Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37434066›Full record

ReviewFrontiers of medicine2023

Base editors: development and applications in biomedicine.

Yanhui Liang, Fangbing Chen, Kepin Wang, Liangxue Lai

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers of medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Cell lineage tracing: Methods, applications, and challenges.Quantitative biology (Beijing, China) · 2025
    Review
  9. Article
  10. RNA-DNA hybrid binding domain broadens the editing window of base editors.Molecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy · 2025
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Yanhui Liang *China-New Zealand Joint Laboratory on Biomedicine and Health, CAS Key Laboratory of Regenerative Biology, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Stem Cell and Regenerative Medicine, Centre for Regenerative Medicine and Health, Hong Kong Institute of Science and Innovation, Guangzhou Institutes of Biomedicine and Health, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou, 510530, China.
Fangbing Chen *China-New Zealand Joint Laboratory on Biomedicine and Health, CAS Key Laboratory of Regenerative Biology, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Stem Cell and Regenerative Medicine, Centre for Regenerative Medicine and Health, Hong Kong Institute of Science and Innovation, Guangzhou Institutes of Biomedicine and Health, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou, 510530, China.
Kepin WangChina-New Zealand Joint Laboratory on Biomedicine and Health, CAS Key Laboratory of Regenerative Biology, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Stem Cell and Regenerative Medicine, Centre for Regenerative Medicine and Health, Hong Kong Institute of Science and Innovation, Guangzhou Institutes of Biomedicine and Health, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou, 510530, China.
Liangxue LaiChina-New Zealand Joint Laboratory on Biomedicine and Health, CAS Key Laboratory of Regenerative Biology, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Stem Cell and Regenerative Medicine, Centre for Regenerative Medicine and Health, Hong Kong Institute of Science and Innovation, Guangzhou Institutes of Biomedicine and Health, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou, 510530, China. lai_liangxue@gibh.ac.cn.
Guangzhou Institutes of Biomedicine and Health · CNChinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College · CNWuyi University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Base editor (BE) is a gene-editing tool developed by combining the CRISPR/Cas system with an individual deaminase, enabling precise single-base substitution in DNA or RNA without generating a DNA double-strand break (DSB) or requiring donor DNA templates in living cells. Base editors offer more precise and secure genome-editing effects than other conventional artificial nuclease systems, such as CRISPR/Cas9, as the DSB induced by Cas9 will cause severe damage to the genome. Thus, base editors have important applications in the field of biomedicine, including gene function investigation, directed protein evolution, genetic lineage tracing, disease modeling, and gene therapy. Since the development of the two main base editors, cytosine base editors (CBEs) and adenine base editors (ABEs), scientists have developed more than 100 optimized base editors with improved editing efficiency, precision, specificity, targeting scope, and capacity to be delivered in vivo, greatly enhancing their application potential in biomedicine. Here, we review the recent development of base editors, summarize their applications in the biomedical field, and discuss future perspectives and challenges for therapeutic applications.

Indexed as

CRISPR-Cas SystemsGene EditingDNAGenetic TherapyHumansDNAABEADARbase editingCBEDdCBEdisease modeltherapeutic application

Identifiers

PMID37434066
OpenAlexW4383874057

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.