Garneau, J. E. et al. The CRISPR/Cas bacterial immune system cleaves bacteriophage and plasmid DNA. Nature 468, 67–71 (2010).
Google Scholar
Jinek, M. et al. A programmable dual-RNA-guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity. Science 337, 816–821 (2012).
Google Scholar
Sapranauskas, R. et al. The Streptococcus thermophilus CRISPR/Cas system provides immunity in Escherichia coli. Nucleic Acids Res. 39, 9275–9282 (2011).
Google Scholar
Cong, L. et al. Multiplex genome engineering using CRISPR/Cas systems. Science 339, 819–823 (2013).
Google Scholar
Jinek, M. et al. RNA-programmed genome editing in human cells. eLife 2, e00471 (2013).
Google Scholar
Mali, P. et al. RNA-guided human genome engineering via Cas9. Science 339, 823–826 (2013).
Google Scholar
Mekler, V., Minakhin, L. & Severinov, K. Mechanism of duplex DNA destabilization by RNA-guided Cas9 nuclease during target interrogation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 5443–5448 (2017).
Google Scholar
Sternberg, S. H., Redding, S., Jinek, M., Greene, E. C. & Doudna, J. A. DNA interrogation by the CRISPR RNA-guided endonuclease Cas9. Nature 507, 62–67 (2014).
Google Scholar
Szczelkun, M. D. et al. Direct observation of R-loop formation by single RNA-guided Cas9 and Cascade effector complexes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 9798–9803 (2014).
Google Scholar
Anders, C., Niewoehner, O., Duerst, A. & Jinek, M. Structural basis of PAM-dependent target DNA recognition by the Cas9 endonuclease. Nature 513, 569–573 (2014).
Google Scholar
Ivanov, I. E. et al. Cas9 interrogates DNA in discrete steps modulated by mismatches and supercoiling. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 5853–5860 (2020).
Google Scholar
Jiang, F., Zhou, K., Ma, L., Gressel, S. & Doudna, J. A. A Cas9–guide RNA complex preorganized for target DNA recognition. Science 348, 1477–1481 (2015).
Google Scholar
Sternberg, S. H., LaFrance, B., Kaplan, M. & Doudna, J. A. Conformational control of DNA target cleavage by CRISPR–Cas9. Nature 527, 110–113 (2015).
Google Scholar
Cameron, P. et al. Mapping the genomic landscape of CRISPR–Cas9 cleavage. Nat. Methods 14, 600–606 (2017).
Google Scholar
Doench, J. G. et al. Optimized sgRNA design to maximize activity and minimize off-target effects of CRISPR–Cas9. Nat. Biotechnol. 34, 184–191 (2016).
Google Scholar
Hsu, P. D. et al. DNA targeting specificity of RNA-guided Cas9 nucleases. Nat. Biotechnol. 31, 827–832 (2013).
Google Scholar
Lazzarotto, C. R. et al. CHANGE-seq reveals genetic and epigenetic effects on CRISPR–Cas9 genome-wide activity. Nat. Biotechnol. 38, 1317–1327 (2020).
Google Scholar
Tsai, S. Q. et al. GUIDE-seq enables genome-wide profiling of off-target cleavage by CRISPR–Cas nucleases. Nat. Biotechnol. 33, 187–197 (2015).
Google Scholar
Boyle, E. A. et al. Quantification of Cas9 binding and cleavage across diverse guide sequences maps landscapes of target engagement. Sci. Adv. 7, eabe5496 (2021).
Google Scholar
Jones, S. K. Jr et al. Massively parallel kinetic profiling of natural and engineered CRISPR nucleases. Nat. Biotechnol. 39, 84–93 (2021).
Google Scholar
Zhang, L. et al. Systematic in vitro profiling of off-target affinity, cleavage and efficiency for CRISPR enzymes. Nucleic Acids Res. 48, 5037–5053 (2020).
Google Scholar
Singh, D., Sternberg, S. H., Fei, J., Doudna, J. A. & Ha, T. Real-time observation of DNA recognition and rejection by the RNA-guided endonuclease Cas9. Nat. Commun. 7, 12778 (2016).
Google Scholar
Chen, J. S. et al. Enhanced proofreading governs CRISPR–Cas9 targeting accuracy. Nature 550, 407–410 (2017).
Google Scholar
Dagdas, Y. S., Chen, J. S., Sternberg, S. H., Doudna, J. A. & Yildiz, A. A conformational checkpoint between DNA binding and cleavage by CRISPR–Cas9. Sci. Adv. 3, eaao0027 (2017).
Google Scholar
Anders, C., Bargsten, K. & Jinek, M. Structural plasticity of PAM recognition by engineered variants of the RNA-guided endonuclease Cas9. Mol. Cell. 61, 895–902 (2016).
Google Scholar
Jiang, F. et al. Structures of a CRISPR–Cas9 R-loop complex primed for DNA cleavage. Science 351, 867–871 (2016).
Google Scholar
Nishimasu, H. et al. Crystal structure of Cas9 in complex with guide RNA and target DNA. Cell 156, 935–949 (2014).
Google Scholar
Zhu, X. et al. Cryo-EM structures reveal coordinated domain motions that govern DNA cleavage by Cas9. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 26, 679–685 (2019).
Google Scholar
Punjani, A. & Fleet, D. J. 3D variability analysis: resolving continuous flexibility and discrete heterogeneity from single particle cryo-EM. J. Struct. Biol. 213, 107702 (2021).
Google Scholar
Cofsky, J. C., Soczek, K. M., Knott, G. J., Nogales, E. & Doudna, J. A. CRISPR–Cas9 bends and twists DNA to read its sequence. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 29, 395–402 (2022).
Google Scholar
Sung, K., Park, J., Kim, Y., Lee, N. K. & Kim, S. K. Target specificity of Cas9 nuclease via DNA rearrangement regulated by the REC2 domain. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 140, 7778–7781 (2018).
Google Scholar
Kleinstiver, B. P. et al. High-fidelity CRISPR–Cas9 nucleases with no detectable genome-wide off-target effects. Nature 529, 490–495 (2016).
Google Scholar
Yang, M. et al. The conformational dynamics of Cas9 governing DNA cleavage are revealed by single-molecule FRET. Cell Rep. 22, 372–382 (2018).
Google Scholar
Sun, W. et al. Structures of Neisseria meningitidis Cas9 complexes in catalytically poised and anti-CRISPR-inhibited states. Mol. Cell 76, 938–952 e935 (2019).
Google Scholar
Zhang, Y. et al. Catalytic-state structure and engineering of Streptococcus thermophilus Cas9. Nat. Catal. 3, 813–823 (2020).
Google Scholar
Casalino, L., Nierzwicki, L., Jinek, M. & Palermo, G. Catalytic mechanism of non-target DNA cleavage in CRISPR–Cas9 revealed by ab initio molecular dynamics. ACS Catal. 10, 13596–13605 (2020).
Google Scholar
Bravo, J. P. K. et al. Structural basis for mismatch surveillance by CRISPR–Cas9. Nature 603, 343–347 (2022).
Google Scholar
Klum, S. M., Chandradoss, S. D., Schirle, N. T., Joo, C. & MacRae, I. J. Helix-7 in Argonaute2 shapes the microRNA seed region for rapid target recognition. EMBO J. 37, 75–88 (2018).
Google Scholar
Mulepati, S., Heroux, A. & Bailey, S. Crystal structure of a CRISPR RNA-guided surveillance complex bound to a ssDNA target. Science 345, 1479–1484 (2014).
Google Scholar
Blosser, T. R. et al. Two distinct DNA binding modes guide dual roles of a CRISPR–Cas protein complex. Mol. Cell 58, 60–70 (2015).
Google Scholar
Xiao, Y. et al. Structure basis for directional R-loop formation and substrate handover mechanisms in type I CRISPR–Cas system. Cell 170, 48–60 e11 (2017).
Google Scholar
Kuscu, C., Arslan, S., Singh, R., Thorpe, J. & Adli, M. Genome-wide analysis reveals characteristics of off-target sites bound by the Cas9 endonuclease. Nat. Biotechnol. 32, 677–683 (2014).
Google Scholar
Anzalone, A. V., Koblan, L. W. & Liu, D. R. Genome editing with CRISPR–Cas nucleases, base editors, transposases and prime editors. Nat. Biotechnol. 38, 824–844 (2020).
Google Scholar
Pacesa, M. et al. Structural basis for Cas9 off-target activity. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.11.18.469088 (2021).
Donohoue, P. D. et al. Conformational control of Cas9 by CRISPR hybrid RNA–DNA guides mitigates off-target activity in T cells. Mol. Cell 81, 3637–3649.e3635 (2021).
Google Scholar
Newton, M. D. et al. DNA stretching induces Cas9 off-target activity. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 26, 185–192 (2019).
Google Scholar
Vonrhein, C. et al. Data processing and analysis with the autoPROC toolbox. Acta Crystallogr. D 67, 293–302 (2011).
Google Scholar
Liebschner, D. et al. Macromolecular structure determination using X-rays, neutrons and electrons: recent developments in Phenix. Acta Crystallogr. D 75, 861–877 (2019).
Google Scholar
Punjani, A., Rubinstein, J. L., Fleet, D. J. & Brubaker, M. A. cryoSPARC: algorithms for rapid unsupervised cryo-EM structure determination. Nat. Methods 14, 290–296 (2017).
Google Scholar
Punjani, A., Zhang, H. & Fleet, D. J. Non-uniform refinement: adaptive regularization improves single-particle cryo-EM reconstruction. Nat. Methods 17, 1214–1221 (2020).
Google Scholar
Pettersen, E. F. et al. UCSF ChimeraX: structure visualization for researchers, educators, and developers. Protein Sci. 30, 70–82 (2021).
Google Scholar
Emsley, P., Lohkamp, B., Scott, W. G. & Cowtan, K. Features and development of Coot. Acta Crystallogr. D 66, 486–501 (2010).
Google Scholar
Williams, C. J. et al. MolProbity: more and better reference data for improved all-atom structure validation. Protein Sci. 27, 293–315 (2018).
Google Scholar
Krissinel, E. & Henrick, K. Inference of macromolecular assemblies from crystalline state. J. Mol. Biol. 372, 774–797 (2007).
Google Scholar
Li, S., Olson, W. K. & Lu, X. J. Web 3DNA 2.0 for the analysis, visualization, and modeling of 3D nucleic acid structures. Nucleic Acids Res. 47, W26–W34 (2019).
Google Scholar
Edgar, R. C. MUSCLE: multiple sequence alignment with high accuracy and high throughput. Nucleic Acids Res. 32, 1792–1797 (2004).
Google Scholar
Waterhouse, A. M., Procter, J. B., Martin, D. M., Clamp, M. & Barton, G. J. Jalview Version 2-a multiple sequence alignment editor and analysis workbench. Bioinformatics 25, 1189–1191 (2009).
Google Scholar