Table 1. SLP guide efficiency for insertion of rpl-28p::mKate2.
| Strain | Guide Sequence | Reference | Doench Scorea | SSC Scoreb | Specificity Scorec | Marker Positive Broods | HygR Resistant Broods (%) | Correct Integration Broods (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PX692 | GTTTGAGTAGAGCACTCAGGAGG | Kane et al. (2017). | 66.9 | 0.7991 | 99.3 | 59 | 5 (8.5%) | 3 (5.1%) |
| PX693 | GACAGTGGACATCTAAGCGGAGG | Kane et al. (2017). | 61.5 | 1.2308 | 100.0 | 60 | 1 (1.7%) | 1 (1.7%) |
| PX694 | GTCCAGCGGCAGATCGGCGGAGG | Ge et al. (2016) | 45.1 | 1.0511 | 99.7 | 73 | 7 (9.6%) | 5 (6.8%) |
| PX695 | GAGTTCTGTAATTCAGCATAAGG | Agudelo et al. (2017). | 52.8 | −0.0095 | 99.0 | 74 | 1 (1.4%) | 1 (1.4%) |
| PX696 | GGACAGTCCTGCCGAGGTGGAGG | Varshney et al. (2016) | 40.9 | 0.5977 | 99.6 | 76 | 6 (7.9%) | 5 (6.6%) |
| PX697 | GGGGCCTGTGAAATACACAGAGG | N.A. | 84.1 | 0.9981 | 99.2 | 77 | 4 (5.2%) | 4 (5.2%) |
a
Predicted guide efficiency as per (Doench et al. 2016)
b
Predicted guide efficiency as per (Xu et al. 2015)
c
Predicted off-target effects as per (Hsu et al. 2013)