ArticleCell2020
Determinants of Base Editing Outcomes from Target Library Analysis and Machine Learning.
Article in Cell, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 192 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
192 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine-learning in optimization of CRISPR technology.Machine learning. Health · 2026Review
- Advances and Applications of Genome Editing in Precision Crop Breeding.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Validation of a Modular Base Editing Strategy, Free-BE, inPlant direct · 2026Article
- Beyond Precision: A Multidimensional Framework for Selecting Genetic Medicine Platforms.Cells · 2026Review
- Base editing for precision therapeutics.Cell genomics · 2026Review
- The landscape and trajectory of global CRISPR therapeutics.Molecular therapy. Nucleic acids · 2026Review
- Strategies and mechanisms of precision genome engineering: From gene editing to genome writing.iMetaOmics · 2026Review
- Deciphering protein mutation-phenotype linkages from CRISPR-based tiling mutagenesis screens.Cell systems · 2026Article
- Article
- Synonymous mutations in essential genes infrequently produce fitness effects in human cell lines.Nucleic acids research · 2026Article
- A Comprehensive Review on CRISPR-Based Screening and Its Applications.Molecular biotechnology · 2026Review
- Dual functional genomics reveals a broad and convergent landscape of asciminib resistance in BCR::ABL1.Genome medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Adenine base editor for knockout of proteins: A practical guide from design to analysis with updated MultiEditRbatch.Molecular therapy. Nucleic acids · 2026Article
- Machine learning-driven optimization of specific, compact, and efficient base editors via single-round diversification.Nucleic acids research · 2026Article
- Precise, predictable genome integrations by deep-learning-assisted design of microhomology-based templates.Nature biotechnology · 2026Article
- Therapeutic adenine base editor with minimized off-target effects.Protein & cell · 2026Article
- Base Editors for Engineering Industrial Microorganisms: Types, Applications, and Future Perspectives.Biotechnology journal · 2026Review
- CRISPR Screening in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: From Tumor Progression to Immune Evasion and Therapeutic Resistance.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Treatment of a severe vascular disease using a bespoke CRISPR-Cas9 base editor in mice.Nature biomedical engineering · 2026Article
132 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Although base editors are widely used to install targeted point mutations, the factors that determine base editing outcomes are not well understood. We characterized sequence-activity relationships of 11 cytosine and adenine base editors (CBEs and ABEs) on 38,538 genomically integrated targets in mammalian cells and used the resulting outcomes to train BE-Hive, a machine learning model that accurately predicts base editing genotypic outcomes (R ≈ 0.9) and efficiency (R ≈ 0.7). We corrected 3,388 disease-associated SNVs with ≥90% precision, including 675 alleles with bystander nucleotides that BE-Hive correctly predicted would not be edited. We discovered determinants of previously unpredictable C-to-G, or C-to-A editing and used these discoveries to correct coding sequences of 174 pathogenic transversion SNVs with ≥90% precision. Finally, we used insights from BE-Hive to engineer novel CBE variants that modulate editing outcomes. These discoveries illuminate base editing, enable editing at previously intractable targets, and provide new base editors with improved editing capabilities.
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.