ArticleMolecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy2025
Systematic empirical evaluation of individual base editing targets: Validating therapeutic targets in USH2A and comparison of methods.
Article in Molecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- CRISPR-Cas9 and next-generation gene editing strategies for therapeutic intervention of neurodegenerative pathways in Alzheimer's disease: a state-of-the-art review.Acta neurologica Belgica · 2026Review
- Article
- Nonsense Mutation inInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Harnessing myostatin pleiotropy for multitrait improvement via precision gene editing.Frontiers in genome editing · 2026Review
- Connecting cilium, stress response, and proteostasis abnormalities inform variant and therapy assessment in RPGRIP1 retinal organoids.Stem cell reports · 2025Article
- Adenine base editor correction of pathogenic variations associated with inherited retinal dystrophy in patient iPSC and retinal organoids.Molecular therapy. Nucleic acids · 2025Article
- The Co-Transduction Conundrum: Improving Dual rAAV Delivery Through Co-Administration of Capsid Serotypes With Complementary Tropism.Translational vision science & technology · 2025Article
- Review
- Try before you buy: Empirical comparison of base editing approaches.Molecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Base editing shows promise for the correction of human mutations at a higher efficiency than other repair methods and is especially attractive for mutations in large genes that are not amenable to gene augmentation therapy. Here, we demonstrate a comprehensive workflow for in vitro screening of potential therapeutic base editing targets for the USH2A gene and empirically validate the efficiency of adenine and cytosine base editor/guide combinations for correcting 35 USH2A mutations. Editing efficiency and bystander edits are compared between different target templates (plasmids vs. transgenes) and assays (next-generation sequencing vs. Sanger), as well as comparisons between unbiased empirical results and computational predictions. Based on these observations, practical assay recommendations are discussed. Finally, a humanized knockin mouse model was created with the best-performing target, the nonsense mutation c.11864G>A p.(Trp3955∗). Split-intein AAV9 delivery of editing reagents resulted in the restoration of USH2A protein and a correction rate of 65% ± 3% at the mutant base pair and of 52% ± 3% excluding bystander amino acid changes. This efficiency is higher than that seen in a retinal gene editing program testing in a clinical trial. These results demonstrate the effectiveness of this overall strategy to identify and test base editing reagents with the potential for human therapeutic applications.
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.