ReviewCurrent genetics2022
Off-target effects of base editors: what we know and how we can reduce it.
Review in Current genetics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- Translating base editors: a decade of progress from the bench to the clinic.Nature reviews. Drug discovery · 2026Review
- Editing around the target: epitope engineering to protect stem cell grafts.Blood advances · 2026Review
- Base editing restores CDKL5 expression and rescues neuronal deficits in a patient-derived model of CDKL5 deficiency disorder.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Comparative analysis of CRISPR-Cas9, lentiviral transduction, and base editing for sickle cell disease in a murine model.Blood advances · 2026Article
- Role of CRISPR in bioremediation of heavy metal(loid): a breakthrough in environmental biotechnology.World journal of microbiology & biotechnology · 2026Review
- Prime editing: a new frontier in precision genome engineering for rice improvement.Frontiers in plant science · 2026Review
- Genome Editing Enhanced Abiotic Stress ToleranceIn Cereal Crops.Functional & integrative genomics · 2025Review
- Deaminase Modulation Driving a New Era in Drug Development.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Genome-edited allogeneic CAR-T cells: the next generation of cancer immunotherapies.Journal of hematology & oncology · 2025Review
- CRISPR tools for T cells: targeting the genome, epigenome, and transcriptome.Trends in cancer · 2025Review
- Advances and Applications of Plant Base Editing Technologies.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Off-target effects in CRISPR-Cas genome editing for human therapeutics: Progress and challenges.Molecular therapy. Nucleic acids · 2025Review
- SPLICER: a highly efficient base editing toolbox that enables in vivo therapeutic exon skipping.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Gene Therapy for Inherited Liver Disease: To Add or to Edit.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- High-fidelity PAMless base editing of hematopoietic stem cells to treat chronic granulomatous disease.Science translational medicine · 2024Article
- The Current Landscape of Secondary Malignancies after CAR T-Cell Therapies: How Could Malignancies Be Prevented?International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Exploiting protein domain modularity to enable synthetic control of engineered cells.Current opinion in biomedical engineering · 2024Article
- Navigating the CRISPR/Cas Landscape for Enhanced Diagnosis and Treatment of Wilson's Disease.Cells · 2024Review
- Autologous gene therapy for hemoglobinopathies: From bench to patient's bedside.Molecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy · 2024Review
- Progress and pitfalls of gene editing technology in CAR-T cell therapy: a state-of-the-art review.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The recently discovered CRISPR-Cas9 modification, base editors (BEs), is considered as one of the most promising tools for correcting disease-causing mutations in humans, since it allows point substitutions to be edited without generating double-stranded DNA breaks, and, therefore, with a significant decrease in non-specific activity. Until recently, this method was considered the safest, but at the same time, it is quite effective. However, recent studies of non-specific activity of BEs revealed that some of them lead to the formation of a huge number of off-targets in both DNA and RNA, occurring due to the nature of the Cas9-fused proteins used. In this review article, we have considered and combined data from numerous studies about the most commonly used and more described in detail APOBEC-based BEs and Target-AID version of CBE, as well as ABE7 and ABE8 with their basic modifications into TadA to improve BEs' specificity. In our opinion, modern advances in molecular genetics make it possible to dramatically reduce the off-target activity of base editors due to introducing mutations into the domains of deaminases or inhibition of Cas9 by anti-CRISPR proteins, which returns BEs to the leading position in genome editing technologies.
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.