ArticleNucleic acids research2025
A side-by-side comparison of variant function measurements using deep mutational scanning and base editing.
Article in Nucleic acids research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dual functional genomics reveals a broad and convergent landscape of asciminib resistance in BCR::ABL1.Genome medicine · 2026Article
- Uncovering the molecular basis of kinase activity and substrate recognition with phospho-PCA.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Characterizing Variants of Uncertain Drug Resistance (VUDRs) Using Quantitative Measurements at Clinical Exposures.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Variant annotation is a crucial objective in mammalian functional genomics. Deep mutational scanning (DMS) using saturation libraries of complementary DNAs (cDNAs) is a well-established method for annotating human gene variants, but CRISPR base editing (BE) is emerging as an alternative. However, questions remain about how well high-throughput BE measurements can annotate variant function and the extent of downstream experimental validation required. This study is the first direct comparison of cDNA DMS and BE in the same lab and cell line. We focus on how well short guide RNA (sgRNA) depletion or enrichment is explained by the predicted edits within the editing "window" defined by the sgRNA. The most likely predicted edits enhance the agreement between a "gold standard" DMS dataset and a BE screen. A simple filter for sgRNAs making single edits in their window could sufficiently annotate a large proportion of variants directly from sgRNA sequencing of large pools. When multi-edit guides are unavoidable, directly measuring edits in medium-sized validation pools can recover high-quality variant annotation data. Our data show a surprisingly high degree of correlation between base editor data and gold standard DMS. We suggest that the main variable measured in base editor screens is the desired base edits.
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.