4.8 Article

Deletion and replacement of long genomic sequences using prime editing

期刊

NATURE BIOTECHNOLOGY
卷 40, 期 2, 页码 227-+

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41587-021-01026-y

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [K99HL153940, DP2HL137167, P01HL131471, UG3HL147367]
  2. American Cancer Society [129056-RSG-16-093]
  3. Lung Cancer Research Foundation
  4. Cystic Fibrosis Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study optimized prime editing tools for creating precise genomic deletions and direct replacement of a genomic fragment with a desired sequence without the need for an exogenous DNA template. By conjugating Cas9 nuclease to reverse transcriptase and using two PE guide RNAs targeting complementary DNA strands, the PEDAR method achieved precise and specific deletion and repair of target sequences.
Genomic insertions, duplications and insertion/deletions (indels), which account for similar to 14% of human pathogenic mutations, cannot be accurately or efficiently corrected by current gene-editing methods, especially those that involve larger alterations (>100 base pairs (bp)). Here, we optimize prime editing (PE) tools for creating precise genomic deletions and direct the replacement of a genomic fragment ranging from similar to 1 kilobases (kb) to similar to 10 kb with a desired sequence (up to 60 bp) in the absence of an exogenous DNA template. By conjugating Cas9 nuclease to reverse transcriptase (PE-Cas9) and combining it with two PE guide RNAs (pegRNAs) targeting complementary DNA strands, we achieve precise and specific deletion and repair of target sequences via using this PE-Cas9-based deletion and repair (PEDAR) method. PEDAR outperformed other genome-editing methods in a reporter system and at endogenous loci, efficiently creating large and precise genomic alterations. In a mouse model of tyrosinemia, PEDAR removed a 1.38-kb pathogenic insertion within the Fah gene and precisely repaired the deletion junction to restore FAH expression in liver.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据