Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42888260›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Drug discovery2026

Translating base editors: a decade of progress from the bench to the clinic.

Nicole M Gaudelli, Alexis C Komor

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Drug discovery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Nicole M Gaudelli *Google Ventures, Cambridge, MA, USA. ngaudelli@gv.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8608-4855
Alexis C Komor *Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biophysics, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA. akomor@ucsd.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5043-0998

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A decade has passed since the initial description of cytosine base editors in 2016. This new class of gene editors, utilizing DNA damage intermediates beyond double-stranded DNA breaks, fundamentally shifted the paradigm of gene editing from stochastic disruption to precise chemical correction. Since then, the field has rapidly matured, with the development of optimized base editors with improved editing efficiency, targeting scope, precision and specificity, as well as the subsequent generation of adenine base editors and prime editors. Base editors have not only become widely used research tools but have served as foundational platforms for biotechnology companies developing human therapies. Today, base editors are being deployed in trials for a diverse list of indications including sickle cell disease, alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency, inborn errors of metabolism, leukaemias and cardiovascular indications. This Review critically examines the 'bench-to-bedside' trajectory of base editors, detailing their mechanistic evolution and expanding role in treating human disease.

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.