ArticleFrontiers in genome editing2026
Evaluating high-fidelity CRISPR-Cas nucleases in nucleosomal contexts using a quantitative framework.
Article in Frontiers in genome editing, 2026. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Chromatin presents a significant obstacle to CRISPR-Cas gene editing, as chromatin restricts nuclease access to DNA. Recent advances have produced a wide range of high-fidelity Cas9 and Cas12a variants with enhanced properties. However, their precision in targeting DNA within different contexts remains poorly understood. This gap limits our ability to predict and optimize Cas performance in the dynamic chromatin landscape. To elucidate how chromatin variability impacts Cas editing accuracy, we utilized GEMiNI-seq to systematically profile wild-type and engineered Cas9 and Cas12a nucleases across a range of nucleosome sequences. All nucleases showed reduced cleavage in nucleosomal DNA relative to naked DNA, with the strongest inhibition at dyad-proximal sites. Cleavage within nucleosomes was highly variable, with wtSpCas9 exhibiting up to 65-fold different activity depending on the nucleosome type. Editors with high catalytic activity (wtSpCas9, HIFIv2, LbCas12a ULTRA) consistently outperformed high-fidelity variants such as evoSpCas9, which displayed excellent specificity on naked DNA but poor performance in nucleosomal contexts. ROC and PRC analyses revealed that nucleosome sequence and orientation shape both sensitivity and specificity, with HIFIv1 emerging as the top-performing nuclease for nucleosomal targets, while evoSpCas9 excelled in exposed contexts. Our findings demonstrate that local nucleosome sequence and structure profoundly influence Cas nuclease accessibility and specificity. Variability in cleavage across nucleosome types underscores the need to consider chromatin context during target selection and nuclease design. These results provide a framework for selecting or engineering Cas editors optimized for therapeutic genome editing within chromatin.
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.