ArticleProtein & cell2017
Effective gene editing by high-fidelity base editor 2 in mouse zygotes.
Article in Protein & cell, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
50 citing papers in PubMed, 86 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Research progress of base editing and prime editing tools based on the CRISPR/Cas system.Molecular therapy. Nucleic acids · 2025Review
- From bench to bedside: cutting-edge applications of base editing and prime editing in precision medicine.Journal of translational medicine · 2024Review
- Efficient prime editing in two-cell mouse embryos using PEmbryo.Nature biotechnology · 2024Article
- Genome editing: An insight into disease resistance, production efficiency, and biomedical applications in livestock.Functional & integrative genomics · 2024Review
- How CRISPR Is Revolutionizing the Generation of New Models for Cancer Research.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine · 2024Review
- Deconstructing cancer with precision genome editing.Biochemical Society transactions · 2024Review
- Cooperativity between Cas9 and hyperactive AID establishes broad and diversifying mutational footprints in base editors.Nucleic acids research · 2024Article
- Precise genome-editing in human diseases: mechanisms, strategies and applications.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2024Review
- Genome editing and cancer therapy: handling the hypoxia-responsive pathway as a promising strategy.Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS · 2023Review
- The Design and Application of DNA-Editing Enzymes as Base Editors.Annual review of biochemistry · 2023Review
- Precise genome editing with base editors.Medical review (2021) · 2023Review
- Homology-based repair induced by CRISPR-Cas nucleases in mammalian embryo genome editing.Protein & cell · 2022Review
- Base editing and prime editing in laboratory animals.Laboratory animals · 2022Article
- Efficient Generation of P53 Biallelic Mutations in Diannan Miniature Pigs Using RNA-Guided Base Editing.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- BEAR reveals that increased fidelity variants can successfully reduce the mismatch tolerance of adenine but not cytosine base editors.Nature communications · 2021Article
- Optimization of C-to-G base editors with sequence context preference predictable by machine learning methods.Nature communications · 2021Article
- High-purity production and precise editing of DNA base editing ribonucleoproteins.Science advances · 2021Article
- Cytosine and adenosine base editing in human pluripotent stem cells using transient reporters for editing enrichment.Nature protocols · 2021Article
- Precision genome editing using cytosine and adenine base editors in mammalian cells.Nature protocols · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Targeted point mutagenesis through homologous recombination has been widely used in genetic studies and holds considerable promise for repairing disease-causing mutations in patients. However, problems such as mosaicism and low mutagenesis efficiency continue to pose challenges to clinical application of such approaches. Recently, a base editor (BE) system built on cytidine (C) deaminase and CRISPR/Cas9 technology was developed as an alternative method for targeted point mutagenesis in plant, yeast, and human cells. Base editors convert C in the deamination window to thymidine (T) efficiently, however, it remains unclear whether targeted base editing in mouse embryos is feasible. In this report, we generated a modified high-fidelity version of base editor 2 (HF2-BE2), and investigated its base editing efficacy in mouse embryos. We found that HF2-BE2 could convert C to T efficiently, with up to 100% biallelic mutation efficiency in mouse embryos. Unlike BE3, HF2-BE2 could convert C to T on both the target and non-target strand, expanding the editing scope of base editors. Surprisingly, we found HF2-BE2 could also deaminate C that was proximal to the gRNA-binding region. Taken together, our work demonstrates the feasibility of generating point mutations in mouse by base editing, and underscores the need to carefully optimize base editing systems in order to eliminate proximal-site deamination.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.