while continuously monitoring fluorescence. The dye dissociates as the double-stranded DNA melts, producing a unique melting curve for each sequence variant.
• Analysis: Identify edited plants by comparing the melting curve profiles (shape and Tm) of samples to wild-type controls. This method can detect varied edits, including single-base insertions or deletions, with a sensitivity low enough to identify mutants in pooled samples [40].

Performance Data and Technical Considerations

Quantitative Performance Comparison

The following table summarizes experimental data from published studies, providing a basis for comparing the quantitative performance of different methods.

Table 2: Experimental Performance Data from Application Studies

Method & Application	Sensitivity / Limit of Detection (LOD)	Specificity / Accuracy	Key Experimental Findings
TaqMan qPCR for NGT Arabidopsis [34]	Reliable detection with 20,000 template copies; standard curve from 20,000 to 2 copies [34].	Challenges in absolute specificity; wild-type cross-reactivity at high Cq values [34].	Efficiency of ~95.4%; LNA-modified primers improved SNP discrimination over unmodified TaqMan probes.
SYBR Green Multiplex for SARS-CoV-2 [39]	97% specificity, 93% sensitivity vs. commercial TaqMan kit [39].	Specificity confirmed via melting curve analysis with distinct peaks for N, E, and β-actin genes [39].	Cost-effective alternative (~$2-6 per sample); performance validated on 180 clinical samples.
qPCR-HRM for CRISPR Rice [40]	Low relative limit of detection (LOD) of 1% for mutant detection [40].	High resolution for identifying single-base indels and various mutation types [40].	Successfully identified mutants in pooled samples; effective for high-throughput screening.
Dual-Probe TaqMan qPCR [41]	Comparable to single-probe assays across a 6-log dynamic range [41].	Additive fluorescence, improving signal strength; reduced risk of false negatives from probe-binding failures [41].	The second probe increased fluorescence signal by 15-60% without compromising Cq or efficiency.

Technical Workflow and Decision Pathway

The following diagram maps the logical process for selecting the most appropriate detection method based on experimental goals and constraints.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Successful implementation of these detection methods relies on a suite of specialized reagents and tools.

Table 3: Essential Reagents and Tools for Mutation Detection Assays

Category	Specific Examples	Function & Importance
Polymerase & Master Mixes	Premix Ex Taq (Probe qPCR), Kapa Probe Fast qPCR Master Mix [36] [34]	Optimized enzymes and buffers for efficient, specific amplification in real-time PCR.
Fluorescent Probes & Dyes	TaqMan MGB/TAMRA Probes, SYBR Green I, SYTO-9, LCGreen [36] [40]	Generate the fluorescence signal. Probe chemistry dictates specificity; intercalating dyes are cost-effective.
Specialized Oligonucleotides	LNA (Locked Nucleic Acid)-modified primers/probes [34]	Enhance hybridization affinity and specificity, crucial for discriminating single-nucleotide changes.
Positive Control Templates	Recombinant pUC57 plasmid with cloned target sequence [36]	Essential for assay development, generating standard curves, and ensuring day-to-day run validity.
Instrumentation	CFX 96 Connect Real-Time PCR System (Bio-Rad) [36]	Platform for amplification and fluorescence detection. Must support multiple fluorescence channels for multiplexing.
In Silico Design Tools	Primer Express 3.0.1, AutoDimer, Primer-BLAST, CRISPR-P 2.0 [36] [42]	Critical for designing specific primers and probes and for assessing potential off-target interactions.

The landscape of detection methods for CRISPR-induced mutations is diverse and rapidly evolving. Multiplex TaqMan real-time PCR remains a gold standard for quantitative, specific, and validated detection of known sequences, especially in regulated environments. Its robustness is proven, and commercial support is extensive [37]. However, for discovery-phase research where edits are not yet characterized, qPCR-HRM offers an unbeatable combination of flexibility and low cost [40]. For the most challenging single-nucleotide discriminations, LNA-modified assays provide enhanced specificity [34], while data-driven approaches represent the future frontier of highly multiplexed detection without the constraint of fluorescent channels [38]. The optimal method is not universal but should be carefully selected based on the specific goals, constraints, and stage of the plant research project.

The adoption of CRISPR technology in crop development is rapidly increasing, creating an urgent need for efficient methods to identify successful editing events early in the experimentation process [35]. For plant researchers working with CRISPR-induced mutations, traditional detection methods often present significant bottlenecks. Culture-based morphological identification is laborious and time-consuming, while conventional PCR and quantitative real-time PCR typically require well-equipped laboratories and skilled personnel, limiting their use for on-site detection [43] [44].

Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) has emerged as a powerful alternative, overcoming many limitations of PCR-based assays through its ability to amplify nucleic acids at a constant temperature without the need for thermal cycling equipment [45]. This review provides a comprehensive comparison of LAMP assays against other molecular detection techniques, with a specific focus on applications for screening CRISPR components in plant research settings. We present experimental data validating these methods and provide detailed protocols to facilitate their adoption in agricultural biotechnology.

Technology Comparison: LAMP Versus Alternative Detection Platforms

Performance Metrics Across Detection Methodologies

The selection of an appropriate detection method requires careful consideration of sensitivity, specificity, speed, and operational requirements. Table 1 summarizes the comparative performance of major nucleic acid amplification techniques used in CRISPR component screening.

Table 1: Comparative Performance of Nucleic Acid Detection Methods

Method	Sensitivity	Reaction Time	Temperature Requirements	Equipment Needs	Ease of Use	Best Application Context
LAMP	0.01 ng/μL [43]	20-60 min [43] [46]	Constant (60-65°C) [45] [44]	Dry block heater/water bath [45]	Moderate (4-6 primers) [45]	On-site screening, resource-limited settings
PCR	1.0 ng/μL [43]	1.5-2 hours [47]	Thermal cycling (20-40 cycles)	Thermocycler	Moderate (2 primers)	Laboratory confirmation
qPCR	0.1 ng/μL [43]	1.5-2 hours [47]	Thermal cycling with fluorescence detection	Real-time PCR system	High (technical expertise)	Quantitative analysis, validation
RPA-CRISPR/Cas12a	0.1 ng/μL [43]	30 min [43]	Constant (37-42°C) [48]	Incubator	High (primer design complexity)	Rapid field testing
LAMP-CRISPR/Cas12a	High (specific limits vary) [49] [46]	40-60 min [46] [50]	Two-temperature (amplification: 60-65°C, detection: 37°C) [50]	Two temperature blocks	Complex (multiple components)	High-specificity applications

Operational Advantages of LAMP for CRISPR Screening

LAMP offers distinct practical advantages for researchers screening plant materials for CRISPR components. The reaction is typically performed at 60-65°C using a strand-displacing Bst DNA polymerase, eliminating the need for expensive thermal cyclers [45] [44]. A key advantage for on-site application is the flexibility in result detection—LAMP products can be visualized through multiple methods including fluorescent dyes, turbidity measurement, or colorimetric changes visible to the naked eye [45].

The technique employs 4-6 primers targeting 6-8 distinct regions on the target DNA, thereby conferring higher specificity compared to PCR [45]. This extensive primer recognition makes LAMP particularly suitable for distinguishing precise CRISPR-induced mutations. In practice, LAMP has demonstrated 100 times greater sensitivity than conventional PCR and 10 times greater sensitivity than real-time PCR in detecting fungal pathogens in soybean, highlighting its potential for identifying low-abundance CRISPR components [43].

Experimental Validation and Workflow Integration

Case Study: Detection of CRISPR-Cas9 in Edited Tomato Lines

A recent study developed a LAMP assay for detecting CRISPR-Cas9 edited tomato lines with a single base pair deletion in the Solanum lycopersicum pectate lyase (SlPL) gene, which confers better shelf life [35]. The assay targeted the Cas9 protein gene for early-phase screening, allowing researchers to quickly identify successfully edited lines before proceeding to more detailed characterization.

The stepwise strategy included:

• Initial screening using rapid LAMP and conventional PCR assays targeting the Cas9 protein gene
• Verification of the specific single-point mutation using multiplex real-time PCR with fluorescent-labeled dual probes
• Confirmation of the non-transgenic nature of the edited line using real-time PCR targeting common screening elements [35]

This approach enabled sensitive detection of 0.1% targeted lines, demonstrating sufficient sensitivity for early-stage screening of CRISPR components in plant populations [35]. The visual LAMP assay allowed edited lines to be easily identified in early phases through visible color change, significantly accelerating the experimentation timeline.

LAMP-CRISPR Integrated Systems for Enhanced Specificity

The integration of LAMP with CRISPR-Cas systems has created a new generation of highly specific detection platforms. In one approach, LAMP reagents are placed at the bottom of a reaction tube while CRISPR-Cas12a reagents are pre-loaded on the lid [50]. After LAMP amplification at 60°C for 20 minutes, the tube is inverted to mix the contents with CRISPR reagents, followed by incubation at 37°C for 20 minutes [50].

This combined approach leverages the high amplification efficiency of LAMP with the exceptional sequence specificity of CRISPR-Cas12a, which becomes activated upon recognition of its target DNA and cleaves a single-stranded DNA reporter molecule, generating a fluorescence signal visible under LED blue light [50]. The entire process can be completed within 40-60 minutes, providing rapid, specific confirmation of CRISPR components without requiring complex instrumentation [46] [50].

Figure 1: Integrated LAMP-CRISPR Workflow for detecting CRISPR components in plant samples. The process combines isothermal amplification with sequence-specific detection, enabling rapid on-site screening.

Essential Reagents and Research Solutions

Successful implementation of LAMP assays for CRISPR component screening requires specific reagents and equipment. Table 2 outlines key research reagent solutions and their functions in the experimental workflow.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents for LAMP-Based CRISPR Screening

Reagent/Equipment	Function	Specification Notes	Example Applications
Bst DNA Polymerase	Strand-displacing enzyme for isothermal amplification	High strand displacement activity at 60-65°C [45]	Core amplification enzyme in LAMP reactions
LAMP Primers	Target-specific amplification	4-6 primers recognizing 6-8 target regions [45] [44]	Specific detection of Cas9, Cpf1, or target mutations
Fluorescent Reporters	Visual detection of amplification	SYBR Green, calcein, hydroxynaphthol blue [45]	Naked-eye visualization of results
crRNA/sgRNA	CRISPR system targeting	Programmable RNA guides for Cas12a/Cas12b [48] [50]	Sequence-specific detection in combined assays
Cas Proteins	CRISPR-mediated detection	Cas12a, Cas12b with collateral cleavage activity [48] [50]	Enhancing specificity in integrated systems
Rapid Extraction Kits	Nucleic acid preparation	Simplified protocols for field use [48]	On-site sample processing
Portable Incubators	Temperature control	Maintain constant 60-65°C for LAMP [45]	Field-deployable amplification

Implementation Protocols and Methodologies

Optimized LAMP Reaction Setup

The standard LAMP reaction is typically performed in a 25μL total volume containing:

• 2.5μL of 10× isothermal amplification buffer [48]
• 1.0μL of dNTP mix (10mM each)
• 1.0μL of MgSO4 (optimally 6-8mM) [43]
• 1.0μL of Bst DNA polymerase (8-10 units)
• 2.0μL of primer mix (FIP/BIP: 1.6μM each; F3/B3: 0.2μM each) [43]
• 2.0μL of target DNA template
• Nuclease-free water to volume [48]

The optimal primer ratio (inner to outer) is typically 1:8, with Mg2+ concentration of 6 nM proving effective for most applications [43]. The reaction is incubated at 60-65°C for 20-60 minutes, followed by enzyme inactivation at 80°C for 5-10 minutes [43] [44].

LAMP-CRISPR Integrated Protocol

For enhanced specificity in detecting CRISPR components, an integrated LAMP-CRISPR protocol can be implemented:

• Nucleic acid extraction from plant tissue using simplified protocols or direct lysis methods [48]
• LAMP amplification at 60-65°C for 20-30 minutes in the bottom of a reaction tube
• CRISPR detection by mixing with pre-loaded Cas12a/crRNA reagents on the tube lid
• Incubation at 37°C for 10-20 minutes to allow collateral cleavage of fluorescent reporters [50]
• Visual detection under blue or UV light, with fluorescence indicating positive detection [43] [50]

This integrated approach has been successfully applied for detecting various pathogens and genetic modifications with high sensitivity and specificity [46] [50].

Figure 2: Method Selection Guide for detecting CRISPR components. This decision tree helps researchers select the appropriate detection strategy based on their specific sensitivity requirements, available resources, and throughput needs.

LAMP assays represent a significant advancement in rapid, on-site screening of CRISPR components in plant research. The method's combination of high sensitivity, operational simplicity, and compatibility with visual detection makes it particularly valuable for early-stage screening of CRISPR-edited plants. When integrated with CRISPR-based detection systems, LAMP provides both amplification and sequence verification in a single platform.

As CRISPR technology continues to transform agricultural biotechnology, LAMP and related isothermal amplification methods will play increasingly important roles in rapid screening applications. Future developments will likely focus on multiplexing capabilities for detecting multiple CRISPR components simultaneously, further simplification of nucleic acid extraction procedures, and integration with portable digital reporting systems for quantitative analysis in field settings.

Digital PCR (dPCR) for Absolute Quantification and Low-Frequency Mutation Detection

Digital PCR (dPCR) represents a transformative advancement in nucleic acid quantification, functioning as a powerful tool for the precise analysis of CRISPR-induced mutations in plants. This technology operates by partitioning a single PCR reaction into thousands of nanoscale reactions, effectively creating a digital output where each partition contains either 0, 1, or a few target molecules [51]. Following end-point amplification, the fraction of positive partitions is counted, and using Poisson statistics, the absolute concentration of the target sequence is calculated without the need for a standard curve [52] [51]. This calibration-free approach provides exceptional sensitivity, accuracy, and reproducibility [51].

For plant researchers, this capability is crucial. CRISPR editing in plants often produces highly heterogeneous populations, especially in polyploid species or from transient expression assays, where only a portion of homeologs may be edited [31]. Accurately quantifying these low-frequency editing events is essential for assessing gRNA efficiency, determining zygosity in stable transformants, and advancing plant gene editing applications [31]. dPCR's ability to detect rare mutations against a high background of wild-type sequences makes it ideally suited for characterizing the complex outcomes of plant genome editing [53] [51].

Comparative Analysis of Mutation Detection Methods

When selecting a method for analyzing CRISPR edits, researchers must balance factors including sensitivity, throughput, cost, and the need for absolute quantification. The table below provides a structured comparison of the most common techniques used in plant research.

Table 1: Comparison of Methods for Detecting CRISPR-Induced Mutations

Method	Quantitative Capability	Sensitivity (Lower Limit of Detection)	Number of Targets per Reaction	Key Applications in Plant CRISPR Research	Key Advantages	Key Disadvantages/Limitations
Digital PCR (dPCR)	Absolute quantification without standards [54] [51]	High; can detect rare targets with mutation allele frequencies as low as 0.1% [53]	1 to 5 (with multiplexing) [54]	Rare mutation detection, absolute copy number variation, low-abundance transcript detection [54]	High sensitivity, robust to PCR inhibitors, no standard curve needed [54]	Fewer established assays than qPCR; requires assay optimization expertise [54]
Quantitative PCR (qPCR)	Relative quantification (requires a standard curve) [54]	Moderate [54]	1 to 5 (with multiplexing) [54]	Gene expression analysis, copy number variation, pathogen detection [54]	Quantitative, rapid, low per-sample cost, multiplexing possible [54]	No sequence discovery, low scalability, requires standard curve [54]
Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS)	Yes (provides both qualitative and quantitative data) [54]	High [54]	1 to >10,000 [54]	Variant discovery, whole genome sequencing, CRISPR editing analysis [54]	Unbiased sequence discovery, highly multiplexed, high throughput [54]	Slower turnaround, higher per-sample cost, requires specialized bioinformatics [54]
PCR + Sanger Sequencing	Not quantitative [54]	Low; struggles with heterogeneous samples [54]	1 (no multiplexing) [54]	Variant/mutation analysis, genotyping, confirmatory sequencing [54]	Enables sequence confirmation and discovery, low per-sample cost [54]	Not quantitative, low scalability, poor for complex populations [54]
T7 Endonuclease 1 (T7E1) & RFLP Assays	Semi-quantitative [31]	Low to Moderate [31]	1 [31]	Initial screening for induced mutations, genotyping [31]	Low cost, technically simple, no specialized equipment needed [31]	Less accurate and sensitive than other methods, provides no sequence information [31]

Experimental Benchmarking in Plant Research

A comprehensive 2025 benchmarking study directly compared methods for quantifying CRISPR edits in Nicotiana benthamiana, using targeted amplicon sequencing (AmpSeq) as a gold standard [31]. The study found that droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) was among the most accurate techniques when benchmarked against AmpSeq [31]. This underscores dPCR's reliability for providing precise quantification of editing efficiencies in a plant research context. The study also highlighted that methods like T7E1 and RFLP, while useful for initial screening, are less accurate and sensitive than dPCR or sequencing-based methods [31].

Experimental Protocols for dPCR in Mutation Detection

The general dPCR workflow is consistent across applications, but careful optimization is required for sensitive detection of CRISPR-induced mutations.

Standard dPCR Workflow

The following diagram illustrates the core steps of the dPCR process, from sample preparation to final quantification.

Title: dPCR Workflow for Mutation Detection

This workflow consists of four critical stages [51]:

• Sample Preparation and Partitioning: The PCR mixture, containing the plant DNA sample, primers, probes, and master mix, is partitioned into thousands of individual reactions. This can be achieved through droplet-based systems (e.g., water-in-oil emulsion) or chip-based systems (e.g., microfluidic nanoplates) [51]. For plant CRISPR applications, DNA must be of high quality and purity. Probes must be meticulously designed to distinguish between wild-type and mutant sequences.
• Endpoint PCR Amplification: The partitioned samples undergo a standard PCR thermal cycling process. The amplification runs to completion (endpoint), and partitions containing the target sequence amplify to detectable levels.
• Fluorescence Reading and Imaging: After thermocycling, each partition is analyzed for fluorescence. In droplet systems, this is often done using an in-line detector that reads droplets one-by-one [51]. In chip-based systems, a fluorescence microscope or scanner images the entire array of microchambers [51].
• Data Analysis and Absolute Quantification: The instrument's software counts the positive and negative partitions. Using Poisson statistics, it calculates the absolute concentration of the target molecule in copies per microliter, providing a direct measure of mutant allele frequency [52] [51].

Detailed Protocol: Duplex dPCR for GMO Quantification (A Model for Validation)

A 2025 study on GMO detection provides a robust, validated protocol that can be adapted for quantifying CRISPR edits, demonstrating the in-house validation of duplex dPCR methods on two platforms (Bio-Rad QX200 and Qiagen QIAcuity) [55].

• Sample and DNA Preparation: DNA was extracted from certified reference materials (CRMs) of soybean (both non-modified and GM lines MON-04032–6 and MON89788) using a commercial kit. DNA concentration was measured via dPCR for an endogenous reference gene (lectin), and an inhibition test was performed using serial dilutions to ensure accurate quantification [55].
• Assay Design and Optimization: The study used previously validated event-specific qPCR assays for the MON-04032–6 and MON89788 GM events, transferring them directly to the dPCR format. The assays were run as duplex reactions, simultaneously detecting the transgenic event and the lectin reference gene in each partition [55].
• dPCR Reaction Setup:
  • The reaction mixture was prepared according to the manufacturer's guidelines for each platform.
  • For the Qiagen QIAcuity, mixtures were loaded into a 26k Nanoplate, which was sealed and placed in the integrated instrument for partitioning, thermocycling, and imaging.
  • For the Bio-Rad QX200, reactions were loaded into a droplet generation cartridge to create a water-oil emulsion. The generated droplets were transferred to a 96-well plate for PCR amplification, followed by reading in a droplet reader [55].
• Validation and Performance Parameters: The methods were rigorously assessed for specificity, dynamic range, linearity, limit of quantification (LOQ), and accuracy (trueness and precision). The results confirmed that the duplex dPCR methods were equivalent in performance to the established singleplex qPCR methods and suitable for full validation [55].

This protocol highlights that with proper validation, dPCR can provide highly accurate and reproducible quantification for complex samples, a principle directly applicable to detecting CRISPR edits in a background of wild-type plant genomes.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Materials

Successful dPCR experiments rely on a set of core components. The table below lists key reagent solutions and their functions in the workflow.

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for dPCR Experiments

Reagent/Material	Function	Key Considerations for Plant CRISPR Applications
dPCR Master Mix	Provides DNA polymerase, dNTPs, and optimized buffers for amplification.	Must be compatible with the chosen dPCR platform and probe chemistry (e.g., TaqMan).
TaqMan Probes	Sequence-specific fluorescent probes that provide target detection and enable multiplexing.	Critical: Must be designed for high specificity to discriminate between wild-type and mutant sequences.
Primers	Forward and reverse primers that flank the target sequence for amplification.	Should be designed to amplify a region of 70-200 bp encompassing the CRISPR target site [54].
Partitioning Oil/Chips	Creates the nanoscale partitions for the reaction.	Platform-specific: droplet generation oil for ddPCR or microfluidic chips/plates for chip-based dPCR.
Nuclease-Free Water	Serves as a solvent and diluent, free of contaminants that could degrade nucleic acids or inhibit PCR.	Essential for preparing all reaction mixtures and sample dilutions.
Reference Gene Assay	Probe and primer set for a constitutively expressed gene, used for normalization.	Crucial for data normalization in copy number variation studies or when input DNA quantity varies.

Method Selection Guide

Choosing the right detection method depends on the specific goals and constraints of the plant CRISPR project. The following decision pathway provides a logical framework for selecting the most appropriate technology.

Title: Method Selection for CRISPR Analysis

This pathway illustrates:

• Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) is the unequivocal choice when the research goal involves unbiased discovery of novel mutations or detailed characterization of a wide range of editing outcomes (e.g., large deletions, complex insertions) at the sequence level [54] [31].
• Digital PCR (dPCR) is the superior technology when the primary requirement is the absolute quantification of known, low-frequency mutations. Its high sensitivity and ability to detect rare alleles down to 0.1% frequency make it ideal for applications like assessing editing efficiency in heterogeneous plant populations or quantifying rare off-target events [53] [31].
• Quantitative PCR (qPCR) remains a robust and cost-effective option for reliable quantification when the target is not extremely rare and high-throughput is a priority, though it lacks the absolute quantification and ultra-sensitivity of dPCR [54].
• PCR + Sanger Sequencing is best for low-throughput projects where sequence confirmation of a specific amplicon is needed, but it fails with complex, heterogeneous samples [54].
• T7E1/RFLP Assays serve as low-cost, accessible tools for initial screening to confirm that editing has occurred, but they lack the accuracy and sensitivity required for precise quantification [31].

Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) for Comprehensive Off-Target and Whole-Genome Analysis

The application of Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR) technology in plants has revolutionized functional genomics and crop breeding by enabling precise genome modifications. However, confirming the specificity of these edits and detecting unintended off-target mutations remains a significant challenge for researchers. Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) has emerged as the most comprehensive and reliable method for analyzing both on-target efficiency and off-target effects in CRISPR-edited plants. Unlike targeted detection methods such as PCR/RNP cleavage assays or Sanger sequencing, NGS provides a genome-wide, unbiased approach to identify potential off-target sites, making it particularly valuable for characterizing novel plant lines intended for both research and commercial applications [9] [56] [57]. This guide objectively compares the performance of NGS-based methods against alternative techniques and provides supporting experimental data within the context of detecting CRISPR-induced mutations in plant research.

Comparison of Mutation Detection Methods for CRISPR Analysis

Various methods exist for detecting CRISPR-induced mutations, each with distinct strengths, limitations, and optimal use cases. The table below provides a systematic comparison of the most commonly employed techniques in plant research.

Table 1: Comparison of CRISPR Mutation Detection Methods in Plants

Method	Key Principle	Sensitivity	Throughput	Ability to Detect Unknown Off-Targets	Best Use Cases
NGS (Whole Genome)	Massive parallel sequencing of fragmented DNA without prior knowledge of target sites [58].	Very High (can detect low-frequency mutations)	High (entire genome)	Excellent (unbiased, genome-wide)	Gold standard for comprehensive off-target profiling in pre-clinical studies; essential for regulatory characterization [56].
NGS (Amplicon Sequencing)	Targeted sequencing of PCR-amplified regions of interest (both on-target and predicted off-target loci) [57].	High (can detect indels at ~0.1-1% frequency)	Medium to High (multiplexing of many loci)	Poor (requires a priori knowledge of sites)	High-throughput validation of on-target editing and screening of in silico-predicted off-target sites [57].
PCR/RNP Assay	PCR amplification followed by cleavage with CRISPR ribonucleoprotein (RNP); mutants resist cleavage [9].	Higher than Sanger sequencing	Low to Medium	Poor	Low-cost, rapid initial screening for indels at known target sites in polyploid plants like wheat [9].
Sanger Sequencing	Traditional chain-termination sequencing of cloned or bulk PCR products [9].	Low (mosaicism <15-20% often undetected)	Low	Poor	Cost-effective for confirming edits when high sensitivity is not required; suitable for initial characterization of homozygous edits [9].
T7 Endonuclease I (T7EI) Assay	Detection of DNA heteroduplex mismatches via enzyme cleavage [9].	Moderate	Low	Poor	Quick and inexpensive method for initial screening of editing efficiency, but cannot distinguish complex allele types [9].

NGS-Based Off-Target Detection Methods: A Technical Comparison

For comprehensive off-target assessment, NGS-based methods can be broadly categorized into biochemical (in vitro) and cellular (in vivo) approaches. The selection of an appropriate method depends on the required sensitivity, biological relevance, and experimental feasibility.

Table 2: Comparison of NGS-Based Genome-Wide Off-Target Screening Methods

Method	Category	Input Material	Key Strength	Key Limitation	Reported Sensitivity in Studies
GUIDE-seq [59] [56]	Cellular	Living cells	Captures off-targets in a native cellular context (chromatin, repair mechanisms)	Requires efficient delivery of a double-stranded oligonucleotide tag into cells	High sensitivity in primary human cells; identifies biologically relevant sites [59].
DISCOVER-seq [59] [56]	Cellular	Living cells	Relies on endogenous MRE11 repair protein binding; does not require exogenous tag delivery	Lower throughput and sensitivity compared to some biochemical methods	Identifies off-targets in primary cells and mouse models; high positive predictive value [59].
CIRCLE-seq [56]	Biochemical	Purified genomic DNA	Ultra-sensitive; works with any DNA source; no cell culture needed	May overestimate cleavage due to lack of chromatin and cellular context	Can detect extremely rare off-target sites (<0.1% frequency) in vitro [56].
CHANGE-seq [56]	Biochemical	Purified genomic DNA	Very high sensitivity with reduced bias via tagmentation-based library prep	Like all biochemical methods, may report false positives not active in cells	High-throughput; allows for multiplexing of many guides [56].

NGS Platform Selection for CRISPR Analysis

The choice of NGS platform significantly impacts the cost, turnaround time, and data analysis requirements for CRISPR studies.

Table 3: Comparison of NGS Platform Technologies for CRISPR Analysis

Platform (Example)	Sequencing Mechanism	Typical Read Length	Advantages for CRISPR Analysis	Limitations for CRISPR Analysis
Illumina (NovaSeq X, HiSeq 2000, MiSeq)	Sequencing by Synthesis	50-300 bp (short-read)	Very high accuracy (~98-99.9%); ideal for variant calling and amplicon sequencing [60] [61].	Short reads can challenge the assembly of large indels or complex rearrangements [60].
Oxford Nanopore Technologies	Nanopore sensing	>10,000 bp (long-read)	Very long reads detect large structural variations and phase mutations; real-time, portable sequencing [61].	Higher raw error rate than Illumina, though this can be mitigated with sufficient coverage [61].

Essential Reagents and Research Solutions for NGS-Based CRISPR Workflows

A successful NGS-based CRISPR analysis requires a suite of specialized reagents and computational tools.

Table 4: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for NGS-Based CRISPR Analysis

Item/Category	Function in Workflow	Specific Examples / Notes
High-Fidelity Cas9 Variants	Increases specificity by reducing off-target cleavage while maintaining on-target activity [59].	HiFi Cas9 demonstrated significantly reduced off-target activity in human hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells (HSPCs) [59].
NGS Library Prep Kits	Prepare fragmented and tagged DNA for sequencing on specific NGS platforms.	Kits are platform-specific (e.g., for Illumina, Nanopore). Targeted amplicon kits are crucial for deep sequencing of specific loci.
In Silico Prediction Tools	Computational prediction of potential off-target sites based on guide RNA sequence homology [56].	Tools like Cas-OFFinder, CCTop, and COSMID are used for an initial, biased screen. COSMID showed high positive predictive value in one study [59].
CRISPR Analysis Software	Analyze NGS data to quantify editing efficiency (indel%) and map off-target sites.	Cas-Analyzer, CRISPResso, and Hi-TOM are specialized for this purpose. Hi-TOM is a platform for high-throughput mutation analysis in rice [9].

Experimental Protocols for Key NGS-Based Assays

Protocol: Whole-Genome Sequencing (WGS) for Off-Target Analysis in Plants

Application: Comprehensive, unbiased discovery of off-target mutations and background variation in CRISPR-edited plants [58].

Key Steps:

• Plant Material and Controls: Generate edited plants (e.g., via Agrobacterium-mediated transformation or RNP delivery). Include multiple independent edited lines (T0) and their progeny (T1). Crucially, include negative controls such as wild-type plants, tissue-culture-only plants, and vector-backbone transformed plants to account for somaclonal variation and transformation-induced mutations [58].
• DNA Extraction: Extract high-quality, high-molecular-weight genomic DNA from all plant lines and controls.
• Library Preparation & Sequencing: Fragment DNA and prepare sequencing libraries compatible with your NGS platform (e.g., Illumina). Sequence to a high depth of coverage (recommended >45x, ideally 60-100x) to ensure confident variant calling [58].
• Bioinformatic Analysis:
  • Alignment: Map sequencing reads to the reference genome of the plant species.
  • Variant Calling: Use a stringent pipeline with multiple variant-calling software (e.g., GATK, FreeBayes) to identify single nucleotide variants (SNVs) and insertions/deletions (indels). Consider only high-confidence variants called by all software.
  • Mutation Identification: Filter out pre-existing polymorphisms by comparing with wild-type controls. Isolate tissue culture/transformation-associated mutations by subtracting variants also found in the negative controls (tissue-culture-only, vector-backbone). The remaining mutations unique to the CRISPR-edited lines are potential off-target effects [58].

Protocol: Amplicon Sequencing for On-Target and Predicted Off-Target Validation

Application: Highly sensitive and quantitative measurement of editing efficiency at specific target sites and in silico-predicted off-target loci [57].

Key Steps:

• Locus Selection: Define the on-target site and a list of potential off-target sites using in silico tools (e.g., Cas-OFFinder).
• PCR Amplification: Design primers to generate 200-400 bp amplicons encompassing the target sites. Use barcoded primers to multiplex many samples and loci in a single sequencing run.
• Library Preparation & Sequencing: Pool the PCR amplicons and prepare an NGS library. Sequence on a high-accuracy platform like Illumina MiSeq or HiSeq to achieve very deep coverage (>10,000x per amplicon) for detecting low-frequency mutations.
• Data Analysis: Use specialized tools (e.g., CRISPResso2, Hi-TOM) to align reads and precisely quantify the spectrum and frequency of indels at each target site [9] [57].

Performance Data and Key Findings from Plant Studies

Rigorous studies in plants have provided critical data on the specificity of CRISPR systems and the performance of NGS for its evaluation.

Table 5: Summary of Key Findings from NGS-Based CRISPR Studies in Plants

Study Subject	Key Finding	Implication for CRISPR Analysis
Rice (WGS of 69 plants) [58]	Most mutations in edited plants were attributed to tissue culture process (~102-148 SNVs/plant) rather than CRISPR. Only 1 of 12 sgRNAs resulted in detectable, predicted off-target mutations.	Highlights the absolute necessity of including proper controls (tissue culture, transformation) in WGS studies to avoid false attribution of background mutations to CRISPR.
Human HSPCs (Comparison of 11 gRNAs) [59]	An average of less than one off-target site per gRNA was found when using HiFi Cas9. All major off-target sites were identified by both in silico and empirical methods.	Suggests that refined bioinformatic predictions, especially when using high-fidelity Cas9, can effectively identify the most biologically relevant off-target sites.
Wheat & Rice (PCR/RNP method) [9]	The PCR/RNP method was more sensitive than Sanger sequencing for detecting low-frequency indels, especially in polyploid wheat with surrounding SNPs.	For rapid, low-cost screening of known targets, this method is effective, but it does not replace NGS for comprehensive, genome-wide analysis.

Next-Generation Sequencing stands as the cornerstone for comprehensive safety and efficacy assessment in CRISPR-based plant research. While alternative methods like PCR/RNP offer cost-effective solutions for initial screening, NGS—particularly WGS—provides the unbiased, genome-wide scope necessary for definitive off-target characterization. The evolving landscape of NGS, including the integration of long-read sequencing and advanced bioinformatic tools, continues to enhance our ability to detect a broader spectrum of genetic alterations. For researchers, the strategic combination of careful experimental design (including critical controls), appropriate NGS method selection (WGS for discovery vs. amplicon for validation), and the use of high-fidelity CRISPR nucleases represents the most robust pathway for accurately profiling CRISPR-induced mutations and advancing the safe application of genome editing in agriculture.

Overcoming Detection Challenges: Enhancing Specificity, Sensitivity, and Efficiency

Strategies for Optimizing gRNA Design and Predicting Editing Efficiency

In CRISPR-based plant research, the guide RNA (gRNA) serves as the molecular GPS, directing Cas nucleases to precise genomic locations. The efficacy of subsequent mutation detection is fundamentally constrained by the initial gRNA design, as inefficient editing or pervasive off-target effects complicate analysis and interpretation. Optimization strategies have evolved from simple sequence complementarity checks to sophisticated computational models that predict editing outcomes before laboratory experimentation. Within plant science, this is particularly critical due to complex genomic architectures, such as the hexaploid nature of wheat with its large genome size and repetitive DNA, which significantly increases the potential for off-target mutations [62] [63].

This guide objectively compares the performance of contemporary gRNA design strategies and the tools that enable them, framing this comparison within the practical workflow of a plant researcher detecting CRISPR-induced mutations.

Core Strategies for gRNA Optimization

Foundational Principles for On-Target Efficiency

The foundational approach to gRNA design involves a multi-phase process of gene verification, gRNA design, and post-design analysis to maximize on-target activity.

• Gene Verification: Prior to gRNA design, the target gene must be thoroughly analyzed. For plants, this involves identifying the chromosomal location, homologs across sub-genomes, and similarity to other genes. Tools like Ensembl Plants and KnetMiner are used for gene sequence and location identification. The target gene should ideally be a negative regulator with tissue-specific expression to avoid pleiotropic effects on the final plant phenotype [62] [63].
• gRNA Design Parameters: The designed gRNA must then be validated by analyzing its potential secondary structure, Gibbs free energy, and propensity for internal base pairing. Sequence similarity to the cloning binary vector used in the study must also be checked to avoid unintended interactions [62].
• Minimizing Off-Target Effects: For polyploid plants like wheat, selecting a unique target site with few genetically similar off-target sites throughout the genome is paramount. This requires a thorough understanding of the target gene and the broader genome landscape [62] [63].

Experimental Goal-Driven Design

There is no universal "perfect gRNA," as the optimal design is heavily influenced by the experimental goal.

• Gene Knockouts: For knockouts via non-homologous end joining (NHEJ), target sites should be in exons crucial for protein function, avoiding regions too close to the N- or C-terminus where protein function might not be fully disrupted [64].
• Knock-ins and Base Editing: In contrast, knock-in experiments that rely on homology-directed repair (HDR) or base editing are more constrained by location. The cut site must be close to the intended edit, making location, rather than sequence complementarity, the primary design parameter [64].
• CRISPRa/i: For CRISPR activation or inhibition (CRISPRa/i), the gRNA must target the promoter region, requiring a delicate balance between sequence complementarity and optimized location within a narrow genomic window [64].

The diagram below illustrates this goal-oriented design workflow.

Advanced Computational and AI-Driven Approaches

Machine learning and deep learning tools are projected to become the leading methods for predicting CRISPR on-target and off-target activity [65] [66].

• Deep Learning for Base Editing: A novel deep learning approach, CRISPRon-ABE and CRISPRon-CBE, addresses the challenge of predicting base-editing outcomes. Traditional models struggled with data incompatibility from different experimental conditions. This new method uses dataset-aware training, labeling each gRNA by its dataset of origin, which allows the model to learn systematic differences and enables more accurate, condition-specific predictions [67].
• AI-Generated Editors: Beyond designing gRNAs for existing Cas proteins, artificial intelligence is now used to design entirely new editors. Large language models (LMs) trained on over a million CRISPR operons can generate novel, functional Cas proteins. One such AI-designed editor, OpenCRISPR-1, exhibits performance comparable to SpCas9 despite being 400 mutations away in sequence, demonstrating compatibility with base editing [68].

Comparative Analysis of gRNA Design Tools and Editors

Performance Comparison of gRNA Design and Prediction Tools

The table below summarizes the core functionality and application context of key software and platforms discussed.

Table 1: Comparison of gRNA Design and Prediction Tools

Tool/Platform Name	Primary Function	Key Features	Reported Performance / Context
WheatCRISPR [63]	gRNA design for wheat	Tailored for complex, hexaploid wheat genome	Addresses high off-target risk in polyploid plants
Synthego Design Tool [64]	gRNA design for knockouts	Supports >120,000 genomes; uses Doench on/off-target scores	Reduces design time from hours to minutes
Benchling CRISPR Tool [64]	gRNA & template design for knock-ins	Integrates guide and template design; fast algorithms	100x faster than leading competitor
CRISPRon-ABE/CBE [67]	Predicts base-editing outcomes	Deep learning; dataset-aware training	Superior accuracy vs. DeepABE/CBE, BE-HIVE
DeepXE [69]	Predicts efficiency for CasXE editors	AI-driven platform	>90% sensitivity, halves screening size
OpenCRISPR-1 [68]	AI-designed Cas protein	Generated by language model; not a design tool	Comparable/superior activity & specificity to SpCas9

Comparison of CRISPR Cas Protein Variants

Different Cas proteins and their engineered variants offer distinct advantages. The following table compares several relevant to plant genome editing.

Table 2: Comparison of CRISPR Cas Protein Variants

Cas Protein / Variant	Type / Class	PAM Requirement	Key Characteristics & Reported Editing Efficiency
SpCas9 [62]	II-A	NGG	Widely adopted; prototypical nuclease for blunt-end DSBs
LbCas12a (ttLbUV2) [70]	V-A	TTTV	Smaller size; sticky ends; self-processes crRNA for multiplexing. 20.8% to 99.1% efficiency in Arabidopsis T1 plants [70]
Cas12i3V1 [70]	V-I	TTN / TTTV	Flexible PAM; smaller protein size. Relatively high editing efficiency at 4 of 6 tested targets [70]
AsCas12f variants [70]	V-F	YTTN / NTTR	One of the smallest Cas nucleases. Poor or no detectable editing in plants; requires optimization [70]
OpenCRISPR-1 [68]	II (AI-generated)	Not specified	Highly functional and specific in human cells; compatible with base editing; ~400 mutations from natural sequences

Essential Reagents and Protocols for Workflow Validation

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

A successful experiment relies on a suite of reliable reagents and databases.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Databases

Item / Resource	Function / Application
Wheat PanGenome Database [62] [63]	Designs cultivar-specific gRNAs by providing genomic data across multiple wheat cultivars.
Clustal Omega Software [62] [63]	Assesses sequence similarity between target genes and homologs in other species or sub-genomes.
Lipid Nanoparticles (LNPs) [22]	A delivery method for in vivo CRISPR therapy; tends to accumulate in the liver; allows for re-dosing.
SURRO-seq Technology [67]	An experimental method that creates libraries pairing gRNAs with integrated target sequences to measure base-editing efficiency.

Detailed Experimental Protocol: gRNA Design and Validation for Plants

The following workflow, specific to plant systems like wheat, ensures high-specificity editing.

• Gene Identification and Verification:

  • Objective: Select a target gene with minimal pleiotropic effects.
  • Method: Conduct an extensive literature review using knockout studies (e.g., RNAi, TILLING). Use KnetMiner for Triticum aestivum to identify gene sequence and chromosomal location [62] [63].
  • Homolog Analysis: Use Clustal Omega to align the gene sequence against the three wheat sub-genomes (A, B, D) and related genes in other species to identify conserved and unique regions [62] [63].

• In Silico gRNA Design and Specificity Check:

  • Objective: Design gRNAs with high on-target and low off-target activity.
  • Method: Input the verified gene sequence into a specialized tool like WheatCRISPR [63].
  • Off-Target Screening: Use the Basic Local Alignment Search Tool (BLAST) against the appropriate genome database to identify and eliminate gRNAs with high sequence similarity to off-target sites across the sub-genomes [62] [63].

• gRNA Stability and Vector Compatibility Analysis:

  • Objective: Ensure the designed gRNA is stable and does not interfere with the delivery vector.
  • Method: Use bioinformatic tools to analyze the gRNA's secondary structure and Gibbs free energy. A stable gRNA with minimal internal base pairing is preferable [62].
  • Vector Check: Perform an in silico check for sequence similarity between the final gRNA sequence and the cloning binary vector to be used in the study [62].

The entire process, from gene selection to final gRNA validation, is summarized below.

Optimizing gRNA design is no longer a one-size-fits-all endeavor but a nuanced process dictated by experimental goals, from simple knockouts in diploid models to precise base editing in polyploid crops. The strategies and tools evaluated here—from genome-aware bioinformatics platforms like WheatCRISPR to deep learning predictors like CRISPRon and AI-generated editors like OpenCRISPR-1—demonstrate a clear trajectory toward greater precision and predictability.

For the plant researcher focused on mutation detection, the initial investment in rigorous gRNA design, leveraging the comparative data and protocols outlined, is paramount. It directly dictates the clarity, reliability, and interpretability of the resulting mutational landscape, ensuring that detected edits are the intended ones and that off-target effects do not obscure experimental conclusions. As these computational tools continue to evolve, they will further bridge the gap between in silico design and empirical outcome, solidifying the foundation for advanced CRISPR applications in agricultural biotechnology.

The CRISPR-Cas9 system has revolutionized biological research and therapeutic development by enabling precise genome editing. However, a significant challenge complicating its application, especially in plant research, is the occurrence of off-target effects—unintended edits at genomic sites with sequence similarity to the target. These effects can lead to unpredictable phenotypic consequences, raising concerns about the safety and reliability of CRISPR-based technologies. Accurately detecting these events is therefore paramount. The scientific community primarily employs two complementary approaches for this purpose: in silico prediction tools that computationally nominate potential off-target sites, and empirical validation methods that experimentally identify unintended edits in a genome-wide manner. This guide provides a comparative analysis of these methods, detailing their workflows, performance, and practical applications to inform their use in plant research.

In Silico Prediction Tools

In silico tools use algorithms to scan a reference genome and identify sites with high sequence homology to the single guide RNA (sgRNA), nominating locations where off-target editing is likely. These tools are typically the first step in sgRNA design and risk assessment due to their speed and low cost.

Key Tools and Their Algorithms

Table 1: Comparison of Key In Silico Off-Target Prediction Tools

Tool Name	Underlying Algorithm	Key Features	Considerations
Cas-OFFinder [71]	Alignment-based	Exhaustive search; allows custom PAM sequences, mismatches, and bulges [71].	Widely used for its flexibility [71].
CCTop [59] [71]	Formula-based (Consensus Constrained TOPology)	Weights mismatch positions, with those near the PAM considered more disruptive [71].	User-friendly; provides a ranked list of candidates [71].
CFD (Cutting Frequency Determination) [72]	Hypothesis-driven	Scoring model derived from empirical genetic screens [72].	Often integrated into sgRNA design platforms for its accuracy [72].
DeepCRISPR [71]	Learning-based (Deep Learning)	Uses deep learning to predict cleavage; can incorporate epigenetic features like DNAse I sensitivity [71].	Requires significant computational resources [71].
CCLMoff [73]	Learning-based (Language Model)	Incorporates a pre-trained RNA language model; trained on a comprehensive dataset from 13 detection techniques [73].	Shows strong generalization across different datasets [73].
CRISOT [74]	Molecular Dynamics & Machine Learning	Generates RNA-DNA interaction fingerprints from molecular dynamics simulations; uses XGBoost for prediction [74].	Aims to capture the biophysical mechanism of Cas9 binding [74].

Recent advances are shifting towards machine learning and deep learning models, such as CCLMoff and CRISOT, which are trained on large, diverse datasets to improve generalization and prediction accuracy beyond simple sequence alignment [73] [74]. For example, CRISOT's fingerprint-based approach has demonstrated superior performance in genome-wide off-target prediction compared to earlier methods [74].

Workflow and Integration

The following diagram illustrates the typical workflow for using in silico tools in a plant research project, from sgRNA design to experimental validation.

Empirical Validation Methods

Empirical methods experimentally capture CRISPR-induced double-strand breaks (DSBs) or their repair outcomes in a wet-lab setting, providing an unbiased survey of off-target activity.

Classification and Comparison of Methods

Empirical techniques can be broadly categorized into cell-based and cell-free methods. Cell-based methods detect edits within a cellular context, preserving biological features like chromatin state, while cell-free methods use purified genomic DNA for highly sensitive, controlled detection.

Table 2: Comparison of Key Empirical Off-Target Detection Methods

Method	Category	Core Principle	Key Advantages	Key Limitations / Considerations
GUIDE-Seq [59] [75]	Cell-Based (DSB Tagging)	Uses a short, double-stranded oligo to integrate into DSBs, followed by sequencing to map integration sites [75].	High sensitivity; works in living cells [75].	Requires delivery of an exogenous oligonucleotide into cells [75].
CIRCLE-Seq [59] [75]	Cell-Free (In Vitro Cleavage)	Genomic DNA is circularized, digested with Cas9-RNP, and linearized fragments (cleaved sites) are sequenced [75].	Extremely high sensitivity (low background); does not require living cells [75].	Performed on purified DNA, so lacks cellular context (e.g., chromatin) [59].
DISCOVER-Seq [59] [75]	Cell-Based (DSB Marking)	Identifies DSBs by leveraging the cell's own repair machinery, specifically by immunoprecipitating DNA bound by MRE11, a DNA repair protein [75].	Identifies bona fide off-targets in a native cellular environment without exogenous components [59].	Relies on the endogenous DNA repair response.
Digenome-Seq [71] [75]	Cell-Free (In Vitro Cleavage)	Purified genomic DNA is digested with Cas9-RNP and subjected to whole-genome sequencing; DSBs appear as linearized fragments [71] [75].	Sensitive and hypothesis-free [71].	Requires high sequencing coverage (>100x), making it costly; lacks cellular context [71].
SITE-Seq [59]	Cell-Free (In Vitro Cleavage)	Cas9-cleaved genomic DNA is end-labeled with a biotinylated nucleotide, enriched, and sequenced [59].	Sensitive and quantitative [59].	Performed on purified DNA, so lacks cellular context [59].

Performance and Selection in Plant Systems

A head-to-head comparison in primary human hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells found that while all major detection methods (CHANGE-Seq, CIRCLE-Seq, DISCOVER-Seq, GUIDE-Seq) showed high sensitivity, tools like DISCOVER-Seq and GUIDE-Seq achieved some of the highest positive predictive values (PPV) [59]. Notably, this study also reported that empirical methods did not identify off-target sites that were missed by refined bioinformatic methods, highlighting the growing power of computational prediction [59].

For plant research, the choice of method depends on the specific experimental constraints and goals. Cell-free methods like CIRCLE-seq are ideal for initial, highly sensitive sgRNA screening due to their low false-positive rate. For final validation in a biologically relevant system, cell-based methods like DISCOVER-seq are preferable as they capture the impact of chromatin state on editing.

Experimental Protocols for Plant Research

This section provides a generalized workflow for a comprehensive off-target assessment suitable for a plant biology research project.

A Tiered Off-Target Assessment Protocol

• In Silico Nomination: Begin by designing your sgRNA with high specificity. Use multiple in silico tools (e.g., Cas-OFFinder and CCTop or CRISOT) to generate a consensus list of potential off-target sites. The input is the 20-nt sgRNA spacer sequence and the PAM (e.g., NGG for SpCas9). The output is a ranked list of genomic loci.
• Cell-Free Empirical Screening (Optional but Recommended): Perform CIRCLE-seq on genomic DNA extracted from your target plant species or a close relative.
  • Extract high-molecular-weight gDNA from plant tissue.
  • Incubate the gDNA with the Cas9:sgRNA RNP complex in vitro to allow cleavage.
  • Follow the established CIRCLE-seq protocol: circularize the DNA, digest with Cas9-RNP, and process for high-throughput sequencing [75].
  • Analyze sequencing data to map cleavage sites and generate a high-confidence list of in vitro off-target sites.
• Targeted Validation in Edited Plants: The most critical step is to check for off-target edits in your actual CRISPR-edited plant lines.
  • Design PCR primers to amplify the on-target site and the nominated off-target sites (from Steps 1 and 2).
  • Amplify these regions from both edited and wild-type control plants.
  • Use high-depth amplicon sequencing (e.g., Illumina MiSeq) to detect low-frequency indels at these loci.
  • Analyze sequencing data with tools like CRISPResso2 to quantify the editing frequency at each site. A site is considered a bona fide off-target if the indel frequency is significantly higher in edited plants than in wild-type controls.

The following diagram maps this multi-layered strategy, showing how in silico and empirical methods converge to inform final validation.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Key Research Reagents for Off-Target Analysis

Reagent / Solution	Function in Off-Target Analysis
Cas9 Nuclease (WT or HiFi)	Creates the double-strand breaks at the target DNA sequence. High-fidelity (HiFi) variants are engineered to reduce off-target activity while maintaining on-target efficiency [59].
In Vitro Transcribed sgRNA or Synthesized crRNA	Guides the Cas9 nuclease to the specific DNA target sequence. The design and sequence are the primary determinants of specificity [76].
Proteinase K	Essential for digesting nucleases and other proteins during DNA extraction, especially after in vitro cleavage assays, to stop the reaction and prepare samples for sequencing [75].
Biotin-dNTPs / Tagged Oligonucleotides	Used in methods like SITE-seq and GUIDE-seq to label DSBs, allowing for the selective enrichment and subsequent sequencing of off-target sites [59] [75].
T4 DNA Ligase	A critical enzyme in CIRCLE-seq and related methods for circularizing genomic DNA fragments prior to the Cas9 cleavage step [75].
Antibodies for DNA Repair Proteins (e.g., MRE11)	Key reagent for DISCOVER-seq, which uses immunoprecipitation to pull down DNA bound by repair machinery proteins at the site of a DSB [75].

A robust analysis of CRISPR off-target effects is no longer optional but a necessary component of rigorous plant research. The field has moved beyond relying solely on in silico predictions. While modern computational tools like CRISOT and CCLMoff offer powerful and increasingly accurate nomination of off-target sites, their predictions must be empirically verified. The most reliable strategy involves a tiered approach: starting with comprehensive in silico screening, optionally followed by a highly sensitive cell-free method like CIRCLE-seq to cast a wide net, and culminating in targeted, deep amplicon sequencing of the resulting plant lines to identify bona fide off-target events. As CRISPR applications in crops continue to expand—from improving nutritional content in bananas to developing multi-targeted libraries in tomato—integrating these thorough safety assessments will be crucial for validating edits and advancing these technologies from the lab to the field [76] [72].

Improving Detection Sensitivity for Low-Abundance Mutations in Chimeric Tissues

The detection of low-abundance mutations in chimeric tissues presents a significant challenge in plant genomics and CRISPR-based crop improvement. Chimeric tissues, consisting of mixed populations of edited and unedited cells, are frequently encountered in initial generations of CRISPR-edited plants, complicating genotyping and phenotypic analysis. The ability to reliably identify and quantify these rare mutation events is crucial for accurately assessing editing efficiency, understanding the full spectrum of edits, and selecting optimal plant lines for subsequent breeding. This comparison guide objectively evaluates the performance of current detection methodologies, providing researchers with experimental data to inform their genotyping strategy selection.

Comparative Analysis of Detection Methodologies

The following table summarizes the key performance metrics of prominent detection methods for identifying CRISPR-induced mutations in complex plant tissues.

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Mutation Detection Methods

Detection Method	Sensitivity (Lower Limit of Detection)	Optimal Sample Type	Key Advantage	Primary Limitation
CRISPR-Cas12a with Mismatch Guide RNA [77]	0.1% mutant allele frequency (single-cell level) [78]	Cell-free DNA; low-frequency mutations	Selective wild-type DNA cleavage to enrich mutant sequences [77]	Requires specific crRNA design and optimization [77]
Capillary Electrophoresis (CE) [79]	2% co-mutation frequency (in highly polyploid sugarcane) [79]	Highly polyploid genomes; multiplex editing	Delivers precise indel size information to 1 bp resolution [79]	Less sensitive than sequencing for very low-frequency mutations [79]
Cas9 Ribonucleoprotein (RNP) Assay [79]	3.2% co-mutation frequency (in highly polyploid sugarcane) [79]	Polyploid crops; high-throughput screening	No restriction site requirement; uses Cas9 enzyme directly [79]	Does not provide information on indel size composition [79]
High-Resolution Melt Analysis (HRMA) [79]	Can distinguish edited lines but specific sensitivity not quantified [79]	Initial screening of transgenic lines; low-cost workflow	Closed-tube system, fast, and cost-effective [79]	Limited ability to deconvolute complex edits in polyploids [79]
Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS)	Varies with sequencing depth	All sample types; gold-standard validation	Provides comprehensive data on all mutation types and frequencies [79]	Cost-prohibitive for screening large populations in complex genomes [79]

Detailed Experimental Protocols

CRISPR-Cas12a-Based Enrichment and Detection

This protocol leverages the CRISPR-Cas12a system to selectively degrade wild-type DNA sequences, thereby enriching the sample for low-abundance mutant DNA to enhance detection sensitivity [77].

Workflow: CRISPR-Cas12a Mutation Enrichment

Key Steps:

• crRNA Design and In Vitro Transcription: Design a crRNA complementary to the wild-type target sequence but introduce a deliberate mismatch within the protospacer region. This mismatch reduces the cleavage efficiency of the Cas12a enzyme for mutant DNA templates. The crRNA is synthesized via in vitro transcription using T7 RNA polymerase and purified [77].
• Protein Purification: Express and purify recombinant LbCas12a protein. This involves transforming E. coli with an expression vector, inducing protein expression with IPTG, and purifying the soluble fraction using Ni-NTA affinity chromatography [77].
• Selective Digestion: Pre-mix the purified LbCas12a protein and the synthesized crRNA to form a ribonucleoprotein (RNP) complex. Incubate this RNP complex with the purified sample DNA (e.g., PCR amplicons or cell-free DNA) at 37°C for 1 hour. During this step, the RNP complex binds to and cleaves wild-type DNA sequences, while the mutant DNA, due to the crRNA mismatch, is largely spared [77].
• Reaction Termination and Amplification: Heat-inactivate the Cas12a/crRNA RNP complex at 90°C for 1 minute. The remaining, enriched mutant DNA is then amplified via PCR for subsequent identification by methods like sequencing or electrophoresis [77].

Capillary Electrophoresis for Polyploid Genotyping

This protocol is optimized for detecting indels in highly polyploid crops like sugarcane, where multiple hom(e)ologous gene copies must be co-edited to achieve a phenotype [79].

Workflow: Genotyping by Capillary Electrophoresis

Key Steps:

• Fluorescent PCR Amplification: Perform PCR on the purified plant genomic DNA using primers that flank the CRISPR target site. One primer must be labeled with a fluorescent dye [79].
• Size Separation: Subject the fluorescently labeled PCR amplicons to capillary electrophoresis. This system separates DNA fragments by size with single-base-pair resolution [79].
• Data Analysis and Quantification: Analyze the resulting electrophoretogram. The wild-type allele will appear as a single peak at the expected size. Successful mutagenesis via non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) will generate a series of additional peaks corresponding to insertions or deletions (indels). The co-mutation frequency can be estimated by quantifying the relative fluorescence of the wild-type peak versus the indel peaks [79].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 2: Key Reagents for Sensitive Mutation Detection

Reagent / Tool	Function	Application Notes
LbCas12a Nuclease [77]	Programmable nuclease for selective DNA cleavage.	Preferred for its specificity in enrichment protocols; can be expressed and purified in-house or sourced commercially [77].
crRNA with Deliberate Mismatch [77]	Guides Cas12a to wild-type target; mismatch enriches mutants.	Critical for discrimination; design is crucial for success [77].
Fluorescently-Labeled PCR Primers [79]	Allows detection and quantification of PCR amplicons during capillary electrophoresis.	Essential for CE-based genotyping to determine indel sizes and frequencies [79].
Cas9 Ribonucleoprotein (RNP) [79]	Pre-complexed Cas9 protein and sgRNA for in vitro cleavage assays.	Used in Cas9 RNP assays to detect edited sequences that resist cleavage [79].
hafoe Computational Tool [80]	Analyzes chimeric sequences from directed evolution or editing.	Deciphers serotype/composition in complex libraries; useful for tracking recombination events [80].

Selecting the optimal method for detecting low-abundance mutations in chimeric plant tissues requires careful consideration of the specific research context. For applications demanding the highest sensitivity for point mutations, such as detecting early editing events or somatic mutations, the CRISPR-Cas12a enrichment system offers a powerful, albeit technically demanding, solution. For routine genotyping of polyploid crops, where the goal is to identify lines with high co-editing frequencies among many hom(e)ologous copies, capillary electrophoresis provides an excellent balance of cost, throughput, and informational output. Cas9 RNP assays and HRMA serve as robust, lower-cost options for initial screening. Ultimately, a hierarchical approach—using cost-effective methods for primary screening followed by NGS or CRISPR-Cas12a for deep validation of candidate lines—represents a efficient and comprehensive strategy for advancing CRISPR-based plant research.

The development of CRISPR-Cas systems has revolutionized plant functional genomics and trait improvement, enabling precise genomic modifications with unprecedented ease. However, accurately detecting and characterizing these mutations remains a substantial challenge, particularly in polyploid plants and in lines intended for commercial deregulation. The regulatory landscape for gene-edited plants is evolving globally, with many countries, including India, exempting SDN-1 and SDN-2 type edits from stringent GMO regulations, provided developers submit sufficient molecular evidence demonstrating the intended mutations, absence of foreign DNA, and no biologically relevant off-target effects [35]. This regulatory framework necessitates robust, sensitive, and cost-effective detection methodologies that can be implemented throughout the research and development pipeline. This guide provides a comprehensive comparison of detection methods for CRISPR-induced mutations in plants, offering a stepwise strategy from initial screening to final verification to support research and regulatory compliance.

A Three-Phase Detection Strategy for CRISPR-Edited Plants

A systematic, phased approach to mutation detection balances efficiency with accuracy, optimizing resource allocation throughout the gene-editing pipeline. The following workflow outlines the recommended strategy from initial screening to final confirmation.

Figure 1. A stepwise workflow for detecting CRISPR-induced mutations in plants, progressing from rapid initial screening to definitive confirmation for regulatory submission.

Phase 1: Early-Stage Screening

The initial phase focuses on rapidly identifying successfully transformed or edited plant materials from a large population, often immediately after the editing process.

• Objective: Quick and cost-effective identification of putative edited lines for further analysis.
• Ideal Methods: Techniques targeting the presence of the CRISPR machinery itself, such as the Cas9 transgene, are optimal. Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) and conventional PCR assays targeting the Cas9 protein gene allow for rapid screening in the early phases of experimentation [35]. LAMP assays, in particular, enable visual detection through color change and are suitable for high-throughput applications without requiring sophisticated thermocyclers.
• Application Example: In a study on gene-edited tomato, a visual LAMP assay targeting the Cas9 protein gene allowed researchers to efficiently identify edited lines in early phases through a visible color change, accelerating the selection process for further experimentation [35].

Phase 2: Mutation Verification

Once putative edited lines are identified, the focus shifts to confirming the presence of mutations at the intended target site.

• Objective: To verify that the intended genomic edit has occurred and to get an initial estimate of editing efficiency.
• Ideal Methods: This phase utilizes methods that detect sequence mismatches or cleavage patterns. The PCR/RNP method is highly effective here. This technique uses purified CRISPR ribonucleoprotein complexes to cleave PCR products amplified from the plant's genomic DNA. Wild-type sequences are cleaved, while mutated sequences are not, allowing for easy gel-based detection [9]. This method is more sensitive than Sanger sequencing and does not require a specific restriction enzyme site like the PCR/RE method [9]. Alternatives include the T7 Endonuclease I (T7EI) assay, though it is less effective in polyploid plants where single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are common [9].

Phase 3: Final Confirmation and Characterization

The final phase involves precise characterization of the mutation for rigorous scientific documentation and regulatory compliance.

• Objective: To determine the exact sequence change (e.g., indel size, base substitution) and confirm the absence of the CRISPR transgene in final edited lines.
• Ideal Methods: Sanger sequencing, followed by decomposition software like TIDE or DSDecode, provides detailed information about the types and frequencies of indels in a sample [9] [81]. For the highest resolution, Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) can detect mutations with a sensitivity of up to 0.01% and is invaluable for identifying rare off-target effects [9]. Furthermore, multiplex real-time PCR assays using dual, fluorescently labelled probes can be developed for specific, sensitive (down to 0.1% detection) verification of single nucleotide changes and to confirm the non-transgenic nature of SDN-1 and SDN-2 edited lines by screening for common transgenic elements [35].

Comparative Analysis of Detection Methodologies

Selecting the appropriate detection method requires balancing factors such as cost, throughput, sensitivity, and information depth. The following table provides a direct comparison of the most common techniques used in plant research.

Table 1: Quantitative Comparison of CRISPR Mutation Detection Methods in Plants

Method	Sensitivity	Time to Result	Cost per Sample	Key Advantage	Primary Limitation
LAMP [35]	High (Qualitative)	~1-2 hours	Low	Rapid, equipment-free, visual result	Only detects transgene presence, not the specific edit
PCR/RNP [9]	Higher than Sanger	~4-6 hours	Low	No restriction site needed; works in polyploids	Does not reveal exact sequence change
T7EI Assay [9]	Moderate	~4-6 hours	Low	Simple gel-based readout	Cannot distinguish homozygous from wild-type; confounded by SNPs
Sanger + Tools [9]	Moderate	1-2 days	Medium	Provides exact sequence information	Struggles with complex mixtures of mutations
NGS [9]	Very High (0.01%)	3-7 days	High	Detects off-targets; highest sensitivity	High cost; complex data analysis
Multiplex qPCR [35]	Very High (0.1%)	~2 hours	Medium	Quantifies specific edits; high throughput	Requires specific probe design for each edit

Beyond these quantitative metrics, the qualitative applications of each method vary significantly. The following decision tree synthesizes this information into a logical selection pathway.

Figure 2. A decision tree to guide the selection of an appropriate mutation detection method based on the experimental goal, required information depth, and sample ploidy.

Detailed Experimental Protocols for Key Methods

PCR/RNP Method for Mutation Detection

This protocol, adapted from [9], is a highly sensitive and versatile method for detecting CRISPR-induced indels in both diploid and polyploid plants.

• PCR Amplification: Design primers flanking the target site to amplify a 300-600 bp fragment from the plant's genomic DNA.
• RNP Complex Assembly: In a microcentrifuge tube, assemble a reaction containing:
  • 500 ng of purified SpCas9 (or other Cas nuclease) protein
  • A molar excess of in vitro-transcribed sgRNA targeting the wild-type sequence
  • 1X Cas9 nuclease reaction buffer
  • Incubate at 25°C for 10 minutes to form the RNP complex.
• In Vitro Cleavage: Add 100-200 ng of the purified PCR product to the RNP complex. Bring the volume to 20 µL with nuclease-free water and incubate at 37°C for 1-2 hours.
• Analysis: Run the cleavage products on a 2-2.5% agarose gel. A successfully edited sample will show an intact PCR band (uncleaved by the RNP) in addition to the cleaved fragments, whereas a wild-type sample will show only the cleaved fragments.

Multiplex Real-time PCR for Specific Edit Verification

This protocol, based on [35], is designed for sensitive and quantitative detection of a specific nucleotide edit.

• Assay Design: Design two TaqMan probes:
  • VIC-labeled Probe: Complementary to the wild-type sequence.
  • FAM-labeled Probe: Complementary to the edited mutant sequence.
  • Design a single pair of primers that flank the edit site.
• Reaction Setup: Prepare a multiplex real-time PCR reaction containing:
  • 1X TaqMan Genotyping Master Mix
  • Forward and Reverse primer (e.g., 900 nM each)
  • Wild-type and mutant probes (e.g., 200 nM each)
  • 10-50 ng of plant genomic DNA.
• Amplification and Detection: Run the reaction on a real-time PCR system using standard cycling conditions.
• Analysis: The presence of a mutation is determined by the absence of the wild-type signal (VIC) and the presence of the mutant signal (FAM) in the edited samples. This assay can detect edits in mixtures with as little as 0.1% of the targeted lines [35].

Successful detection of CRISPR edits relies on a foundation of specific reagents, enzymes, and bioinformatic tools.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for CRISPR Detection in Plants

Reagent / Solution	Function	Example Products / Notes
Purified Cas Nuclease	Core component of the PCR/RNP method for in vitro cleavage.	Recombinantly expressed SpCas9, FnCpf1 [9].
T7 Endonuclease I	Enzyme that cleaves mismatched heteroduplex DNA in T7EI assay.	Commercially available kits from NEB.
TaqMan Probes & Master Mix	For allele-specific detection and quantification via multiplex qPCR.	Custom-designed dual-labeled probes [35].
LAMP Kit	For rapid, isothermal amplification of transgenes in early screening.	Available from suppliers like Eiken Chemical; provides colorimetric readout [35].
gRNA Design Tools	Bioinformatics platforms for predicting gRNA efficiency and off-targets.	CRISPOR, CHOPCHOP, CRISPR Library Designer [82].
Sequence Deconvolution Software	To decode complex Sanger sequencing chromatograms from edited populations.	TIDE, DSDecode, CRISPResso [9].

The expanding toolbox for detecting CRISPR-induced mutations in plants enables researchers to build a coherent, efficient, and regulatory-compliant workflow. The stepwise strategy—progressing from rapid transgene screening (LAMP) through mutation verification (PCR/RNP) to definitive characterization (Sanger/NGS/multiplex qPCR)—ensures that resources are allocated effectively while generating the high-quality data required for both scientific publication and regulatory approval. As global policies for gene-edited crops continue to solidify, the development and implementation of robust molecular detection methods will remain imperative for verifying intended edits, confirming the absence of foreign DNA, and facilitating the global trade of improved plant varieties. Future advancements will likely see greater integration of artificial intelligence in gRNA design and outcome prediction [83], as well as the refinement of field-deployable detection kits, further streamlining the path from lab to field.

Challenges in Detecting Transgene-Free Edited Plants (SDN-1/SDN-2)

The advent of site-directed nuclease (SDN) technologies, particularly CRISPR-Cas9, has revolutionized plant biotechnology by enabling precise genetic modifications without incorporating foreign DNA. These techniques are categorized as SDN-1, which introduces small insertions or deletions (indels) via non-homologous end joining; SDN-2, which uses a DNA template to introduce specific small sequence changes; and SDN-3, which inserts larger DNA sequences [84]. While SDN-1 and SDN-2 applications can produce plants free of transgenes, they present unprecedented challenges for detection and identification, especially in regulatory contexts where distinguishing these edits from natural mutations is essential [35] [85]. The European Commission has recognized that targeted mutagenesis can produce alterations potentially obtainable through natural mutations or conventional breeding, further complicating the regulatory landscape [84].

This analytical challenge is particularly acute for enforcement laboratories tasked with verifying the presence of genome-edited products in food, feed, and seeds. Unlike traditional genetically modified organisms (GMOs) that contain foreign genetic elements such as promoter sequences, transgene-free edited plants may harbor only minimal sequence changes—sometimes as small as a single nucleotide [35] [85]. This article systematically compares the performance of current detection methodologies, provides detailed experimental protocols, and presents a structured framework for selecting appropriate analytical strategies based on specific application requirements.

Methodological Landscape: Techniques for Detecting Genome Edits

Classification of Detection Strategies

Detection methods for transgene-free edited plants can be broadly categorized into several approaches, each with distinct advantages and limitations. These include techniques targeting the editing machinery during early development phases, methods for verifying specific genetic alterations, and approaches for confirming the absence of transgenic elements.

Table 1: Classification of Detection Methods for Transgene-Free Edited Plants

Method Category	Molecular Target	Key Applications	Sensitivity	Limitations
Element-Specific Screening	Cas9 protein gene, vector backbone	Early-phase screening, presence/absence detection	High (0.1% for some methods)	Only applicable if foreign DNA is present
Sequence Alteration Detection	Single nucleotide variants, indels	Verification of specific edits, zygosity determination	Variable (0.1%-10%)	Challenging for single-base changes
Next-Generation Sequencing	Entire target regions or genomes	Comprehensive characterization, off-target analysis	Very high (<0.1%)	Costly, computationally intensive
Digital PCR	Specific allele variants	Absolute quantification, rare allele detection	High (0.1%-1%)	Limited multiplexing capability

Experimental Workflow for Comprehensive Analysis

A robust detection strategy for transgene-free edited plants typically follows a stepwise approach, as demonstrated in the detection of a CRISPR-Cas9 edited tomato line with a single base pair deletion in the Solanum lycopersicum pectate lyase (SlPL) gene [35]. The workflow progresses from initial screening to precise verification:

Figure 1: Stepwise detection workflow for transgene-free edited plants, illustrating the pathway from initial screening to final verification.

This workflow begins with rapid screening for the presence of the Cas9 protein gene using loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) and conventional PCR assays [35]. A negative result at this stage indicates the potential absence of transgenic elements, prompting further analysis to verify the intended edit. The edited tomato line with a single base pair deletion was subsequently confirmed using multiplex real-time PCR with fluorescent-labeled dual probes simultaneously targeting edited and unedited sequences [35]. This approach employed negative selection, where mutation presence was determined by signal absence compared to the wild-type, achieving sensitivity sufficient to detect 0.1% of targeted lines [35].

Comparative Performance of Detection Methods

Technical Benchmarking of Quantification Techniques

Accurate detection and quantification of CRISPR edits with high sensitivity is crucial for developing new genome editing applications in plants. Recent systematic benchmarking studies have evaluated multiple techniques across a range of editing efficiencies [31].

Table 2: Benchmarking of Genome Editing Quantification Methods [31]

Method	Accuracy vs AmpSeq	Sensitivity	Cost	Technical Complexity	Best Applications
Targeted Amplicon Sequencing (AmpSeq)	Gold Standard	Very High (<0.1%)	High	High	Research, regulatory compliance
PCR-Capillary Electrophoresis/IDAA	High	High (0.1-1%)	Medium	Medium	High-throughput screening
Droplet Digital PCR	High	High (0.1-1%)	Medium-High	Medium	Absolute quantification
PCR-Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism	Medium	Medium (1-5%)	Low	Low	Preliminary screening
T7 Endonuclease 1 Assay	Low-Medium	Low-Medium (1-10%)	Low	Low	Initial efficiency assessment
Sanger Sequencing + Deconvolution	Variable	Medium (1-5%)	Medium	Low-Medium	Low-edit frequency scenarios

This comprehensive benchmarking revealed significant differences in the quantified frequency of CRISPR edits depending on the method used [31]. When benchmarked against targeted amplicon sequencing (AmpSeq)—considered the "gold standard" due to its sensitivity, accuracy, and reliability—PCR-capillary electrophoresis/InDel detection by amplicon analysis (PCR-CE/IDAA) and droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) methods demonstrated the highest accuracy [31]. The sensitivity of Sanger sequencing-based approaches was notably affected by the base caller algorithm used, particularly for detecting low-frequency edits [31].

Advanced Detection Systems for Single-Nucleotide Variations

For SDN-1 applications producing single-nucleotide changes, specialized detection systems have been developed. The multiplex TaqMan real-time PCR approach for the edited tomato line exemplifies this specialized application [35]. This method uses dual fluorescent-labeled probes that simultaneously target the edited and unedited sequences, with the edited variant detected by the absence of the wild-type signal—a approach known as negative selection [35].

The sensitivity of this real-time PCR method (0.1%) makes it suitable for regulatory applications where trace detection is required [35]. Furthermore, the approach includes confirmation of the non-transgenic nature of the edited line by targeting common screening elements present in globally approved GM tomato events, thus providing comprehensive characterization [35].

Research Reagent Solutions for Detection Experiments

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Detection of Transgene-Free Edited Plants

Reagent/Category	Specific Examples	Function in Detection Workflow
Amplification Enzymes	LAMP enzyme mix, Taq polymerase	DNA amplification for screening and verification
Detection Probes	TaqMan dual-labeled probes, fluorescent dyes	Sequence-specific detection, multiplex real-time PCR
Reference Materials	Wild-type genomic DNA, synthetic target sequences	Assay validation, calibration curves
Sequencing Reagents	AmpSeq library preparation kits, Sanger sequencing reagents	Comprehensive mutation characterization
Digital PCR Reagents	ddPCR supermix, droplet generation oil	Absolute quantification of edited alleles
Specificity Verification Tools	Off-target prediction algorithms, synthetic gRNA targets	Assessing method specificity, validating detection

Regulatory Context and Method Selection Framework

The regulatory landscape for plants derived from new genomic techniques varies globally, influencing detection requirements. Countries like India have deregulated SDN-1 and SDN-2 category plants, provided developers submit sufficient molecular evidence demonstrating intended mutations, no biologically relevant off-target changes, and phenotypic equivalence where necessary [35]. In contrast, the European Union currently subjects all NGT-derived products to existing GMO regulations [84] [85].

This regulatory divergence necessitates careful method selection based on the specific application context. The following diagram illustrates the decision process for selecting appropriate detection methods based on analytical needs and regulatory requirements:

Figure 2: Method selection framework for detecting transgene-free edited plants based on application context and regulatory requirements.

The detection of transgene-free edited plants (SDN-1/SDN-2) presents distinct challenges that require sophisticated methodological approaches. While techniques such as multiplex real-time PCR and AmpSeq provide robust solutions for verification and quantification, the field continues to evolve with emerging technologies. The benchmarking data presented here offers researchers evidence-based guidance for selecting appropriate methods based on their specific needs for sensitivity, accuracy, and throughput. As regulatory frameworks continue to develop globally, reliable detection methods will play an increasingly crucial role in facilitating the responsible adoption of genome-edited crops. Future methodological developments will likely focus on enhancing multiplexing capabilities, reducing costs, and improving accessibility for enforcement laboratories worldwide.

Validation, Comparative Analysis, and Regulatory Application of Detection Platforms

In plant genome editing, the accurate detection of CRISPR-induced mutations is not merely a technical step but a fundamental determinant of experimental success and regulatory acceptance. The establishment of a robust validation framework ensures that observed phenotypic changes are unequivocally linked to targeted genetic modifications, rather than random mutations or unintended off-target effects. This framework, built on the pillars of specificity, sensitivity, and reproducibility, provides the critical data required to confirm editing efficiency, assess potential unintended consequences, and validate the stability of edited lines across generations. For researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals, implementing such a framework is particularly challenging in plant systems due to complex genomic architectures featuring high ploidy levels, extensive gene families, and repetitive sequences that complicate mutation detection and off-target prediction [86]. The validation approaches discussed herein provide a structured pathway to navigate these complexities, enabling the development of genetically stable, precisely edited plant lines with confidence.

Core Performance Metrics for CRISPR Mutation Detection

A comprehensive validation framework for CRISPR mutation detection must be quantitatively assessed through three interdependent performance metrics: specificity, sensitivity, and reproducibility. Each metric addresses a distinct aspect of analytical performance, forming a complete picture of detection reliability.

Specificity refers to the method's ability to accurately distinguish true on-target mutations from background noise, false positives, and particularly, off-target edits in genomic regions with sequence similarity to the intended target. In plant research, this is crucial due to the prevalence of gene families and duplicated genomic regions. High specificity ensures that phenotypic observations are correctly attributed to the intended genetic modification [86].

Sensitivity defines the lower detection limit for identifying edited alleles, particularly important for detecting low-frequency off-target events and mosaic editing in early generations. Sensitivity is typically expressed as the limit of detection (LOD) or the minimum variant allele frequency that can be reliably distinguished from background. Methods with higher sensitivity can identify rare editing events that might otherwise go undetected but could have significant biological consequences [87].

Reproducibility measures the consistency of results across different experimental replicates, operators, laboratories, and temporal periods. For plant editing, this includes stability of editing outcomes across generations, which is essential for regulatory approval and commercial deployment. A reproducible method delivers consistent mutation detection rates and editing efficiency calculations regardless of when or by whom the analysis is performed [88].

Table 1: Comparison of Key CRISPR Mutation Detection Methods

Method	Key Strength	Limitation	Best Application Context	Reported Sensitivity
CRISPECTOR with Long-read Sequencing	Accurately discriminates between highly similar gene family members; full-length amplicon coverage preserves genomic context [86]	Higher cost per sample compared to short-read methods; more complex data analysis	Ideal for analyzing cross-reactivity in gene families; complex plant genomes with high sequence redundancy	Detects low-frequency off-targets with statistical confidence; enables accurate assignment of editing events to specific homologous loci [86]
DNABERT-Epi (Computational Prediction)	Integrates pre-trained genomic language model with epigenetic features (H3K4me3, H3K27ac, ATAC-seq) [89]	Computational resource-intensive; requires epigenetic data for optimal performance	In silico off-target prediction prior to experiments; guide RNA selection and optimization	Demonstrates superior off-target prediction performance compared to five state-of-the-art methods across seven datasets [89]
CRISPR-based Biosensors (e.g., DETECTR, SHERLOCK)	Rapid, portable detection with minimal equipment; can be deployed for on-site testing [87]	Primarily qualitative or semi-quantitative; limited multiplexing capability in current formats	Rapid screening of edited lines in field applications; point-of-care detection in resource-limited settings	High sensitivity for specific targets; can be integrated with isothermal amplification for greater efficiency [87]

Experimental Protocols for Comprehensive Validation

Protocol 1: Analysis of Editing Specificity in Gene Families Using Long-Read Sequencing

The following protocol, adapted from a framework applied to Solanum lycopersicum, provides a robust method for detecting both on-target and off-target editing activity across homologous gene family members, addressing a key challenge in plant genome editing [86].

1. Experimental Design and Guide Selection

• Select target gene families with biological relevance and sequence similarities (e.g., ethylene response factors, UDP-glycosyltransferases, LOB domain-containing proteins)
• Design specific guides targeting coding regions of each gene family member using established tools (e.g., GoGenome)
• Include appropriate controls: non-edited wild-type plants and mock-treated plants transformed with Agrobacterium without CRISPR constructs

2. Plant Transformation and Tissue Collection

• Sterilize seeds (70% ethanol for 3 minutes, followed by 3% commercial bleach for 15 minutes)
• Germinate sterilized seeds on half-strength MS medium under controlled tissue culture conditions
• Excise cotyledons after 7-10 days and place on co-cultivation medium
• Transform with Agrobacterium rhizogenes (strain ATCC 15834) carrying CRISPR constructs via immersion for 15 minutes
• Transfer to selection medium containing appropriate antibiotics (e.g., 250 mg/L cefotaxime and 50 mg/L kanamycin)
• Harvest emerging hairy roots after 10 days for DNA extraction

3. DNA Extraction and Library Preparation

• Extract genomic DNA using CTAB method
• Design primers approximately 500 bp upstream and downstream of target sites
• Amplify target regions using high-fidelity DNA polymerase (e.g., Q5 High-Fidelity DNA Polymerase)
• Prepare SMRTbell libraries using PacBio Barcoded Overhang Adapters for multiplexed amplicon sequencing

4. Sequencing and Data Analysis

• Sequence using long-read platform (e.g., PacBio)
• Process data through CRISPECTOR analysis pipeline (v2.0) for detection of on-target and off-target events with high sensitivity
• Statistically quantify editing frequency across gene family members

This protocol's key advantage is its use of long-read sequencing, which provides full-length amplicon coverage that preserves genomic context and enables accurate discrimination between highly similar gene family members—a significant limitation of short-read approaches [86].

Protocol 2: Computational Off-Target Prediction with DNABERT-Epi

DNABERT-Epi represents a novel approach that integrates a pre-trained DNA language model with epigenetic features to enhance off-target prediction, providing a powerful in silico validation tool prior to experimental work [89].

1. Data Collection and Preprocessing

• Obtain sgRNA sequences and potential off-target sites
• Acquire epigenetic data for relevant cell types: H3K4me3 (promoter regions), H3K27ac (enhancer regions), and ATAC-seq (chromatin accessibility)
• Process epigenetic features by extracting signal values within 1000 bp window centered on cleavage site (±500 bp)
• Cap outlier values exceeding Q1 - 1.5IQR or Q3 + 1.5IQR boundaries
• Apply Z-score normalization across entire dataset
• Divide normalized signal into 100 bins of 10 bp each, calculating average signal for each bin to generate 300-dimensional epigenetic feature vector

2. Model Implementation and Fine-Tuning

• Utilize pre-trained DNABERT model (3-mer version) trained on human genome
• Fine-tune model on CRISPR off-target datasets using transfer learning approach
• Integrate epigenetic features with sequence representations in multi-modal architecture
• Train on diverse off-target datasets including both in vitro (CHANGE-seq) and in cellula (GUIDE-seq, TTISS) data

3. Prediction and Interpretation

• Generate off-target scores for potential off-target sites
• Apply SHAP and Integrated Gradients interpretability techniques to identify sequence-level patterns and epigenetic marks influencing predictions
• Validate predictions against experimental gold standard datasets

This approach demonstrates that leveraging both large-scale genomic knowledge through pre-trained foundation models and multi-modal data integration significantly enhances predictive accuracy for CRISPR off-target effects [89].

Visualization of Validation Workflows

Diagram 1: Comprehensive validation workflow integrating computational prediction and experimental verification for detecting CRISPR-induced mutations in plants.

Diagram 2: Computational analysis pipeline using DNABERT-Epi model that integrates genomic sequence information with epigenetic features for enhanced off-target prediction.

Comparative Performance Analysis of Detection Methods

Table 2: Performance Metrics Across Detection Platforms

Method Category	Specificity Performance	Sensitivity (Theoretical LOD)	Reproducibility (CV%)	Throughput	Multiplexing Capacity
Long-read Sequencing + CRISPECTOR	High (discriminates between paralogs with >95% accuracy) [86]	Detects indels at 0.1% VAF [86]	<5% (technical replicates)	Medium (batch processing)	High (multiplexed amplicons)
Computational Prediction (DNABERT-Epi)	Integrates both sequence context and epigenetic features for enhanced specificity [89]	N/A (computational prediction)	Consistent performance across multiple benchmark datasets [89]	High (in silico)	Virtually unlimited
CRISPR Biosensors	Specificity determined by guide RNA and Cas protein [87]	aM to fM range for nucleic acids [87]	15-25% (device-to-device variation)	High (point-of-care)	Low to medium (limited multiplexing)
Sanger Sequencing + Deconvolution	Medium (challenged by complex edits)	5-10% VAF (limited by background) [86]	10-15% (inter-lab variability)	Low	Low
Illumina Short-read Sequencing	High (but struggles with paralogous regions) [86]	0.1-1% VAF with sufficient coverage	<5% (well-established protocols)	High	High

Table 3: Application-Based Method Selection Guide

Research Objective	Recommended Primary Method	Complementary Validation Method	Key Considerations
Characterization of editing in gene families	Long-read sequencing + CRISPECTOR [86]	DNABERT-Epi computational prediction [89]	Essential for species with high gene family diversity; long reads resolve paralog ambiguity
High-throughput guide screening	DNABERT-Epi computational prediction [89]	Targeted amplicon sequencing	Significantly reduces experimental burden by pre-screening guides with high off-target potential
Field deployment & rapid screening	CRISPR-based biosensors [87]	Laboratory confirmation of subset of samples	Trade-off between speed and comprehensive detection; ideal for preliminary screening
Regulatory submission & comprehensive safety assessment	Multi-platform approach: Long-read sequencing + computational prediction	Independent replication across generations	Required for stable, heritable edits; demonstrates thorough evaluation of potential off-target effects

Table 4: Key Research Reagent Solutions for CRISPR Validation in Plants

Reagent/Resource	Function	Example Products/Platforms	Application Notes
CRISPR-GATE Repository	Comprehensive web repository consolidating publicly available genome editing tools [88]	https://crispr-gate.daasbioinfromaticsteam.in/	Categorized interface for quick access to tools based on specific experimental needs
CRISPECTOR Software	Detects both on- and off-target editing events with statistical confidence [86]	CRISPECTOR v2.0	Specifically designed for analyzing editing activity in complex genomes; incorporates statistical modeling for low-frequency off-target detection
DNABERT-Epi Model	Computational prediction of off-target effects using pre-trained DNA foundation model [89]	Available at https://github.com/kimatakai/CRISPR_DNABERT	Integrates genomic sequence with epigenetic features (H3K4me3, H3K27ac, ATAC-seq); requires fine-tuning for optimal performance in specific systems
Long-read Sequencing Platforms	Enables full-length amplicon coverage to resolve editing in repetitive regions and gene families [86]	PacBio SMRT sequencing, Oxford Nanopore	Critical for plant genomes with high sequence redundancy; preserves genomic context for accurate assignment of editing events
High-Fidelity DNA Polymerase	Accurate amplification of target regions for sequencing analysis	Q5 High-Fidelity DNA Polymerase	Essential for minimizing PCR errors that could be misinterpreted as editing events
CTAB DNA Extraction Method	Reliable DNA extraction from plant tissues, including polysaccharide-rich species [86]	Standard laboratory protocol	Provides high-quality DNA with minimal inhibitors for downstream amplification and sequencing

The establishment of a comprehensive validation framework for CRISPR-induced mutations in plant research requires a multi-faceted approach that addresses the unique challenges of plant genomes. By integrating computational prediction tools like DNABERT-Epi with experimental verification through long-read sequencing and CRISPECTOR analysis, researchers can achieve an optimal balance of specificity, sensitivity, and reproducibility. This framework acknowledges that no single method provides a complete picture—rather, a hierarchical approach that leverages the complementary strengths of different platforms offers the most robust solution. As CRISPR technologies continue to evolve toward more precise editing systems, the validation framework must similarly advance, incorporating new computational models, sequencing technologies, and biosensing platforms. The standardized approach outlined here provides a foundation for generating reliable, reproducible data that meets both scientific and regulatory standards, ultimately accelerating the development of improved crop varieties through precise genome editing.

Comparative Analysis of Detection Methods: A Focus on Cost, Throughput, and Accessibility

The field of plant genome editing has been revolutionized by CRISPR technologies, enabling precise genetic modifications for crop improvement. A critical yet often underemphasized component of this workflow is the accurate detection and quantification of CRISPR-induced mutations. The selection of an appropriate detection method directly impacts research validity, development timelines, and resource allocation. For researchers and drug development professionals working in plant biology, the choice involves a careful balance between technical performance, operational cost, and practical accessibility [90].

Current research practices employ vastly different techniques to quantify genome editing outcomes, which limits the comparability and repeatability of results across studies [90]. This comparison guide addresses this challenge by providing a systematic, data-driven evaluation of mainstream detection methodologies, benchmarking their performance across standardized metrics. The analysis is framed within the practical constraints of plant research laboratories, where scalability, sensitivity, and cost-effectiveness are paramount for accelerating the development of improved crop varieties.

Methodologies at a Glance: A Quantitative Comparison

A comprehensive benchmarking study systematically evaluated techniques for quantifying plant genome editing efficiency across a wide range of editing efficiencies. The study assessed methods based on their accuracy, sensitivity, and cost, using targeted amplicon sequencing (AmpSeq) as the benchmark [90]. The following table summarizes the key performance characteristics of these detection methods, providing researchers with a clear framework for selection.

Table 1: Performance Comparison of CRISPR Mutation Detection Methods for Plant Research

Detection Method	Relative Cost	Throughput	Sensitivity	Key Strengths	Major Limitations
Targeted Amplicon Sequencing (AmpSeq)	High	High	Very High (Gold Standard)	Quantitative, detects all mutation types, high accuracy	Higher cost, requires bioinformatics expertise
PCR-Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism (RFLP)	Low	Medium	Low (≥5-10%)	Inexpensive, simple data analysis, accessible	Low sensitivity, requires specific restriction site
T7 Endonuclease 1 (T7E1) Assay	Low	Medium	Low (≥5%)	Inexpensive, no special equipment, rapid	Low sensitivity and quantification accuracy
Sanger Sequencing + Deconvolution	Medium	Low	Medium (≥5-10%)	Widely accessible, provides sequence context	Lower sensitivity, indirect quantification
PCR-Capillary Electrophoresis/IDAA	Medium	High	High (∼1%)	Quantitative, size-based resolution	Limited to smaller indel sizes
Droplet Digital PCR (ddPCR)	High	Medium	Very High (∼0.1-1%)	Absolute quantification, high sensitivity, high precision	High cost, limited multiplexing capability

Detailed Methodologies and Experimental Protocols

High-Sensitivity Quantitative Methods

3.1.1 Targeted Amplicon Sequencing (AmpSeq)

Experimental Protocol:

• PCR Amplification: Design primers flanking the target CRISPR site and amplify the region from purified genomic DNA.
• Library Preparation: Attach sequencing adapters and sample-specific barcodes to the amplicons in a second PCR round.
• Pooling & Sequencing: Combine equimolar ratios of all barcoded libraries into a single pool for high-throughput sequencing on platforms such as Illumina MiSeq.
• Bioinformatic Analysis: Process raw sequencing data through a pipeline including demultiplexing, alignment to a reference sequence, and variant calling to identify and quantify insertion-deletion mutations (indels) [90].

Application Context: AmpSeq is the preferred method for final, publication-quality analysis due to its superior sensitivity and ability to characterize the full spectrum of mutation types. Its higher cost and need for computational resources often limit its use for high-throughput primary screening.

3.1.2 Droplet Digital PCR (ddPCR)

Experimental Protocol:

• Probe Design: Design two sets of hydrolysis (TaqMan) probes: one specific for the wild-type allele and another for a predicted mutant sequence or a reference gene for normalization.
• Partitioning: Partition the PCR reaction into thousands of nanoliter-sized droplets.
• Endpoint PCR: Amplify the target within each droplet.
• Droplet Reading: Analyze each droplet using a droplet reader to detect fluorescence, classifying it as wild-type, mutant, or both.
• Quantification: Use Poisson statistics to calculate the absolute concentration of wild-type and mutant alleles in the original sample based on the ratio of positive to negative droplets [90].

Application Context: ddPCR provides extremely sensitive and absolute quantification without a standard curve, making it ideal for detecting low-frequency mutations and for validating results from other methods.

Medium-Throughput and Accessibility-Focused Methods

3.2.1 PCR-Capillary Electrophoresis/InDel Detection by Amplicon Analysis (PCR-CE/IDAA)

Experimental Protocol:

• Fluorescent PCR: Amplify the target region from genomic DNA using a fluorescently labeled primer.
• Denaturation & Capillary Electrophoresis: Denature the PCR products and separate them by size using capillary electrophoresis.
• Fragment Analysis: Detect the fluorescently labeled fragments, with indels appearing as peaks at sizes different from the wild-type control. The peak areas are used to quantify the editing efficiency [90].

Application Context: This method offers a strong balance between sensitivity, quantitative accuracy, and cost, serving as an excellent intermediary between basic enzymatic assays and more expensive sequencing-based methods.

3.2.2 PCR-Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism (RFLP) Assay

Experimental Protocol:

• PCR Amplification: Amplify the target region from genomic DNA.
• Restriction Digest: Incubate the purified PCR product with a restriction enzyme whose recognition site overlaps the CRISPR cut site. Successful editing disrupts the restriction site.
• Gel Electrophoresis: Separate the digested fragments on an agarose gel. The presence of uncut PCR product indicates a mutated allele, while cleavage indicates a wild-type allele.
• Quantification: Estimate editing efficiency by comparing the band intensities of the cut and uncut products using gel imaging software [90].

Application Context: RFLP is a classic, low-cost method whose utility depends entirely on the presence of a suitable restriction site. It is best for quick, initial assessments when the target site is favorable.

T7 Endonuclease 1 (T7E1) Assay

Experimental Protocol:

• PCR & Heteroduplex Formation: Amplify the target region. Denature and reanneal the PCR products. This creates heteroduplexes (mismatched DNA strands) where wild-type and mutant alleles hybridize.
• T7E1 Digestion: Incubate the heteroduplex DNA with T7 Endonuclease I, which cleaves at mismatched sites.
• Gel Electrophoresis: Separate the digestion products on an agarose gel. The appearance of smaller cleavage fragments indicates the presence of mutations.
• Quantification: Estimate the indel frequency based on the relative intensity of the cleavage bands compared to the full-length PCR product [90].

Application Context: Similar to RFLP, the T7E1 assay is a widely used, accessible first-pass method. However, its sensitivity and quantification accuracy are lower than other techniques.

The workflow below illustrates the decision-making process for selecting an appropriate detection method based on project goals and resources.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Successful detection of CRISPR edits relies on a foundation of specific, high-quality reagents. The table below details key materials and their critical functions in a typical workflow.

Table 2: Essential Reagents for Detecting CRISPR-Induced Mutations

Reagent / Material	Critical Function	Application Notes
High-Purity Genomic DNA	Template for all downstream amplification; purity is vital for assay sensitivity and reproducibility.	Isolate using kits optimized for plant tissues high in polysaccharides and polyphenols.
Target-Specific PCR Primers	Amplify the genomic region flanking the CRISPR target site.	Design for high specificity and efficiency; avoid secondary structures and primer-dimer formation.
Nuclease-Free Water	Solvent for all reaction setups.	Prevents degradation of sensitive reagents and false-positive results from RNase/DNase contamination.
CRISPR-specific ddPCR Assays	Enable absolute quantification of wild-type vs. mutant alleles in droplet digital PCR.	Requires careful design and validation of mutant-specific probes.
Restriction Enzymes (for RFLP)	Cleave wild-type PCR products at the target site for mutation detection.	Utility is conditional on a restriction site overlapping the CRISPR cut site.
T7 Endonuclease I (for T7E1)	Recognizes and cleaves heteroduplex DNA formed by wild-type/mutant hybrids.	A versatile but less sensitive tool for initial mutation screening.
DNA Size Standards	Accurately determine fragment sizes in gel or capillary electrophoresis.	Essential for identifying indel sizes in PCR-CE/IDAA and RFLP assays.
Next-Generation Sequencing Library Prep Kits	Prepare amplicon libraries for high-sensitivity sequencing on platforms like Illumina.	Includes enzymes and buffers for indexing, adapter ligation, and amplification.

The expanding toolbox for detecting CRISPR-induced mutations in plants offers researchers multiple paths forward, each with distinct trade-offs. As the benchmarking data clearly shows, the choice between methods like AmpSeq, ddPCR, PCR-CE, and enzymatic assays (RFLP/T7E1) is not one of absolute superiority but of strategic alignment with project requirements [90]. Sequencing-based methods provide the deepest insights but at a higher cost and complexity, while accessibility-focused methods offer rapid feedback with inherent sensitivity limitations.

The future of CRISPR detection in plant research will likely see greater integration of multiplexed strategies, where high-throughput but lower-sensitivity methods are used for initial screening, followed by validation with high-accuracy techniques like amplicon sequencing. Furthermore, ongoing technological improvements and potential cost reductions in sequencing and ddPCR will continue to shift the balance, making highly sensitive quantification more accessible to routine plant research and breeding programs, ultimately accelerating the development of improved crop varieties.

The adoption of gene-edited (GE) crops has accelerated due to the technology's ability to improve agronomic traits without drastically altering genetic backgrounds. However, this progress presents a significant analytical challenge: the reliable detection of minute, specific mutations, such as single-base pair deletions, which are common outcomes of CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing. Unlike traditional transgenic crops that introduce foreign DNA sequences, GE plants developed via SDN-1 and SDN-2 approaches may contain only small indels or nucleotide substitutions and lack transgenic elements commonly used for identification [35]. This creates an imperative for robust molecular detection methods that can verify gene editing claims, support regulatory compliance, and facilitate global trade of GE products [35].

Detection is particularly challenging in plants with complex genomes or when mutations are exceptionally small. This case study examines a comprehensive methodological framework developed to detect a single-base pair deletion in the Solanum lycopersicum pectate lyase (SlPL) gene, a modification designed to enhance tomato shelf life by reducing fruit softening [35] [91]. We compare the performance of multiple detection platforms, provide detailed experimental protocols, and situate these findings within the broader context of mutation detection in plant research.

Method Comparison: Performance Metrics for SlPL Deletion Detection

Researchers employed a tiered strategy for identifying the SlPL deletion, beginning with initial screening followed by precise verification. The table below summarizes the quantitative performance of key methods evaluated for detecting this single-base pair change.

Table 1: Performance comparison of methods for detecting a single-base pair deletion in the tomato SlPL gene

Detection Method	Sensitivity	Key Advantage(s)	Primary Application	Throughput
Multiplex TaqMan Real-Time PCR	0.1%	High sensitivity, quantitative, high throughput	Final verification & quantification	High
LAMP (Cas9 protein gene)	Not Specified	Rapid, visible color change, minimal equipment	Early-phase screening	Medium
Conventional PCR (Cas9 protein gene)	Not Specified	Simple, accessible equipment	Early-phase screening	Medium
Capillary Electrophoresis (CE)	1 bp resolution	Precise indel sizing, quantitative	Mutation characterization & screening	Medium
Sanger Sequencing with Deconvolution	Limited for low-frequency edits	Provides sequence-level information	Confirmation in clean edits	Low

The selection of an optimal method depends heavily on the experimental context. For early-stage screening when the Cas9 construct is still present, rapid loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) assays targeting the Cas9 protein gene offer a quick, equipment-minimal approach detectable via visible color change [35]. For final verification and quantification of the specific single-base deletion, multiplex TaqMan real-time PCR provides exceptional sensitivity down to 0.1% and reliable quantification [35]. Capillary electrophoresis (CE) represents a powerful alternative, delivering precise information on mutagenesis frequency and indel size with 1 bp resolution, which is particularly valuable for characterizing a range of mutation types beyond single-base deletions [79] [92].

Other studies have systematically benchmarked these methods against targeted amplicon sequencing (AmpSeq), considered the "gold standard." Techniques like PCR-capillary electrophoresis (IDAA) and droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) have demonstrated high accuracy in quantifying editing efficiencies, while the accuracy of Sanger sequencing-based tools (ICE, TIDE) can be affected by factors such as the base-calling algorithm used [31].

Experimental Protocols: Detailed Workflows for Key Assays

Multiplex Real-Time PCR for Single-Base Deletion Verification

This protocol uses a negative selection strategy with dual fluorescently labelled probes to distinguish between wild-type and edited sequences simultaneously in a single reaction [35].

Workflow Overview:

• DNA Extraction: Isolate high-quality genomic DNA from tomato leaf or fruit tissue using a standard CTAB method or commercial kit.
• Primer and Probe Design:
  • Design primers that flank the target deletion site in the SlPL gene.
  • Design two TaqMan probes:
    • VIC-labeled probe: Complementary to the wild-type SlPL sequence.
    • FAM-labeled probe: Complementary to the edited SlPL sequence (spanning the deletion site).
• Reaction Setup: Prepare multiplex real-time PCR reactions containing:
  • Genomic DNA template (50-100 ng)
  • Forward and reverse primers (optimized concentrations)
  • VIC-labeled wild-type probe and FAM-labeled edited probe
  • Real-time PCR master mix
• Amplification and Detection: Run the reaction on a real-time PCR instrument with the following typical cycling conditions:
  • Initial denaturation: 95°C for 10 min
  • 40 cycles of: Denaturation at 95°C for 15 sec, Annealing/Extension at 60°C for 1 min (with fluorescence acquisition)
• Data Analysis: The presence of the deletion is determined by the absence of the wild-type signal (VIC) and the presence of the edited signal (FAM). The ratio of signals allows for quantification of the edited allele frequency [35].

LAMP Assay for Early-Phase Screening of Cas9

This protocol is for rapid initial screening of edited lines when the Cas9 construct is still present, using isothermal amplification for simplicity and speed [35].

Workflow Overview:

• DNA Extraction: Use quickly prepared DNA or crude plant extract.
• Primer Design: Design a set of 4-6 LAMP primers targeting conserved regions of the Cas9 protein gene.
• Reaction Setup: Prepare a LAMP reaction mix containing:
  • DNA template
  • LAMP primer mix
  • Isothermal DNA polymerase with strand-displacement activity
  • dNTPs
  • Magnesium sulfate
  • A colorimetric pH indicator (e.g., phenol red)
• Amplification: Incubate the reaction at a constant temperature (60-65°C) for 30-60 minutes. No thermal cycler is required.
• Result Interpretation: A positive reaction is indicated by a visible color change (e.g., from red to yellow) due to a pH shift in the reaction, confirming the presence of the Cas9 gene [35].

The following diagram illustrates the logical workflow and decision points for selecting and applying these detection methods.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents for Detection Experiments

Successful experimentation requires specific, high-quality reagents. The following table details key solutions used in the featured detection protocols.

Table 2: Key research reagent solutions for detecting CRISPR-induced mutations

Reagent / Solution	Critical Function in the Workflow	Application in This Study
TaqMan Probes (FAM & VIC)	Dual-labeled fluorescent probes for allele-specific detection and quantification in real-time PCR.	Multiplex real-time PCR to simultaneously distinguish wild-type and edited SlPL sequences [35].
LAMP Primer Mix	A set of 4-6 primers designed for highly efficient, isothermal amplification of a target region.	Rapid visual detection of the Cas9 gene during early-phase screening of edited lines [35].
Bst DNA Polymerase	A strand-displacing DNA polymerase essential for isothermal LAMP amplification.	Enzymatic core of the LAMP assay, enabling amplification at a constant temperature [35].
dNTPs	Nucleotide building blocks (dATP, dCTP, dGTP, dTTP) for DNA synthesis during PCR and LAMP.	Essential component in all amplification-based detection methods (PCR, LAMP, qPCR) [35].
Restriction Enzymes	Enzymes that cleave DNA at specific recognition sequences.	Used in PCR-RFLP and CAPS assays to detect edits that abolish a restriction site [31] [79].

Broader Implications for CRISPR Mutation Detection in Plants

The methodological framework applied to the tomato SlPL gene offers a transferable model for the detection of minor CRISPR-induced mutations across diverse plant species. This approach is particularly relevant in the context of evolving global regulations, where SDN-1 and SDN-2 edited plants are increasingly deregulated, provided developers can demonstrate the absence of foreign DNA [35]. The high sensitivity of the multiplex real-time PCR assay (0.1%) makes it suitable for detecting low-level presence in supply chains, thereby supporting food traceability and regulatory compliance [35].

Furthermore, the challenge of genotyping is magnified in polyploid crops, where multiple hom(e)ologous gene copies must be co-edited to achieve a phenotypic effect. In species like sugarcane (2n=100-130), methods such as capillary electrophoresis and Cas9 RNP assays have proven effective for initial screening of complex editing patterns before committing to costly deep sequencing [79] [92]. This underscores a critical principle: the choice of detection method must be aligned with the biological complexity of the target organism, the specific nature of the edit, and the intended application of the results, whether for basic research or regulatory enforcement.

Verification of Non-Transgenic Status in SDN-1/SDN-2 Edited Plants

The verification of non-transgenic status in plants edited with Site-Directed Nuclease version 1 (SDN-1) or version 2 (SDN-2) applications is a critical requirement for both regulatory compliance and fundamental genetic analysis. SDN-1 applications introduce small insertions or deletions (indels) through non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) repair, while SDN-2 applications use a repair template to introduce specific nucleotide changes via homology-directed repair (HDR) [84]. Confirming that these plants do not contain foreign DNA integrated into their genomes is essential because the continued presence of gene-editing machinery can lead to unpredictable genetic changes in subsequent generations, complicate genetic analysis, and trigger regulatory restrictions that vary across global jurisdictions [93]. This comparison guide evaluates the leading experimental methods for generating and verifying non-transgenic edited plants, providing researchers with detailed protocols and performance data to inform their experimental design.

Comparison of Transgene-Free Editing Delivery Methods

Different delivery methods for CRISPR components offer varying efficiencies, technical requirements, and suitability for plant species. The table below summarizes the key characteristics of the primary non-transgenic editing approaches.

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Transgene-Free Editing Delivery Methods

Delivery Method	Typical Editing Efficiency	Regenerable Plant Types	Transgene-Free Rate	Key Advantages	Major Limitations
RNP Delivery	Varies by species and target	Protoplasts of tobacco, rice, lettuce, petunia, grapevine, apple, maize, wheat, soybean, potato, cabbage, banana [94]	Inherently 100% (no foreign DNA) [93]	No foreign DNA; reduced off-target effects and mosaicism [94]	No selection pressure; low regeneration efficiency in many species [93] [94]
Agrobacterium Transient Expression	47.5% mutant shoots (model study on tobacco PDS) [12]	Leaf, hypocotyl, epicotyl, shoot, root, cotyledon, or callus explants [12]	8.2% (model study on tobacco PDS) [12]	Established protocols for many species; no special equipment [12] [93]	Majority of edited plants are mosaic; some plants may have stable T-DNA insertions [93]
Viral Vector Delivery	Depends on virus and target species	Species amenable to viral infection (e.g., Nicotiana benthamiana) [93]	High (viral genomes rarely integrate) [93]	Systemic spread in plant; high expression levels [93]	Currently limited to gRNA delivery (requires Cas9-expressing plants); cargo size constraints [93]

Experimental Protocol: Agrobacterium-Mediated Transient Expression for Non-Transgenic Mutants [12]

• Vector Design: Clone genes encoding Cas9 and sgRNA into a standard binary vector within Agrobacterium tumefaciens.
• Plant Material Preparation: Prepare leaf disc explants from the target plant species (e.g., Nicotiana tabacum).
• Agrobacterium Co-cultivation: Infect explants with Agrobacterium suspension for a 3-4 day co-incubation period in the absence of antibiotic selection to favor transient expression.
• Bacterial Suppression and Callus Induction: Transfer explants to media containing timentin to suppress Agrobacterium growth and induce callus formation.
• Regeneration Without Selection: Regenerate shoots from callus without applying chemical selection pressure, allowing both transformed and non-transformed cells to develop.
• Initial Screening: Identify potential mutants based on phenotype (if available) or via high-throughput molecular screening.

Methodologies for Detecting and Verifying Non-Transgenic Status

After generating putative edited plants, confirming the absence of CRISPR transgenes is crucial. The following workflow and subsequent table outline the logical steps and technical methods for this verification.

Verification Workflow for Non-Transgenic Edited Plants

Table 2: Comparison of Methods for Detecting Genome-Edited Mutations

Detection Method	Detection Principle	Sensitivity	Best For	Cost & Throughput	Key Requirement/Limitation
PCR/RNP [95] [9]	CRISPR RNP cleaves PCR amplicons at wild-type target site; mutants resist cleavage.	High (detects 1-bp deletion in 1:83 mixture) [9]	Polyploid plants (e.g., wheat); low-frequency mutations; large populations [95] [9]	Low cost; applicable for high-throughput screening [95] [9]	Does not require a restriction enzyme site [95]
Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS)	High-throughput sequencing of target amplicons; bioinformatic analysis for variants.	Very High (~0.01%) [9]	Accurate characterization of complex mutation profiles; multiplex editing [12] [9]	Higher cost; medium to high throughput [9]	Produces short reads; may miss large indels [9]
High-Resolution Melting (HRM) [12]	Detects differences in DNA melting behavior due to sequence variants.	Medium	Secondary screening after initial high-throughput identification [12]	Cost-effective for fine identification [12]	Requires special instrument; sensitive to PCR conditions
Sanger Sequencing	Direct sequencing of PCR products; trace decomposition software analyzes heterozygotes.	Low to Medium	Diploid species with simple mutation patterns; when detailed sequence is needed [9]	Higher cost than PCR/RNP or HRM; low throughput [9]	Less effective in polyploids; cannot resolve complex allelic mixtures [9]

Experimental Protocol: PCR/RNP Mutation Detection [9]

• Protein Purification: Express and purify Cas9 (or other nuclease like FnCpf1) protein from E. coli with a C-terminal 6xHis tag.
• gRNA Synthesis: Transcribe sgRNA (for Cas9) or crRNA (for Cpf1) in vitro.
• RNP Complex Assembly: Preassemble the ribonucleoprotein complex by incubating 500 ng of purified nuclease with the synthesized guide RNA.
• Target PCR Amplification: Design primers to amplify a 186-200 bp fragment surrounding the target site from plant genomic DNA.
• In Vitro Cleavage: Incubate the PCR amplicon with the preassembled RNP complex for 2-3 hours in a suitable reaction buffer.
• Gel Electrophoresis Analysis: Run the cleavage reaction products on an agarose gel. A completely digested product indicates a wild-type sequence. The persistence of full-length or larger DNA fragments indicates the presence of edited alleles that resist cleavage.

Experimental Protocol: High-Throughput Screening Using NGS and HRM [12]

• Initial Pooled Screening with NGS: Pool leaf tissue from up to 41 regenerated shoots with one known mutant as a control. Isolate genomic DNA and amplify the target region. Perform Illumina sequencing on the pooled PCR products with high coverage (e.g., 60,000-100,000x). Analyze sequencing data for elevated nucleotide variant frequency (NVF) at the target site to identify potential mutant pools.
• Confirmation with HRM: From the identified mutant pool, screen individual plants using HRM analysis. Amplify the target region from individual genomic DNA samples in the presence of a saturating DNA dye. Analyze the melting curve profile of the PCR products. Altered melting curves compared to wild-type indicate the presence of mutations in individual plants.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents for Verification

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Non-Transgenic Plant Verification

Reagent / Material	Function in Verification Process	Specific Examples & Notes
Purified Nuclease Proteins	Essential component for the PCR/RNP detection method; used for in vitro cleavage of PCR amplicons.	SpCas9, FnCpf1, AsCpf1, high-fidelity SpCas9 variants (SpCas9-HF1, HypaCas9); expressed in and purified from E. coli [95] [9].
In Vitro Transcription Kits	Production of guide RNAs (sgRNA for Cas9, crRNA for Cpf1) for assembly into RNP complexes.	Chemically synthesized or in vitro transcribed gRNAs are combined with purified Cas protein [94] [9].
High-Fidelity DNA Polymerase	Accurate amplification of the target genomic locus from plant DNA for subsequent detection assays.	Critical for reducing PCR-introduced errors in sensitive methods like HRM and NGS [12].
DNA Intercalating Dyes	Enable high-resolution melting analysis by fluorescence monitoring of DNA dissociation during heating.	Saturation-binding dyes like EvaGreen or SYTO9 are used in HRM assays [12].
Plasmid Vectors for Transient Expression	Delivery of CRISPR components without genomic integration via Agrobacterium.	Standard binary vectors for Agrobacterium housing Cas9 and sgRNA expression cassettes [12] [93].
PCR/RE Assay Components	Traditional mutation detection method relying on loss or gain of a restriction enzyme site.	Includes specific restriction enzymes and buffers. Limited by the requirement of a pre-existing or created restriction site [9].

The verification of non-transgenic status in SDN-1 and SDN-2 edited plants relies on a combination of sophisticated delivery and detection techniques. Agrobacterium-mediated transient expression offers a practical balance of efficiency and technical accessibility for many plant species, while RNP delivery provides the cleanest non-transgenic solution for regenerable protoplast systems. For detection, the PCR/RNP method stands out for its sensitivity, applicability in polyploid species, and cost-effectiveness, especially when screening large populations. NGS remains the gold standard for comprehensively characterizing edited alleles. The choice of methodology ultimately depends on the target plant species, available laboratory resources, and the specific requirements of the research or regulatory framework. As global policies on genome-edited crops continue to evolve, the robust verification of non-transgenic status will remain a cornerstone of responsible plant biotechnology research and development.

The journey of a CRISPR-edited plant from a research concept to a commercialized product hinges on the accurate and efficient detection of induced mutations. As global markets for gene-edited crops expand, projected to reach $25.94 billion by 2029, robust detection methods have become indispensable for developers and regulators alike [96]. These methods confirm successful editing events, characterize the nature of mutations, and verify the absence of foreign transgenes—all critical steps for regulatory compliance and consumer acceptance. This guide provides an objective comparison of current mutation detection technologies, equipping researchers with the experimental protocols and analytical frameworks needed to advance commercial trait development.

Comparison of CRISPR Mutation Detection Methods

The selection of an appropriate genotyping method depends on multiple factors, including the crop's ploidy, the required sensitivity, and the stage of the development pipeline. The table below summarizes the key techniques used for identifying CRISPR-induced mutations in plants.

Table 1: Comparison of CRISPR Mutation Detection Methods in Plants

Method	Key Principle	Optimal Use Case	Sensitivity	Information Provided	Cost & Throughput
Amplicon Sequencing (AmpSeq) [31]	Next-generation sequencing of target amplicons	Gold standard validation; research and development	Very High (detects low-frequency edits)	Complete sequence-level data; identifies all indel types and precise sequences	High cost, moderate throughput
Sanger Sequencing [31] [97]	Capillary electrophoresis of sequenced amplicons	Initial screening; low-plex validation	Moderate	Sequence-level data; best for clean, homozygous edits	Low cost, low throughput
Capillary Electrophoresis (CE)/IDAA [31] [79]	Fluorescently labeled PCR and fragment size analysis	High-throughput screening in polyploids; precise indel sizing	High (e.g., detects 2% co-mutation frequency [79])	Precise indel size (1 bp resolution); co-mutation frequency	Moderate cost, high throughput
CRISPR-RNP Assay [79]	In vitro cleavage by Cas9-gRNA complexes	High-throughput screening without restriction site dependency	High (e.g., detects 3.2% co-mutation frequency [79])	Presence/absence of edits; estimated co-mutation frequency	Low cost, high throughput
ddPCR [31]	Partitioning of samples into nanoliter droplets	Absolute quantification of specific edits	High	Absolute quantification of a known edit	High cost, high throughput for specific targets
Multiplex Real-time PCR [20]	Fluorescent probes discriminate between wild-type and edited sequences	Regulatory detection and verification of specific edits	Very High (e.g., 0.1% detection limit [20])	Presence/absence of a specific known edit	Moderate cost, high throughput

For researchers developing commercial traits, the choice of method often evolves with the project. In the early R&D phase, AmpSeq provides the comprehensive data needed to confirm a guide RNA's efficacy and characterize editing outcomes [31]. For routine screening of many transgenic lines, especially in polyploid crops like sugarcane or wheat, Capillary Electrophoresis offers an excellent balance of cost, throughput, and informational value, providing precise indel sizing and frequency data [79]. Finally, for regulatory compliance and supply chain testing, highly sensitive and specific methods like Multiplex Real-time PCR are indispensable for verifying the presence of a specific commercialized edit and confirming the absence of transgenes [20].

Essential Research Reagent Solutions

The following reagents and tools are fundamental for conducting CRISPR detection experiments in plants.

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for CRISPR Detection

Reagent / Solution	Critical Function	Application Notes
High-Fidelity DNA Polymerase [31]	Amplifies target genomic region with minimal errors for downstream analysis.	Essential for all PCR-based detection methods (AmpSeq, CE, RNP assay).
CRISPR-Cas9 Ribonucleoprotein (RNP) [79]	Ready-to-use complex of Cas9 protein and guide RNA for in vitro cleavage assays.	Core component of the Cas9 RNP assay for high-throughput screening.
Fluorescently-Labeled PCR Primers [79]	PCR primers tagged with fluorophores for detection in capillary electrophoresis systems.	Required for the PCR-CE/IDAA method to enable fragment analysis.
TaqMan Probes [20]	Fluorescently-quenched oligonucleotide probes that bind specifically to wild-type or edited sequences.	Key for real-time PCR-based detection and quantification of specific edits.
NGS Library Prep Kit [31]	Prepares amplified DNA fragments for next-generation sequencing.	Necessary for AmpSeq workflows to attach sequencing adapters and barcodes.

Experimental Protocols for Key Detection Methods

Protocol 1: Capillary Electrophoresis (CE) for Polyploid Crops

This protocol, adapted for sugarcane, is ideal for quantifying co-mutation frequency in complex genomes [79].

• DNA Extraction: Isolate high-quality genomic DNA from plant tissue using a standard CTAB method.
• Fluorescent PCR: Amplify the target genomic region using a 6-FAM fluorescently labeled forward primer and an unlabeled reverse primer. Use a high-fidelity polymerase in a 20 µL reaction.
• PCR Purification: Purify the amplified PCR product to remove excess primers and salts.
• Fragment Analysis: Dilute the purified amplicon and run it on a capillary electrophoresis instrument (e.g., an automated DNA analyzer).
• Data Analysis: Use the instrument's software to determine the size (in base pairs) of the detected fluorescent peaks. Compare the electropherogram to a wild-type control. The presence of additional peaks indicates indels. The co-mutation frequency can be estimated based on the relative fluorescence of the wild-type and mutant peaks.

Protocol 2: Cas9 RNP Assay for High-Throughput Screening

This method uses in vitro cleavage to identify edited lines without sequencing [79].

• PCR Amplification: Amplify the target region from plant genomic DNA using standard, unlabeled primers.
• RNP Complex Formation: Assemble a reaction mix containing commercial Cas9 nuclease and the in vitro-transcribed sgRNA corresponding to the target site in the appropriate reaction buffer. Incubate briefly to form the RNP complex.
• In Vitro Cleavage: Add the purified PCR amplicon to the RNP complex and incubate at 37°C for 15-60 minutes to allow for DNA cleavage.
• Gel Electrophoresis: Run the reaction products on an agarose or lab-on-a-chip gel electrophoresis system.
• Analysis: A successfully edited DNA template will resist cleavage and show a strong, uncut band. A non-edited template will be cleaved into smaller fragments. Lines can be scored based on the intensity of the undigested band.

Protocol 3: Multiplex Real-time PCR for Edit Verification

This sensitive protocol is designed to detect a specific single-base-pair deletion in tomato [20].

• DNA Extraction and Normalization: Extract and normalize genomic DNA from test and control samples.
• Probe Design: Design two TaqMan probes for the same target region:
  • VIC-labeled probe: Complementary to the wild-type sequence.
  • FAM-labeled probe: Complementary to the edited sequence (e.g., spanning the deletion).
• Multiplex qPCR Setup: Prepare a real-time PCR reaction mix containing both probes and the target-specific primers.
• Amplification and Detection: Run the qPCR protocol and monitor fluorescence in both the VIC and FAM channels.
• Interpretation: In a successfully edited sample, the FAM signal (edit) will be present, while the VIC signal (wild-type) will be absent or significantly reduced. This method can detect edits at concentrations as low as 0.1% [20].

Visualizing Detection Workflows

The following diagram illustrates the decision-making pathway for selecting an appropriate CRISPR detection method based on project goals.

Decision Workflow for CRISPR Detection Methods

The general workflow for validating CRISPR edits in plants, from DNA preparation to final analysis, is outlined below.

General Workflow for CRISPR Edit Validation

Conclusion

The accurate detection of CRISPR-induced mutations is a cornerstone of modern plant biotechnology, enabling the transition from laboratory research to the development of improved crops. This synthesis of methodologies—from foundational PCR to sophisticated NGS and rapid LAMP assays—provides researchers with a versatile toolkit for characterizing edited lines with high precision. As the global regulatory landscape for gene-edited plants continues to evolve, robust, sensitive, and accessible detection methods will be paramount for ensuring compliance, facilitating trade, and building public trust. Future advancements will likely be driven by the integration of artificial intelligence for improved gRNA design and outcome prediction, the development of even more sensitive field-deployable diagnostics, and the establishment of internationally harmonized validation protocols. These developments will accelerate the delivery of next-generation crops designed to meet the challenges of food security and sustainable agriculture.

References

• 1. HDR vs NHEJ: DNA Repair Pathway Comparison [https://invivobiosystems.com/crispr/hdr-vs-nhej/]
• 2. HDR vs. NHEJ: CRISPR Gene Editing Techniques [https://www.zeclinics.com/blog/hdr-vs-nhej-in-crispr-gene]
• 3. CRISPR activation: identifying and using novel genes for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12450905/]
• 4. DNA Double-Strand Break Repairs and Their Application in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8871565/]
• 5. Comparative analysis of multiple DNA double-strand break ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-025-08187-5]
• 6. Advance trends in targeting homology-directed repair for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9376165/]
• 7. NHEJ vs HDR: Difference when Repairing CRISPR DSB [https://www.idtdna.com/pages/support/faqs/which-repair-pathway-is-most-commonly-used-to-repair-crispr-mediated-double-stranded-breaks-nhej-or-hdr]
• 8. CARBON Newsletter (29 April 2025) - Your Latest ... [https://crisprmedicinenews.com/news/carbon-newsletter-29-april-2025-your-latest-news-about-crispr-in-agrobio/]
• 9. Genotyping genome‐edited mutations in plants using ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6230946/]
• 10. Increasing Cas12a- and Cas9-mediated deletion sizes with ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12581816/]
• 11. CRISPR/Cas Mutation Screening: From Mutant Allele ... [https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-46150-7_5]
• 12. A method for the production and expedient screening of ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41438-018-0023-4]
• 13. A simple validation and screening method for CRISPR/Cas9 ... [https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0312722]
• 14. CRISPR‐driven diagnostics: Molecular mechanisms, clinical ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12464570/]
• 15. CRISPR–Cas based platforms for RNA detection [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/cc/d5cc03257a?page=search]
• 16. Divergence and convergence in international regulatory ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2023.1105426/full]
• 17. Regulatory challenges and global trade implications of ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/bioengineering-and-biotechnology/articles/10.3389/fbioe.2025.1609110/full]
• 18. Global regulatory trends of genome editing technology in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11375430/]
• 19. United States: Crops / Food [https://crispr-gene-editing-regs-tracker.geneticliteracyproject.org/united-states-crops-food/]
• 20. Detection method for CRISPR-Cas9 edited tomato with ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1687157X25001532]
• 21. CRISPR wheat that makes its own fertilizer [https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/11/251123115435.htm]
• 22. CRISPR Clinical Trials: A 2025 Update [https://innovativegenomics.org/news/crispr-clinical-trials-2025/]
• 23. Comparison of Next-Generation Sequencing, Real-Time ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2607/13/10/2344]
• 24. High Resolution Melting Applications for Clinical Laboratory ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2606052/]
• 25. High Resolution Melting (HRM) [https://www.thermofisher.com/us/en/home/life-science/pcr/real-time-pcr/real-time-pcr-applications/genetic-variation-analysis-using-real-time/high-resolution-melting-hrm.html]
• 26. A High Resolution Melting Analysis (HRM) PCR assay for the ... [https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0012762]
• 27. COLD-HRM PCR versus Conventional HRM PCR to Detect ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3128565/]
• 28. Diagnostic accuracy of high-resolution melting curve analysis ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11816084/]
• 29. Evaluation of optimized Real time-PCR HRM assay and ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0732889325000458]
• 30. Optimization of the real-time PCR platform method using ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-16972-9]
• 31. Comprehensive benchmarking of genome editing ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12144422/]
• 32. Comparative Analysis of Methods for Assessing On-Target ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11932317/]
• 33. Genotyping with CRISPR-Cas-derived RNA-guided ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms4157]
• 34. Suitability of Real-Time PCR Methods for New Genomic ... [https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/26/7/3308]
• 35. Detection method for CRISPR-Cas9 edited tomato with ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12613022/]
• 36. A multiplex TaqMan real-time PCR assays for the rapid ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10967403/]
• 37. TaqMan Real-Time PCR Assays [https://www.thermofisher.com/us/en/home/life-science/pcr/real-time-pcr/real-time-pcr-assays.html]
• 38. Leveraging digital technologies to enhance multiplexing in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7614363/]
• 39. Development and validation of cost-effective one-step ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-10413-7]
• 40. Rapid and sensitive screening and identification of ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0956713520300049]
• 41. Evaluation of TaqMan qPCR System Integrating Two ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/srep41392]
• 42. Differential editing efficiencies in cereal crops [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2024.1426184/full]
• 43. Comparative Evaluation of PCR-Based, LAMP and RPA ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11172161/]
• 44. A comprehensive guide to loop-mediated isothermal ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2025.1568657/full]
• 45. Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification (LAMP): The Better ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8393631/]
• 46. Method development and clinical validation of LAMP ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/pediatrics/articles/10.3389/fped.2025.1533100/full]
• 47. CRISPR-based systems for sensitive and rapid on-site COVID ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9174145/]
• 48. An extraction-free and one-pot two-temperature CRISPR ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12506078/]
• 49. LAMP-coupled CRISPR-Cas12a assays for upgrading ... [https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.08.08.25333281v1]
• 50. CRISPR/Cas12a-Enhanced Loop-Mediated Isothermal ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/bioengineering-and-biotechnology/articles/10.3389/fbioe.2022.845688/full]
• 51. Digital PCR: from early developments to its future application ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/lc/d5lc00055f]
• 52. Digital PCR [https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/US/en/technical-documents/protocol/genomics/pcr/digital-pcr]
• 53. Mutation Detection Using Digital PCR | Thermo Fisher Scientific - US [https://www.thermofisher.com/us/en/home/life-science/pcr/digital-pcr/mutation-detection.html]
• 54. NGS, qPCR, or Sanger Sequencing: An Assay Selection ... [https://blog.genewiz.com/ngs-qpcr-or-sanger-sequencing-an-assay-selection-guide]
• 55. Comparison of two digital PCR platforms for quantification ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12622311/]
• 56. BLOG: Selecting the Right Gene Editing Off-Target Assay [https://seqwell.com/guide-to-selecting-right-gene-editing-off-target-assay/]
• 57. CRISPR Sequencing for Agriculture [https://www.cd-genomics.com/agri/crispr-sequencing-for-agriculture.html]
• 58. A large-scale whole-genome sequencing analysis reveals ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6031188/]
• 59. Comparative analysis of CRISPR off-target discovery tools ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10124080/]
• 60. Comparison of Next-Generation Sequencing Systems - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3398667/]
• 61. 2025 and Beyond: The Future of Genomic Data Analysis ... [https://blog.crownbio.com/2025-and-beyond-the-future-of-genomic-data-analysis-and-innovations-in-genomics-services]
• 62. Comprehensive approaches to design efficient gRNA for ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/genome-editing/articles/10.3389/fgeed.2025.1579165/full]
• 63. Comprehensive approaches to design efficient gRNA for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12259558/]
• 64. How To Design Guide RNA for CRISPR [https://www.synthego.com/guide/how-to-use-crispr/design-grna-crispr/]
• 65. Advancing CRISPR with deep learning: A comprehensive ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41017815/]
• 66. Review Advancing CRISPR with deep learning [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2162253125002458]
• 67. Breaking: Deep learning multi-dataset training improves ... [https://crisprmedicinenews.com/news/breaking-deep-learning-multi-dataset-training-improves-crispr-base-editing-predictions/]
• 68. Design of highly functional genome editors by modelling ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09298-z]
• 69. CMN Weekly (19 September 2025) [https://crisprmedicinenews.com/news/cmn-weekly-19-september-2025-your-weekly-crispr-medicine-news/]
• 70. Optimization of CRISPR/Cas12 tools for plant genome editing [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12418774/]
• 71. Off-target effects in CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/bioengineering-and-biotechnology/articles/10.3389/fbioe.2023.1143157/full]
• 72. Construction of multi-targeted CRISPR libraries in tomato ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-59280-6]
• 73. A versatile CRISPR/Cas9 system off-target prediction tool ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-025-08275-6]
• 74. Genome-wide CRISPR off-target prediction and ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-42695-4]
• 75. Off-Target Analysis in Gene Editing and Applications for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8525399/]
• 76. Efficient CRISPR/Cas9-mediated genome editing of ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2025.1677409/full]
• 77. CRISPR with a Double Mismatch Guide RNA Enhances ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12563427/]
• 78. CMN Weekly (17 October 2025) [https://crisprmedicinenews.com/news/cmn-weekly-17-october-2025-your-weekly-crispr-medicine-news/]
• 79. Comparison of genotyping assays for detection of targeted ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/genome-editing/articles/10.3389/fgeed.2024.1505844/full]
• 80. hafoe: an interactive tool for the analysis of chimeric AAV ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41434-025-00548-3]
• 81. Confirm CRISPR Success: 5 Simple Methods [https://bitesizebio.com/44103/how-to-confirm-your-crispr-cas9-genome-editing-was-successful/]
• 82. CRISPR Screening Protocol: A Step-by-Step Guide [https://www.cd-genomics.com/biomedical-ngs/resource/crispr-screening-protocol-genetyping.html]
• 83. Revolutionizing CRISPR technology with artificial intelligence [https://www.nature.com/articles/s12276-025-01462-9]
• 84. The Generic Risks and the Potential of SDN-1 Applications ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8622673/]
• 85. Detection of commercialized plant products derived from ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956713523002694]
• 86. Cross-Activity Analysis of CRISPR/Cas9 Editing in Gene ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12293931/]
• 87. CRISPR revolution: Unleashing precision pathogen ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S104620232500115X]
• 88. CRISPR-GATE: a one-stop repository and guide to ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12576957/]
• 89. Improved CRISPR/Cas9 off-target prediction with DNABERT ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12611124/]
• 90. Comprehensive benchmarking of genome editing ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40487430/]
• 91. Mutagenesis of SlNAC4 by CRISPR/Cas9 alters gene ... [https://www.maxapress.com/article/doi/10.48130/VR-2021-0008]
• 92. Comparison of genotyping assays for detection of targeted ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11669508/]
• 93. Advances in gene editing without residual transgenes in plants [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8968301/]
• 94. Non-GM Genome Editing Approaches in Crops [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/genome-editing/articles/10.3389/fgeed.2021.817279/full]
• 95. Genotyping genome-edited mutations in plants using CRISPR ribonucleoprotein complexes - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29723918/]
• 96. Plant Breeding And CRISPR Plants Global Market Report ... [https://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/5782803/plant-breeding-crispr-plants-global-market-report?srsltid=AfmBOoooOew0uY9Jcz1J9tCqg4q853y_3Xm4H8eWa5lsk59zDNG3W5ek]
• 97. CRISPR Validation Sequencing for Agriculture [https://www.cd-genomics.com/agri/crispr-validation-sequencing-for-agriculture.html]