ArticleNucleic acids research2025
Toward optimizing diversifying base editors for high-throughput mutational scanning studies.
Article in Nucleic acids research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Base editors, including diversifying base editors that create C>N mutations, are potent tools for systematically installing point mutations in mammalian genomes and studying their effect on cellular function. Numerous base editor options are available for such studies, but little information exists on how the composition of the editor (deaminase, recruitment method, and fusion architecture) affects editing. To address this knowledge gap, the effect of various design features, such as deaminase recruitment and delivery method (electroporation or lentiviral transduction), on editing was assessed across ∼200 synthetic target sites. The direct fusion of a hyperactive variant of activation-induced cytidine deaminase to the N-terminus of dCas9 (DivA-BE) produced the highest editing efficiency, ∼4-fold better than the previous CRISPR-X method. Additionally, DivA-BE mutagenized the DNA strand that anneals to the targeting sgRNA (target strand) to create complementary C>N mutations, which were absent when the deaminase was fused to the C-terminus of dCas9. Based on these studies that comprehensively analyze the editing patterns of several popular base editors, DivA-BE editors efficiently diversified their target sites, albeit with increased indel frequencies. Overall, the improved editing efficiency makes the DivA-BE editors ideal for discovering functional variants in mutational scanning assays.
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.