Final answer:
While CRISPR-Cas9 DNA editing can be guided, control over DNA repair mechanisms NHEJ and HR is imperfect, and outcomes can vary. Distinguishing between repair outcomes is possible through detailed analysis, and improved precision can be achieved with techniques like prime editing.
Step-by-step explanation:
Control and Distinguishing of DNA Repair Mechanisms
In the CRISPR-Cas9 system, it is challenging to precisely control whether non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) or homologous recombination (HR) will be the mechanism used to repair double-stranded breaks in the DNA. While both mechanisms play crucial roles in the process, HR requires the presence of a homologous sequence to serve as a template for repair, whereas NHEJ joins the broken DNA ends directly, often introducing mutations.
Distinguishing between these outcomes is possible by analyzing the edited sequences post-repair. Sequencing techniques can identify the hallmark imprecisions of NHEJ like insertions or deletions, known as indels, while HR outcomes will be precise if a template was provided. For predictable editing outcomes, newer techniques such as prime editing have been developed, improving the precision of repairs.
While the control over DNA repair mechanisms can be somewhat directed by manipulating the cellular conditions or by providing a DNA template to influence HR, the inherent nature of these processes means there is always a degree of unpredictability. Therefore, researchers must verify the outcome of CRISPR-Cas9 editing by examining the genetic sequence of the edited cells and comparing it to the intended design.