1 Cornu, T.I., Mussolino, C. & Cathomen, T. Refining strategies to translate genome editing to the clinic. Nat. Med. 23, 415–423 (2017).

2 Kim, S., Kim, D., Cho, S.W., Kim, J. & Kim, J.-S. Highly efficient RNA-guided genome editing in human cells via delivery of purified Cas9 ribonucleoproteins. Genome Res. 24, 1012–1019 (2014).

3 Komor, A.C., Kim, Y.B., Packer, M.S., Zuris, J.A. & Liu, D.R. Programmable editing of a target base in genomic DNA without double-stranded DNA cleavage. Nature 533, 420–424 (2016).

4 Frock, R.L. et al. Genome-wide detection of DNA double-stranded breaks induced by engineered nucleases. Nat. Biotechnol. 33, 179–186 (2015).

5 Xie, F. et al. Seamless gene correction of β-thalassemia mutations in patient-specific iPSCs using CRISPR/Cas9 and piggyBac. Genome Res. 24, 1526–1533 (2014).

6 Guilinger, J.P., Thompson, D.B. & Liu, D.R. Fusion of catalytically inactive Cas9 to FokI nuclease improves the specificity of genome modification. Nat. Biotechnol. 32, 577–582 (2014).

7 Kleinstiver, B.P. et al. High-fidelity CRISPR-Cas9 nucleases with no detectable genome-wide off-target effects. Nature 529, 490–495 (2016).

8 Ran, F.A. et al. Double nicking by RNA-guided CRISPR Cas9 for enhanced genome editing specificity. Cell 154, 1380–1389 (2013).

9 Slaymaker, I.M. et al. Rationally engineered Cas9 nucleases with improved specificity. Science 351, 84–88 (2016).

10 Tsai, S.Q. et al. Dimeric CRISPR RNA-guided FokI nucleases for highly specific genome editing. Nat. Biotechnol. 32, 569–576 (2014).

11 Fu, Y. et al. High-frequency off-target mutagenesis induced by CRISPR-Cas nucleases in human cells. Nat. Biotechnol. 31, 822–826 (2013).

12 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).

13 Koike-Yusa, H., Li, Y., Tan, E.-P. & Velasco-Herrera, M.D.C. & Yusa, K. Genome-wide recessive genetic screening in mammalian cells with a lentiviral CRISPR-guide RNA library. Nat. Biotechnol. 32, 267–273 (2014).

14 van Overbeek, M. et al. DNA repair profiling reveals nonrandom outcomes at Cas9-mediated breaks. Mol. Cell 63, 633–646 (2016).

15 Tan, E.P., Li, Y., Velasco-Herrera, M.D.C., Yusa, K. & Bradley, A. Off-target assessment of CRISPR-Cas9 guiding RNAs in human iPS and mouse ES cells. Genesis 53, 225–236 (2015).

16 Hendel, A. et al. Chemically modified guide RNAs enhance CRISPR-Cas genome editing in human primary cells. Nat. Biotechnol. 33, 985–989 (2015).

17 Ghezraoui, H. et al. Chromosomal translocations in human cells are generated by canonical nonhomologous end-joining. Mol. Cell 55, 829–842 (2014).

18 Weinstock, D.M., Elliott, B. & Jasin, M. A model of oncogenic rearrangements: differences between chromosomal translocation mechanisms and simple double-strand break repair. Blood 107, 777–780 (2006).

19 Canver, M.C. et al. Characterization of genomic deletion efficiency mediated by CRISPR/Cas9 in mammalian cells. J. Biol. Chem. 289, 21312–21324 (2014).

20 Kraft, K. et al. Deletions, inversions, duplications: engineering of structural variants using CRISPR/Cas in mice. Cell Rep. 10, 833–839 (2015).

21 Boroviak, K., Doe, B., Banerjee, R., Yang, F. & Bradley, A. Chromosome engineering in zygotes with CRISPR/Cas9. Genesis 54, 78–85 (2016).

22 Boroviak, K., Fu, B., Yang, F., Doe, B. & Bradley, A. Revealing hidden complexities of genomic rearrangements generated with Cas9. Sci. Rep. 7, 12867 (2017).

23 Parikh, B.A., Beckman, D.L., Patel, S.J., White, J.M. & Yokoyama, W.M. Detailed phenotypic and molecular analyses of genetically modified mice generated by CRISPR-Cas9-mediated editing. PLoS One 10, e0116484 (2015).

24 Shin, H.Y. et al. CRISPR/Cas9 targeting events cause complex deletions and insertions at 17 sites in the mouse genome. Nat. Commun. 8, 15464 (2017).

25 Gasperini, M. et al. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated scanning for regulatory elements required for HPRT1 expression via thousands of large, programmed genomic deletions. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 101, 192–205 (2017).

26 Roberts, S.A. et al. Clustered mutations in yeast and in human cancers can arise from damaged long single-strand DNA regions. Mol. Cell 46, 424–435 (2012).

27 Sinha, S. et al. Microhomology-mediated end joining induces hypermutagenesis at breakpoint junctions. PLoS Genet. 13, e1006714 (2017).

28 Yang, Y., Sterling, J., Storici, F., Resnick, M.A. & Gordenin, D.A. Hypermutability of damaged single-strand DNA formed at double-strand breaks and uncapped telomeres in yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. PLoS Genet. 4, e1000264 (2008).

29 Tichy, E.D. et al. Mouse embryonic stem cells, but not somatic cells, predominantly use homologous recombination to repair double-strand DNA breaks. Stem Cells Dev. 19, 1699–1711 (2010).

30 Hacein-Bey-Abina, S. et al. A serious adverse event after successful gene therapy for X-linked severe combined immunodeficiency. N. Engl. J. Med. 348, 255–256 (2003).

31 Chen, B. et al. Dynamic imaging of genomic loci in living human cells by an optimized CRISPR/Cas system. Cell 155, 1479–1491 (2013).

32 Hsu, P.D. et al. DNA targeting specificity of RNA-guided Cas9 nucleases. Nat. Biotechnol. 31, 827–832 (2013).

33 Strogantsev, R. et al. Allele-specific binding of ZFP57 in the epigenetic regulation of imprinted and non-imprinted monoallelic expression. Genome Biol. 16, 112 (2015).

34 Pettitt, S.J. et al. Agouti C57BL/6N embryonic stem cells for mouse genetic resources. Nat. Methods 6, 493–495 (2009).

35 Yusa, K., Zhou, L., Li, M.A., Bradley, A. & Craig, N.L. A hyperactive piggyBac transposase for mammalian applications. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108, 1531–1536 (2011).

36 Moreno-Mateos, M.A. et al. CRISPRscan: designing highly efficient sgRNAs for CRISPR-Cas9 targeting in vivo. Nat. Methods 12, 982–988 (2015).

37 Hill, J.T. et al. Poly peak parser: method and software for identification of unknown indels using sanger sequencing of polymerase chain reaction products. Dev. Dyn. 243, 1632–1636 (2014).