4.8 Article

Evaluation and minimization of Cas9-independent off-target DNA editing by cytosine base editors

Journal

NATURE BIOTECHNOLOGY
Volume 38, Issue 5, Pages 620-+

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41587-020-0414-6

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. US NIH [U01 AI142756, RM1 HG009490, R35 GM118062]
  2. HHMI
  3. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
  4. St. Jude Collaborative Research Consortium
  5. NIH [T32 GM095450]
  6. Hertz Foundation
  7. NSF GRFP fellowship
  8. NCI [P30-CA14051]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Cytosine base editors (CBEs) enable targeted C center dot G-to-T center dot A conversions in genomic DNA. Recent studies report that BE3, the original CBE, induces a low frequency of genome-wide Cas9-independent off-target C center dot G-to-T center dot A mutation in mouse embryos and in rice. Here we develop multiple rapid, cost-effective methods to screen the propensity of different CBEs to induce Cas9-independent deamination in Escherichia coli and in human cells. We use these assays to identify CBEs with reduced Cas9-independent deamination and validate via whole-genome sequencing that YE1, a narrowed-window CBE variant, displays background levels of Cas9-independent off-target editing. We engineered YE1 variants that retain the substrate-targeting scope of high-activity CBEs while maintaining minimal Cas9-independent off-target editing. The suite of CBEs characterized and engineered in this study collectively offer similar to 10-100-fold lower average Cas9-independent off-target DNA editing while maintaining robust on-target editing at most positions targetable by canonical CBEs, and thus are especially promising for applications in which off-target editing must be minimized. Methods to efficiently detect Cas9-independent cytosine base editor off-target activity enable the identification and development of variants with minimal off-target editing and robust on-target editing.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available