4.8 Article

Genome-wide specificity of prime editors in plants

Journal

NATURE BIOTECHNOLOGY
Volume 39, Issue 10, Pages 1292-+

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41587-021-00891-x

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31788103, 31971370]
  2. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2016YFD0100602]
  3. Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (Precision Seed Design and Breeding) [XDA24020100]
  4. Chinese Academy of Sciences [QYZDY-SSW-SMC030]
  5. Youth Innovation Promotion Association of the Chinese Academy of Sciences [2017140]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study systematically evaluated the mismatch tolerance, off-target editing, and genome-wide variants induced by prime editors in plant cells, showing high precision and low off-target effects in plant genome editing.
Although prime editors (PEs) have the potential to facilitate precise genome editing in therapeutic, agricultural and research applications, their specificity has not been comprehensively evaluated. To provide a systematic assessment in plants, we first examined the mismatch tolerance of PEs in plant cells and found that the editing frequency was influenced by the number and location of mismatches in the primer binding site and spacer of the prime editing guide RNA (pegRNA). Assessing the activity of 12 pegRNAs at 179 predicted off-target sites, we detected only low frequencies of off-target edits (0.00 similar to 0.23%). Whole-genome sequencing of 29 PE-treated rice plants confirmed that PEs do not induce genome-wide pegRNA-independent off-target single-nucleotide variants or small insertions/deletions. We also show that ectopic expression of the Moloney murine leukemia virus reverse transcriptase as part of the PE does not change retrotransposon copy number or telomere structure or cause insertion of pegRNA or messenger RNA sequences into the genome.

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