Base editing is emerging as a potent new strategy to achieve precise gene editing. By combining different nucleobase deaminases with Cas9 or Cpf1 proteins, several base editors have recently been developed to achieve targeted base conversions in different genomic contexts. Importantly, base editors have been successfully applied in animals, plants, and bacteria to induce precise substitutions at the single-base level with high efficiency. In this review, we summarize recent progress in the development and application of base editors and discuss some of the future directions of the technology.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
KimJS.Genome editing comes of age. Nat Protoc, 2016; 11:1573–1578. DOI: 10.1038/nprot.2016.104.
2.
BakRO, Gomez-OspinaN, PorteusMH. Gene editing on center stage. Trends Genet, 2018; 34:600–611. DOI: 10.1016/j.tig.2018.05.004.
3.
UrnovFD. Genome EditingB.C. (Before CRISPR): Lasting LESSONS from the “Old Testament”. CRISPR J. 2018; 1:34–46. DOI: 10.1089/crispr.2018.29007.fyu.
4.
HsuPD, LanderES, ZhangF. Development and applications of CRISPR-Cas9 for genome engineering. Cell, 2014; 157:1262–1278. DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2014.05.010.
5.
KomorAC, BadranAH, LiuDR. CRISPR-based technologies for the manipulation of eukaryotic genomes. Cell, 2017; 168:20–36. DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2016.10.044.
6.
KnottGJ, DoudnaJA. CRISPR-Cas guides the future of genetic engineering. Science, 2018; 361:866–869. DOI: 10.1126/science.aat5011.
7.
CeccaldiR, RondinelliB, D'AndreaAD. Repair pathway choices and consequences at the double-strand break. Trends Cell Biol, 2016; 26:52–64. DOI: 10.1016/j.tcb.2015.07.009.
8.
HustedtN, DurocherD. The control of DNA repair by the cell cycle. Nat Cell Biol, 2016; 19:1–9. DOI: 10.1038/ncb3452.
YangB, LiX, LeiL, et al.APOBEC: From mutator to editor. J Genet Genomics, 2017; 44:423–437. DOI: 10.1016/j.jgg.2017.04.009.
11.
KomorAC, KimYB, PackerMS, et al.Programmable editing of a target base in genomic DNA without double-stranded DNA cleavage. Nature, 2016; 533:420–424. DOI: 10.1038/nature17946.
12.
GaudelliNM, KomorAC, ReesHA, et al.Programmable base editing of A*T to G*C in genomic DNA without DNA cleavage. Nature, 2017; 551:464–471. DOI: 10.1038/nature24644.
13.
HarrisRS, Petersen-MahrtSK, NeubergerMS. RNA editing enzyme APOBEC1 and some of its homologs can act as DNA mutators. Mol Cell, 2002; 10:1247–1253.
14.
HarrisRS, BishopKN, SheehyAM, et al.DNA deamination mediates innate immunity to retroviral infection. Cell, 2003; 113:803–809.
HaradhvalaNJ, PolakP, StojanovP, et al.Mutational strand asymmetries in cancer genomes reveal mechanisms of DNA damage and repair. Cell, 2016; 164:538–549. DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2015.12.050.
17.
SeplyarskiyVB, SoldatovRA, PopadinKY, et al.APOBEC-induced mutations in human cancers are strongly enriched on the lagging DNA strand during replication. Genome Res, 2016; 26:174–182. DOI: 10.1101/gr.197046.115.
18.
RobertsSA, SterlingJ, ThompsonC, et al.Clustered mutations in yeast and in human cancers can arise from damaged long single-strand DNA regions. Mol Cell, 2012; 46:424–435. DOI: 10.1016/j.molcel.2012.03.030.
19.
TaylorBJ, Nik-ZainalS, WuYL, et al.DNA deaminases induce break-associated mutation showers with implication of APOBEC3B and 3A in breast cancer kataegis. Elife, 2013; 2:e00534. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.00534.
20.
ChenJ, MillerBF, FuranoAV. Repair of naturally occurring mismatches can induce mutations in flanking DNA. Elife, 2014; 3:e02001. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.02001.
21.
ChenJ, FuranoAV. Breaking bad: The mutagenic effect of DNA repair. DNA Repair (Amst), 2015; 32:43–51. DOI: 10.1016/j.dnarep.2015.04.012.
22.
BurnsMB, LackeyL, CarpenterMA, et al.APOBEC3B is an enzymatic source of mutation in breast cancer. Nature, 2013; 494:366–370. DOI: 10.1038/nature11881.
23.
BurnsMB, TemizNA, HarrisRS. Evidence for APOBEC3B mutagenesis in multiple human cancers. Nat Genet, 2013; 45:977–983. DOI: 10.1038/ng.2701.
24.
StarrettGJ, LuengasEM, McCannJL, et al.The DNA cytosine deaminase APOBEC3H haplotype I likely contributes to breast and lung cancer mutagenesis. Nat Commun, 2016; 7:12918. DOI: 10.1038/ncomms12918.
25.
RevyP, MutoT, LevyY, et al.Activation-induced cytidine deaminase (AID) deficiency causes the autosomal recessive form of the Hyper-IgM syndrome (HIGM2). Cell, 2000; 102:565–575.
26.
PhamP, BransteitterR, PetruskaJ, et al.Processive AID-catalysed cytosine deamination on single-stranded DNA simulates somatic hypermutation. Nature, 2003; 424:103–107. DOI: 10.1038/nature01760.
27.
AltFW, ZhangY, MengFL, et al.Mechanisms of programmed DNA lesions and genomic instability in the immune system. Cell, 2013; 152:417–429. DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2013.01.007.
28.
SalterJD, SmithHC. Modeling the Embrace of a Mutator: APOBEC Selection of Nucleic Acid Ligands. Trends Biochem Sci, 2018; 43:606–622. DOI: 10.1016/j.tibs.2018.04.013.
29.
SalterJD, BennettRP, SmithHC. The APOBEC Protein Family: United by Structure, Divergent in Function. Trends Biochem Sci, 2016; 41:578–594. DOI: 10.1016/j.tibs.2016.05.001.
30.
RanFA, HsuPD, LinCY, et al.Double nicking by RNA-guided CRISPR Cas9 for enhanced genome editing specificity. Cell, 2013; 154:1380–1389. DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2013.08.021.
31.
ShenB, ZhangW, ZhangJ, et al.Efficient genome modification by CRISPR-Cas9 nickase with minimal off-target effects. Nat Methods, 2014; 11:399–402. DOI: 10.1038/nmeth.2857.
32.
MaliP, AachJ, StrangesPB, et al.CAS9 transcriptional activators for target specificity screening and paired nickases for cooperative genome engineering. Nat Biotechnol, 2013; 31:833–838. DOI: 10.1038/nbt.2675.
33.
FuY, SanderJD, ReyonD, et al.Improving CRISPR-Cas nuclease specificity using truncated guide RNAs. Nat Biotechnol, 2014; 32:279–284. DOI: 10.1038/nbt.2808.
34.
TsaiSQ, WyvekensN, KhayterC, et al.Dimeric CRISPR RNA-guided FokI nucleases for highly specific genome editing. Nat Biotechnol, 2014; 32:569–576. DOI: 10.1038/nbt.2908.
35.
LeiL, ChenH, XueW, et al.APOBEC3 induces mutations during repair of CRISPR-Cas9-generated DNA breaks. Nat Struct Mol Biol, 2018; 25:45–52. DOI: 10.1038/s41594-017-0004-6.
36.
TarantinoME, DowBJ, DrohatAC, et al.Nucleosomes and the three glycosylases: High, medium, and low levels of excision by the uracil DNA glycosylase superfamily. DNA Repair (Amst), 2018; 72:56–63. DOI: 10.1016/j.dnarep.2018.09.008.
37.
KunkelTA, ErieDA. Eukaryotic Mismatch Repair in Relation to DNA Replication. Annu Rev Genet, 2015; 49:291–313. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-genet-112414-054722.
38.
CarterRJ, ParsonsJL. Base excision repair, a pathway regulated by posttranslational modifications. Mol Cell Biol, 2016; 36:1426–1437. DOI: 10.1128/MCB.00030-16.
39.
KomorAC, ZhaoKT, PackerMS, et al.Improved base excision repair inhibition and bacteriophage Mu Gam protein yields C:G-to-T:A base editors with higher efficiency and product purity. Sci Adv, 2017; 3:eaao4774. DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aao4774.
40.
WangL, XueW, YanL, et al.Enhanced base editing by co-expression of free uracil DNA glycosylase inhibitor. Cell Res, 2017; 27:1289–1292. DOI: 10.1038/cr.2017.111.
41.
RadanyEH, DornfeldKJ, SandersonRJ, et al.Increased spontaneous mutation frequency in human cells expressing the phage PBS2-encoded inhibitor of uracil-DNA glycosylase. Mutat Res, 2000; 461:41–58.
42.
Di NoiaJ, NeubergerMS. Altering the pathway of immunoglobulin hypermutation by inhibiting uracil-DNA glycosylase. Nature. 2002; 419:43–48. DOI: 10.1038/nature00981.
43.
KachhapS, SinghKK. Mitochondrial inhibition of uracil-DNA glycosylase is not mutagenic. Mol Cancer, 2004; 3:32. DOI: 10.1186/1476-4598-3-32.
44.
CortazarD, KunzC, SaitoY, et al.The enigmatic thymine DNA glycosylase. DNA Repair (Amst), 2007; 6:489–504. DOI: 10.1016/j.dnarep.2006.10.013.
45.
KoblanLW, DomanJL, WilsonC, et al.Improving cytidine and adenine base editors by expression optimization and ancestral reconstruction. Nat Biotechnol, 2018; 36:843–846. DOI: 10.1038/nbt.4172.
46.
ZafraMP, SchatoffEM, KattiA, et al.Optimized base editors enable efficient editing in cells, organoids and mice. Nat Biotechnol, 2018; 36:888–893. DOI: 10.1038/nbt.4194.
47.
NabelCS, JiaH, YeY, et al.AID/APOBEC deaminases disfavor modified cytosines implicated in DNA demethylation. Nat Chem Biol, 2012; 8:751–758. DOI: 10.1038/nchembio.1042.
48.
WangX, LiJ, WangY, et al.Efficient base editing in methylated regions with a human APOBEC3A-Cas9 fusion. Nat Biotechnol, 2018; 36:946–949. DOI: 10.1038/nbt.4198.
49.
CarpenterMA, LiM, RathoreA, et al.Methylcytosine and normal cytosine deamination by the foreign DNA restriction enzyme APOBEC3A. J Biol Chem, 2012; 287:34801–34808. DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M112.385161.
50.
ItoF, FuY, KaoSA, et al.Family-wide comparative analysis of cytidine and methylcytidine deamination by eleven human APOBEC proteins. J Mol Biol, 2017; 429:1787–1799. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmb.2017.04.021.
51.
HilleF, RichterH, WongSP, et al.The biology of CRISPR-Cas: backward and forward. Cell, 2018; 172:1239–1259. DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2017.11.032.
52.
JinekM, ChylinskiK, FonfaraI, et al.A programmable dual-RNA-guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity. Science, 2012; 337:816–821. DOI: 10.1126/science.1225829.
53.
ZetscheB, GootenbergJS, AbudayyehOO, et al.Cpf1 Is a single RNA-guided endonuclease of a class 2 CRISPR-Cas system. Cell, 2015; 163:759–771. DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2015.09.038.
54.
KimD, KimJ, HurJK, et al.Genome-wide analysis reveals specificities of Cpf1 endonucleases in human cells. Nat Biotechnol, 2016; 34:863–868. DOI: 10.1038/nbt.3609.
55.
KleinstiverBP, TsaiSQ, PrewMS, et al.Genome-wide specificities of CRISPR-Cas Cpf1 nucleases in human cells. Nat Biotechnol, 2016; 34:869–874. DOI: 10.1038/nbt.3620.
56.
StellaS, AlconP, MontoyaG. Structure of the Cpf1 endonuclease R-loop complex after target DNA cleavage. Nature, 2017; 546:559–563. DOI: 10.1038/nature22398.
57.
SwartsDC, van der OostJ, JinekM. Structural basis for guide RNA processing and seed-dependent DNA targeting by CRISPR-Cas12a. Mol Cell, 2017; 66:221–233 e224. DOI: 10.1016/j.molcel.2017.03.016.
58.
StellaS, MesaP, ThomsenJ, et al.Conformational activation promotes CRISPR-Cas12a catalysis and resetting of the endonuclease Activity. Cell, 2018; 175:1856–1871 e1821. DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2018.10.045.
59.
LiX, WangY, LiuY, et al.Base editing with a Cpf1-cytidine deaminase fusion. Nat Biotechnol, 2018; 36:324–327. DOI: 10.1038/nbt.4102.
60.
VilligerL, Grisch-ChanHM, LindsayH, et al.Treatment of a metabolic liver disease by in vivo genome base editing in adult mice. Nat Med, 2018; 24:1519–1525. DOI: 10.1038/s41591-018-0209-1.
61.
KimYB, KomorAC, LevyJM, et al.Increasing the genome-targeting scope and precision of base editing with engineered Cas9-cytidine deaminase fusions. Nat Biotechnol, 2017; 35:371–376. DOI: 10.1038/nbt.3803.
62.
EsveltKM, CarlsonJC, LiuDR. A system for the continuous directed evolution of biomolecules. Nature, 2011; 472:499–503. DOI: 10.1038/nature09929.
63.
HuJH, MillerSM, GeurtsMH, et al.Evolved Cas9 variants with broad PAM compatibility and high DNA specificity. Nature, 2018; 556:57–63. DOI: 10.1038/nature26155.
64.
NishimasuH, ShiX, IshiguroS, et al.Engineered CRISPR-Cas9 nuclease with expanded targeting space. Science, 2018; 361:1259–1262. DOI: 10.1126/science.aas9129.
65.
FuY, FodenJA, KhayterC, et al.High-frequency off-target mutagenesis induced by CRISPR-Cas nucleases in human cells. Nat Biotechnol, 2013; 31:822–826. DOI: 10.1038/nbt.2623.
66.
HsuPD, ScottDA, WeinsteinJA, et al.DNA targeting specificity of RNA-guided Cas9 nucleases. Nat Biotechnol, 2013; 31:827–832. DOI: 10.1038/nbt.2647.
67.
KimD, BaeS, ParkJ, et al.Digenome-seq: genome-wide profiling of CRISPR-Cas9 off-target effects in human cells. Nat Methods, 2015; 12:237–243, 231 p following 243. DOI: 10.1038/nmeth.3284.
68.
TsaiSQ, ZhengZ, NguyenNT, et al.GUIDE-seq enables genome-wide profiling of off-target cleavage by CRISPR-Cas nucleases. Nat Biotechnol, 2015; 33:187–197. DOI: 10.1038/nbt.3117.
69.
LiG, LiuY, ZengY, et al.Highly efficient and precise base editing in discarded human tripronuclear embryos. Protein Cell, 2017; 8:776–779. DOI: 10.1007/s13238-017-0458-7.
70.
ReesHA, KomorAC, YehWH, et al.Improving the DNA specificity and applicability of base editing through protein engineering and protein delivery. Nat Commun, 2017; 8:15790. DOI: 10.1038/ncomms15790.
71.
JinS, ZongY, GaoQ, et al.Cytosine, but not adenine, base editors induce genome-wide off-target mutations in rice. Science 2019. DOI: 10.1126/science.aaw7166.
72.
ZuoE, SunY, WeiW, et al.Cytosine base editor generates substantial off-target single-nucleotide variants in mouse embryos. Science 2019. DOI: 10.1126/science.aav9973.
73.
KimD, LimK, KimST, et al.Genome-wide target specificities of CRISPR RNA-guided programmable deaminases. Nat Biotechnol, 2017; 35:475–480. DOI: 10.1038/nbt.3852.
74.
NishidaK, ArazoeT, YachieN, et al.Targeted nucleotide editing using hybrid prokaryotic and vertebrate adaptive immune systems. Science, 2016; 353. DOI: 10.1126/science.aaf8729.
75.
LangeSS, TakataK, WoodRD. DNA polymerases and cancer. Nat Rev Cancer, 2011; 11:96–110. DOI: 10.1038/nrc2998.
76.
YangW, GaoY. Translesion and repair DNA polymerases: diverse structure and mechanism. Annu Rev Biochem, 2018; 87:239–261. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-biochem-062917-012405.
77.
ReesHA, LiuDR. Base editing: precision chemistry on the genome and transcriptome of living cells. Nat Rev Genet, 2018; 19:770–788. DOI: 10.1038/s41576-018-0059-1.
78.
TanJ, ZhangF, KarcherD, et al.Engineering of high-precision base editors for site-specific single nucleotide replacement. Nat Commun, 2019; 10:439. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-08034-8.
79.
GehrkeJM, CervantesO, ClementMK, et al.An APOBEC3A-Cas9 base editor with minimized bystander and off-target activities. Nat Biotechnol, 2018; 36:977–982. DOI: 10.1038/nbt.4199.
80.
BillonP, BryantEE, JosephSA, et al.CRISPR-mediated base editing enables efficient disruption of eukaryotic genes through induction of STOP codons. Mol Cell, 2017; 67:1068–1079 e1064. DOI: 10.1016/j.molcel.2017.08.008.
81.
KuscuC, ParlakM, TufanT, et al.CRISPR-STOP: gene silencing through base-editing-induced nonsense mutations. Nat Methods, 2017; 14:710–712. DOI: 10.1038/nmeth.4327.
82.
YilmazA, PeretzM, AharonyA, et al.Defining essential genes for human pluripotent stem cells by CRISPR-Cas9 screening in haploid cells. Nat Cell Biol, 2018; 20:610–619. DOI: 10.1038/s41556-018-0088-1.
83.
MaY, ZhangJ, YinW, et al.Targeted AID-mediated mutagenesis (TAM) enables efficient genomic diversification in mammalian cells. Nat Methods, 2016; 13:1029–1035. DOI: 10.1038/nmeth.4027.
84.
YuanJ, MaY, HuangT, et al.Genetic modulation of RNA splicing with a CRISPR-guided cytidine deaminase. Mol Cell, 2018; 72:380–394 e387. DOI: 10.1016/j.molcel.2018.09.002.
85.
HessGT, FresardL, HanK, et al.Directed evolution using dCas9-targeted somatic hypermutation in mammalian cells. Nat Methods, 2016; 13:1036–1042. DOI: 10.1038/nmeth.4038.
86.
JiangW, FengS, HuangS, et al.BE-PLUS: a new base editing tool with broadened editing window and enhanced fidelity. Cell Res, 2018; 28:855–861. DOI: 10.1038/s41422-018-0052-4.
87.
LiuLD, HuangM, DaiP, et al.Intrinsic nucleotide preference of diversifying base editors guides antibody ex vivo affinity maturation. Cell Rep, 2018; 25:884–892 e883. DOI: 10.1016/j.celrep.2018.09.090.
88.
KimK, RyuSM, KimST, et al.Highly efficient RNA-guided base editing in mouse embryos. Nat Biotechnol, 2017; 35:435–437. DOI: 10.1038/nbt.3816.
89.
LiangP, SunH, SunY, et al.Effective gene editing by high-fidelity base editor 2 in mouse zygotes. Protein Cell, 2017; 8:601–611. DOI: 10.1007/s13238-017-0418-2.
90.
YangG, ZhuTY, LuZY, et al.Generation of isogenic single and multiplex gene knockout mice by base editing-induced STOP. Sci Bull, 2018; 63:1101–1107. DOI: 10.1016/j.scib.2018.07.002.
91.
YangG, ZhouC, WangR, et al.Base-editing-mediated R17H substitution in histone H3 reveals methylation-dependent regulation of Yap signaling and early mouse embryo development. Cell Rep, 2019; 26:302–312 e304. DOI: 10.1016/j.celrep.2018.12.046.
92.
SasaguriH, NagataK, SekiguchiM, et al.Introduction of pathogenic mutations into the mouse Psen1 gene by Base Editor and Target-AID. Nat Commun, 2018; 9:2892. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-05262-w.
93.
LiJ, LiuZ, HuangS, et al. Efficient base editing in G/C-rich regions to model androgen insensitivity syndrome. Cell Res 2019. DOI: 10.1038/s41422-018-0133-4.
94.
ChadwickAC, WangX, MusunuruK. In vivo base editing of PCSK9 (Proprotein Convertase Subtilisin/Kexin Type 9) as a therapeutic alternative to genome editing. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol, 2017; 37:1741–1747. DOI: 10.1161/ATVBAHA.117.309881.
95.
ChadwickAC, EvittNH, LvW, et al.Reduced blood lipid levels with in vivo CRISPR-Cas9 base editing of ANGPTL3. Circulation, 2018; 137:975–977. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.031335.
96.
RossidisAC, StratigisJD, ChadwickAC, et al.In utero CRISPR-mediated therapeutic editing of metabolic genes. Nat Med, 2018; 24:1513–1518. DOI: 10.1038/s41591-018-0184-6.
97.
LiuZ, ChenM, ChenS, et al.Highly efficient RNA-guided base editing in rabbit. Nat Commun, 2018; 9:2717. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-05232-2.
98.
LiZ, DuanX, AnX, et al.Efficient RNA-guided base editing for disease modeling in pigs. Cell Discov, 2018; 4:64. DOI: 10.1038/s41421-018-0065-7.
99.
ZhangY, QinW, LuX, et al.Programmable base editing of zebrafish genome using a modified CRISPR-Cas9 system. Nat Commun, 2017; 8:118. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-017-00175-6.
100.
ZongY, WangY, LiC, et al.Precise base editing in rice, wheat and maize with a Cas9-cytidine deaminase fusion. Nat Biotechnol, 2017; 35:438–440. DOI: 10.1038/nbt.3811.
101.
ZongY, SongQ, LiC, et al.Efficient C-to-T base editing in plants using a fusion of nCas9 and human APOBEC3A. Nat Biotechnol, 2018. DOI: 10.1038/nbt.4261.
102.
LiJ, SunY, DuJ, et al.Generation of Targeted Point Mutations in Rice by a Modified CRISPR/Cas9 System. Mol Plant, 2017; 10:526–529. DOI: 10.1016/j.molp.2016.12.001.
103.
LuY, ZhuJK. Precise editing of a target base in the rice genome using a modified CRISPR/Cas9 system. Mol Plant, 2017; 10:523–525. DOI: 10.1016/j.molp.2016.11.013.
104.
ShimataniZ, KashojiyaS, TakayamaM, et al.Targeted base editing in rice and tomato using a CRISPR-Cas9 cytidine deaminase fusion. Nat Biotechnol, 2017; 35:441–443. DOI: 10.1038/nbt.3833.
105.
RenB, YanF, KuangY, et al.Improved base editor for efficiently inducing genetic variations in rice with CRISPR/Cas9-guided hyperactive hAID mutant. Mol Plant, 2018; 11:623–626. DOI: 10.1016/j.molp.2018.01.005.
106.
HuaK, TaoX, ZhuJK. Expanding the base editing scope in rice by using Cas9 variants. Plant Biotechnol J 2018. DOI: 10.1111/pbi.12993.
107.
MarraffiniLA, SontheimerEJ. Self versus non-self-discrimination during CRISPR RNA-directed immunity. Nature, 2010; 463:568–571. DOI: 10.1038/nature08703.
108.
MarraffiniLA, SontheimerEJ. CRISPR interference limits horizontal gene transfer in staphylococci by targeting DNA. Science, 2008; 322:1843–1845. DOI: 10.1126/science.1165771.
109.
BannoS, NishidaK, ArazoeT, et al.Deaminase-mediated multiplex genome editing in Escherichia coli. Nat Microbiol, 2018; 3:423–429. DOI: 10.1038/s41564-017-0102-6.
110.
ZhengK, WangY, LiN, et al.Highly efficient base editing in bacteria using a Cas9-cytidine deaminase fusion. Commun Biol, 2018; 1:32. DOI: 10.1038/s42003-018-0035-5.
111.
GuT, ZhaoS, PiY, et al.Highly efficient base editing in Staphylococcus aureus using an engineered CRISPR RNA-guided cytidine deaminase. Chem Sci, 2018; 9:3248–3253. DOI: 10.1039/c8sc00637g.
112.
ChenW, ZhangY, ZhangY, et al.CRISPR/Cas9-based genome editing in Pseudomonas aeruginosa and cytidine deaminase-mediated base editing in Pseudomonas species. iScience, 2018; 6:222–231. DOI: 10.1016/j.isci.2018.07.024.
113.
YangL, ZhangX, WangL, et al.Increasing targeting scope of adenosine base editors in mouse and rat embryos through fusion of TadA deaminase with Cas9 variants. Protein Cell, 2018; 9:814–819. DOI: 10.1007/s13238-018-0568-x.
114.
HuaK, TaoX, YuanF, et al. Precise A.T to G.C Base editing in the rice genome. Mol Plant 2018;11:627–630. DOI: 10.1016/j.molp.2018.02.007.
115.
RyuSM, KooT, KimK, et al.Adenine base editing in mouse embryos and an adult mouse model of Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Nat Biotechnol, 2018; 36:536–539. DOI: 10.1038/nbt.4148.
116.
LiuZ, LuZ, YangG, et al.Efficient generation of mouse models of human diseases via ABE- and BE-mediated base editing. Nat Commun, 2018; 9:2338. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-04768-7.
117.
LiangP, SunH, ZhangX, et al.Effective and precise adenine base editing in mouse zygotes. Protein Cell, 2018; 9:808–813. DOI: 10.1007/s13238-018-0566-z.
118.
QinW, LuX, LiuY, et al.Precise A*T to G*C base editing in the zebrafish genome. BMC Biol, 2018; 16:139. DOI: 10.1186/s12915-018-0609-1.
119.
YanF, KuangY, RenB, et al.Highly Efficient A.T to G.C Base editing by Cas9n-guided tRNA adenosine deaminase in rice. Mol Plant 2018;11:631–634. DOI: 10.1016/j.molp.2018.02.008.
120.
LiC, ZongY, WangY, et al.Expanded base editing in rice and wheat using a Cas9-adenosine deaminase fusion. Genome Biol, 2018; 19:59. DOI: 10.1186/s13059-018-1443-z.
121.
KangBC, YunJY, KimST, et al.Precision genome engineering through adenine base editing in plants. Nat Plants, 2018; 4:427–431. DOI: 10.1038/s41477-018-0178-x.
ChapmanJR, TaylorMR, BoultonSJ. Playing the end game: DNA double-strand break repair pathway choice. Mol Cell, 2012; 47:497–510. DOI: 10.1016/j.molcel.2012.07.029.
124.
HaapaniemiE, BotlaS, PerssonJ, et al.CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing induces a p53-mediated DNA damage response. Nat Med, 2018; 24:927–930. DOI: 10.1038/s41591-018-0049-z.
125.
IhryRJ, WorringerKA, SalickMR, et al.p53 inhibits CRISPR-Cas9 engineering in human pluripotent stem cells. Nat Med, 2018; 24:939–946. DOI: 10.1038/s41591-018-0050-6.
126.
KosickiM, TombergK, BradleyA. Repair of double-strand breaks induced by CRISPR-Cas9 leads to large deletions and complex rearrangements. Nat Biotechnol, 2018; 36:765–771. DOI: 10.1038/nbt.4192.
ZhuS, LiW, LiuJ, et al.Genome-scale deletion screening of human long non-coding RNAs using a paired-guide RNA CRISPR-Cas9 library. Nat Biotechnol, 2016; 34:1279–1286. DOI: 10.1038/nbt.3715.
129.
AllenF, CrepaldiL, AlsinetC, et al.Predicting the mutations generated by repair of Cas9-induced double-strand breaks. Nat Biotechnol 2018. DOI: 10.1038/nbt.4317.
130.
ShouJ, LiJ, LiuY, et al.Precise and predictable CRISPR chromosomal rearrangements reveal principles of Cas9-mediated nucleotide insertion. Mol Cell, 2018; 71:498–509 e494. DOI: 10.1016/j.molcel.2018.06.021.
131.
ShenMW, ArbabM, HsuJY, et al.Predictable and precise template-free CRISPR editing of pathogenic variants. Nature, 2018; 563:646–651. DOI: 10.1038/s41586-018-0686-x.
132.
MaggioI, HolkersM, LiuJ, et al.Adenoviral vector delivery of RNA-guided CRISPR/Cas9 nuclease complexes induces targeted mutagenesis in a diverse array of human cells. Sci Rep, 2014; 4:5105. DOI: 10.1038/srep05105.
133.
RanFA, CongL, YanWX, et al.In vivo genome editing using Staphylococcus aureus Cas9. Nature, 2015; 520:186–191. DOI: 10.1038/nature14299.
134.
ChoiJG, DangY, AbrahamS, et al.Lentivirus pre-packed with Cas9 protein for safer gene editing. Gene Ther, 2016; 23:627–633. DOI: 10.1038/gt.2016.27.
135.
MingozziF, HighKA. Overcoming the host immune response to adeno-associated virus gene delivery vectors: the race between clearance, tolerance, neutralization, and escape. Annu Rev Virol, 2017; 4:511–534. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-virology-101416-041936.
136.
YehWH, ChiangH, ReesHA, et al.In vivo base editing of post-mitotic sensory cells. Nat Commun, 2018; 9:2184. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-04580-3.
137.
YinH, KauffmanKJ, AndersonDG. Delivery technologies for genome editing. Nat Rev Drug Discov, 2017; 16:387–399. DOI: 10.1038/nrd.2016.280.
138.
YinH, XueW, AndersonDG. CRISPR-Cas: a tool for cancer research and therapeutics. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2019. DOI: 10.1038/s41571-019-0166-8.
139.
HessGT, TyckoJ, YaoD, et al.Methods and applications of CRISPR-mediated base editing in eukaryotic genomes. Mol Cell, 2017; 68:26–43. DOI: 10.1016/j.molcel.2017.09.029.
140.
RanzauBL, KomorAC. Genome, epigenome, and transcriptome editing via chemical modification of nucleobases in living cells. Biochemistry, 2019; 58:330–335. DOI: 10.1021/acs.biochem.8b00958.
141.
LaugheryMF, MayesHC, PedrozaIK, et al. R-loop formation by dCas9 is mutagenic in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Nucleic Acids Res 2018. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gky1278.
