ArticleNature communications2025
Make-or-break prime editing for genome engineering in Streptococcus pneumoniae.
Article in Nature communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Technical limitations of CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing in bacteria: challenges and future directions.Archives of microbiology · 2026Review
- Gene Editing-Driven Engineering of Microbial Systems and Metabolites for Precision Medicine and Sustainable Environmental Remediation.Small (Weinheim an der Bergstrasse, Germany) · 2026Review
- Prime editing: Emerging mechanisms, engineering innovations, and next-generation applications.Biodesign research · 2026Review
- PE-STAR: prime editing with SOS-triggered and RecJ-augmented repair enables high-efficiency editing in Escherichia coli.Nucleic acids research · 2026Article
- Nanoluciferase-Based Reporters for Clostridioides difficile.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2026Article
- Advances and Challenges in Mycobacterial Genetic Engineering: Techniques for Knockout, Knockdown and Overexpression.Journal of microbiology and biotechnology · 2025Review
- CRISPR-based genetic tools for the study of host-microbe interactions.Infection and immunity · 2025Review
- Precision engineering of the probioticApplied and environmental microbiology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
CRISPR-Cas9 has revolutionized genome engineering by allowing precise introductions of DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs). However, genome engineering in bacteria is still a complex, multi-step process requiring a donor DNA template for repair of DSBs. Prime editing circumvents this need as the repair template is indirectly provided within the prime editing guide RNA (pegRNA). Here, we developed make-or-break Prime Editing (mbPE) that allows for precise and effective genetic engineering in the opportunistic human pathogen Streptococcus pneumoniae. In contrast to traditional prime editing in which a nicking Cas9 is employed, mbPE harnesses wild type Cas9 in combination with a pegRNA that destroys the seed region or protospacer adjacent motif. Since most bacteria poorly perform template-independent end joining, correctly genome-edited clones are selectively enriched during mbPE. We show that mbPE is RecA-independent and can be used to introduce point mutations, deletions and targeted insertions, including protein tags such as a split luciferase, at selection efficiencies of over 93%. mbPE enables sequential genome editing, is scalable, and can be used to generate pools of mutants in a high-throughput manner. The mbPE system and pegRNA design guidelines described here will ameliorate future bacterial genome editing endeavors.
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.