ArticleMolecular therapy. Nucleic acids2025
Loop engineering improves prime editing efficiency.
Article in Molecular therapy. Nucleic acids, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Prime editing: Emerging mechanisms, engineering innovations, and next-generation applications.Biodesign research · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Prime editor (PE) offers significant translational potential due to its diverse editing outcomes. However, its editing efficiency is generally lower than that of wild-type Cas9 and base editor (BE). Previous investigations have suggested that the availability of the primer binding site (PBS) and reverse transcription template (RTT) within the pegRNA limits the installation of desired edits at target sites. In this study, we investigated whether the position and copy number of PBS-RTT sequences are important parameters influencing PE editing efficiencies. We inserted extra copies of the PBS-RTT sequence into the loop 2, tetraloop, or the 3' end of pegRNA, as well as moved the 3' PBS-RTT to the internal stem-loops of sgRNA. Incorporating an extra PBS-RTT copy into loop 2, but not tetraloop, increased PE editing efficiency by 40%-147% across various target sites and cellular contexts. This suggests that both the local concentration and steric hindrance of the PBS-RTT sequence appear to affect its accessibility to the DNA nicking end, ultimately influencing the editing efficiency of PE. By addressing the bottleneck of limited PBS-RTT availability, our strategy may broaden the wide applicability of PE, especially in translational medicine.
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.