8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Genotoxic effects of base and prime editing in human hematopoietic stem cells

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Base and prime editors (BEs and PEs) may provide more precise genetic engineering than nuclease-based approaches because they bypass the dependence on DNA double-strand breaks. However, little is known about their cellular responses and genotoxicity. Here, we compared state-of-the-art BEs and PEs and Cas9 in human hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells with respect to editing efficiency, cytotoxicity, transcriptomic changes and on-target and genome-wide genotoxicity. BEs and PEs induced detrimental transcriptional responses that reduced editing efficiency and hematopoietic repopulation in xenotransplants and also generated DNA double-strand breaks and genotoxic byproducts, including deletions and translocations, at a lower frequency than Cas9. These effects were strongest for cytidine BEs due to suboptimal inhibition of base excision repair and were mitigated by tailoring delivery timing and editor expression through optimized mRNA design. However, BEs altered the mutational landscape of hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells across the genome by increasing the load and relative proportions of nucleotide variants. These findings raise concerns about the genotoxicity of BEs and PEs and warrant further investigation in view of their clinical application.

          Related collections

          Most cited references56

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Usinglme4

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Programmable editing of a target base in genomic DNA without double-stranded DNA cleavage

            Current genome-editing technologies introduce double-stranded (ds) DNA breaks at a target locus as the first step to gene correction. 1,2 Although most genetic diseases arise from point mutations, current approaches to point mutation correction are inefficient and typically induce an abundance of random insertions and deletions (indels) at the target locus from the cellular response to dsDNA breaks. 1,2 Here we report the development of base editing, a new approach to genome editing that enables the direct, irreversible conversion of one target DNA base into another in a programmable manner, without requiring dsDNA backbone cleavage or a donor template. We engineered fusions of CRISPR/Cas9 and a cytidine deaminase enzyme that retain the ability to be programmed with a guide RNA, do not induce dsDNA breaks, and mediate the direct conversion of cytidine to uridine, thereby effecting a C→T (or G→A) substitution. The resulting “base editors” convert cytidines within a window of approximately five nucleotides (nt), and can efficiently correct a variety of point mutations relevant to human disease. In four transformed human and murine cell lines, second- and third-generation base editors that fuse uracil glycosylase inhibitor (UGI), and that use a Cas9 nickase targeting the non-edited strand, manipulate the cellular DNA repair response to favor desired base-editing outcomes, resulting in permanent correction of ∼15-75% of total cellular DNA with minimal (typically ≤ 1%) indel formation. Base editing expands the scope and efficiency of genome editing of point mutations.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Search-and-replace genome editing without double-strand breaks or donor DNA

              Summary Most genetic variants that contribute to disease 1 are challenging to correct efficiently and without excess byproducts 2–5 . Here we describe prime editing, a versatile and precise genome editing method that directly writes new genetic information into a specified DNA site using a catalytically impaired Cas9 fused to an engineered reverse transcriptase, programmed with a prime editing guide RNA (pegRNA) that both specifies the target site and encodes the desired edit. We performed >175 edits in human cells including targeted insertions, deletions, and all 12 types of point mutations without requiring double-strand breaks or donor DNA templates. We applied prime editing in human cells to correct efficiently and with few byproducts the primary genetic causes of sickle cell disease (requiring a transversion in HBB) and Tay-Sachs disease (requiring a deletion in HEXA), to install a protective transversion in PRNP, and to precisely insert various tags and epitopes into target loci. Four human cell lines and primary post-mitotic mouse cortical neurons support prime editing with varying efficiencies. Prime editing shows higher or similar efficiency and fewer byproducts than homology-directed repair, complementary strengths and weaknesses compared to base editing, and much lower off-target editing than Cas9 nuclease at known Cas9 off-target sites. Prime editing substantially expands the scope and capabilities of genome editing, and in principle can correct up to 89% of known genetic variants associated with human diseases.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Nature Biotechnology
                Nat Biotechnol
                Springer Science and Business Media LLC
                1087-0156
                1546-1696
                September 07 2023
                Article
                10.1038/s41587-023-01915-4
                37679541
                d87502ca-ee99-4ea0-ad1f-c5c9cd3ebb2b
                © 2023

                https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0

                https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article