Green, R. C. et al. ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. Genet. Med. 15, 565–574 (2013).
Rehm, H. L. et al. ClinGen—the clinical genome resource. N. Engl. J. Med. 372, 2235–2242 (2015).
Karczewski, K. J. et al. The mutational constraint spectrum quantified from variation in 141,456 humans. Nature 581, 434–443 (2020).
Landrum, M. J. et al. ClinVar: improving access to variant interpretations and supporting evidence. Nucleic Acids Res. 46, D1062–D1067 (2018).
Starita, L. M. et al. Variant interpretation: functional assays to the rescue. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 101, 315–325 (2017).
Shah, N. et al. Identification of misclassified clinvar variants via disease population prevalence. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 102, 609–619 (2018).
Cooper, D. N., Krawczak, M., Polychronakos, C., Tyler-Smith, C. & Kehrer-Sawatzki, H. Where genotype is not predictive of phenotype: towards an understanding of the molecular basis of reduced penetrance in human inherited disease. Hum. Genet. 132, 1077–1130 (2013).
Rahit, K. M. T. H. & Tarailo-Graovac, M. Genetic modifiers and rare Mendelian disease. Genes 11, 239 (2020).
Mukherjee, S. et al. Identifying digenic disease genes via machine learning in the Undiagnosed Diseases Network. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 108, 1946–1963 (2021).
Jinek, M. et al. RNA-programmed genome editing in human cells. eLife 2, e00471 (2013).
Mali, P. et al. RNA-guided human genome engineering via Cas9. Science 339, 823–826 (2013).
Anzalone, A. V., Koblan, L. W. & Liu, D. R. Genome editing with CRISPR–Cas nucleases, base editors, transposases and prime editors. Nat. Biotechnol. 38, 824–844 (2020).
Findlay, G. M. et al. Accurate classification of BRCA1 variants with saturation genome editing. Nature 562, 217–222 (2018).
Kosicki, M., Tomberg, K. & Bradley, A. Repair of double-strand breaks induced by CRISPR–Cas9 leads to large deletions and complex rearrangements. Nat. Biotechnol. 36, 765–771 (2018).
Turchiano, G. et al. Quantitative evaluation of chromosomal rearrangements in gene-edited human stem cells by CAST-Seq. Cell Stem Cell 28, 1136–1147.e5 (2021).
Leibowitz, M. L. et al. Chromothripsis as an on-target consequence of CRISPR–Cas9 genome editing. Nat. Genet. 53, 895–905 (2021).
Haapaniemi, E., Botla, S., Persson, J., Schmierer, B. & Taipale, J. CRISPR–Cas9 genome editing induces a p53-mediated DNA damage response. Nat. Med. 24, 927–930 (2018).
Cong, L. et al. Multiplex genome engineering using CRISPR–Cas systems. Science 339, 819–823 (2013).
Ihry, R. J. et al. P53 inhibits CRISPR–Cas9 engineering in human pluripotent stem cells. Nat. Med. 24, 939–946 (2018).
Komor, A. C., Kim, Y. B., Packer, M. S., Zuris, J. A. & Liu, D. R. Programmable editing of a target base in genomic DNA without double-stranded DNA cleavage. Nature 533, 420–424 (2016).
Gaudelli, N. M. et al. Programmable base editing of A·T to G·C in genomic DNA without DNA cleavage. Nature 551, 464–471 (2017).
Anzalone, A. V. et al. Search-and-replace genome editing without double-strand breaks or donor DNA. Nature 576, 149–157 (2019).
Jiang, F. et al. Structures of a CRISPR–Cas9 R-loop complex primed for DNA cleavage. Science 351, 867–871 (2016).
Sherry, S. T. et al. dbSNP: the NCBI database of genetic variation. Nucleic Acids Res. 29, 308–311 (2001).
Webber, B. R. et al. Highly efficient multiplex human T cell engineering without double-strand breaks using Cas9 base editors. Nat. Commun. 10, 5222 (2019).
Nishimasu, H. et al. Engineered CRISPR–Cas9 nuclease with expanded targeting space. Science 361, 1259–1262 (2018).
Walton, R. T., Christie, K. A., Whittaker, M. N. & Kleinstiver, B. P. Unconstrained genome targeting with near-PAMless engineered CRISPR–Cas9 variants. Science 368, 290–296 (2020).
Ting, P. Y. et al. Guide Swap enables genome-scale pooled CRISPR–Cas9 screening in human primary cells. Nat. Methods 15, 941–946 (2018).
Glaser, V. et al. Combining different CRISPR nucleases for simultaneous knock-in and base editing prevents translocations in multiplex-edited CAR T cells. Genome Biol. 24, 89 (2023).
Kim, Y. B. et al. Increasing the genome-targeting scope and precision of base editing with engineered Cas9–cytidine deaminase fusions. Nat. Biotechnol. 35, 371–376 (2017).
Porto, E. M., Komor, A. C., Slaymaker, I. M. & Yeo, G. W. Base editing: advances and therapeutic opportunities. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 19, 839–859 (2020).
Liu, Z. et al. Efficient generation of mouse models of human diseases via ABE- and BE-mediated base editing. Nat. Commun. 9, 2338 (2018).
Zalatan, J. G. et al. Engineering complex synthetic transcriptional programs with CRISPR RNA scaffolds. Cell 160, 339–350 (2015).
Ma, H. et al. Multiplexed labeling of genomic loci with dCas9 and engineered sgRNAs using CRISPRainbow. Nat. Biotechnol. 34, 528–530 (2016).
Wang, S., Su, J.-H., Zhang, F. & Zhuang, X. An RNA–aptamer-based two-color CRISPR labeling system. Sci. Rep. 6, 26857 (2016).
Fukunaga, K. & Yokobayashi, Y. Directed evolution of orthogonal RNA–RBP pairs through library-vs-library in vitro selection. Nucleic Acids Res. 50, 601–616 (2021).
Konermann, S. et al. Genome-scale transcriptional activation by an engineered CRISPR–Cas9 complex. Nature 517, 583–588 (2015).
Shechner, D. M., Hacisuleyman, E., Younger, S. T. & Rinn, J. L. Multiplexable, locus-specific targeting of long RNAs with CRISPR–Display. Nat. Methods 12, 664–670 (2015).
Hess, G. T. et al. Directed evolution using dCas9-targeted somatic hypermutation in mammalian cells. Nat. Methods 13, 1036–1042 (2016).
Valegård, K. et al. The three-dimensional structures of two complexes between recombinant MS2 capsids and RNA operator fragments reveal sequence-specific protein–RNA interactions. J. Mol. Biol. 270, 724–738 (1997).
Tars, K., Fridborg, K., Bundule, M. & Liljas, L. The three-dimensional structure of bacteriophage PP7 from Pseudomonas aeruginosa at 3.7-Å resolution. Virology 272, 331–337 (2000).
Collantes, J. C. et al. Development and characterization of a modular CRISPR and RNA aptamer-mediated base editing system. CRISPR J. 4, 58–68 (2021).
Li, C. et al. SWISS: multiplexed orthogonal genome editing in plants with a Cas9 nickase and engineered CRISPR RNA scaffolds. Genome Biol. 21, 141 (2020).
Richter, M. F. et al. Phage-assisted evolution of an adenine base editor with improved Cas domain compatibility and activity. Nat. Biotechnol. 38, 883–891 (2020).
Nguyen Tran, M. T. et al. Engineering domain-inlaid SaCas9 adenine base editors with reduced RNA off-targets and increased on-target DNA editing. Nat. Commun. 11, 4871 (2020).
Gaudelli, N. M. et al. Directed evolution of adenine base editors with increased activity and therapeutic application. Nat. Biotechnol. 38, 892–900 (2020).
Komor, A. C. et al. Improved base excision repair inhibition and bacteriophage Mu Gam protein yields C:G-to-T:A base editors with higher efficiency and product purity. Sci. Adv. 3, eaao4774 (2017).
Nishida, K. et al. Targeted nucleotide editing using hybrid prokaryotic and vertebrate adaptive immune systems. Science 353, aaf8729 (2016).
Zhang, X. et al. Increasing the efficiency and targeting range of cytidine base editors through fusion of a single-stranded DNA-binding protein domain. Nat. Cell Biol. 22, 740–750 (2020).
Koblan, L. W. et al. Improving cytidine and adenine base editors by expression optimization and ancestral reconstruction. Nat. Biotechnol. 36, 843–848 (2018).
Thuronyi, B. W. et al. Continuous evolution of base editors with expanded target compatibility and improved activity. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 1070–1079 (2019).
Yu, Y. et al. Cytosine base editors with minimized unguided DNA and RNA off-target events and high on-target activity. Nat. Commun. 11, 2052 (2020).
Wang, Y. et al. sgBE: a structure-guided design of sgRNA architecture specifies base editing window and enables simultaneous conversion of cytosine and adenosine. Genome Biol. 21, 222 (2020).
Fu, J. L., Kanno, T., Liang, S.-C., Matzke, A. J. M. & Matzke, M. GFP Loss-of-Function Mutations in Arabidopsis thaliana. G3 5, 1849–1855 (2015).
Martin, A. St. et al. A panel of eGFP reporters for single base editing by APOBEC–Cas9 editosome complexes. Sci. Rep. 9, 497 (2019)
Di Blasi, R., Marbiah, M. M., Siciliano, V., Polizzi, K. & Ceroni, F. A call for caution in analysing mammalian co-transfection experiments and implications of resource competition in data misinterpretation. Nat. Commun. 12, 2545 (2021).
Vakulskas, C. A. et al. A high-fidelity Cas9 mutant delivered as a ribonucleoprotein complex enables efficient gene editing in human hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells. Nat. Med. 24, 1216–1224 (2018).
Standage-Beier, K. et al. A transient reporter for editing enrichment (TREE) in human cells. Nucleic Acids Res. 47, e120 (2019).
Doman, J. L., Raguram, A., Newby, G. A. & Liu, D. R. Evaluation and minimization of Cas9-independent off-target DNA editing by cytosine base editors. Nat. Biotechnol. 38, 620–628 (2020).
Tsai, S. Q. et al. GUIDE-seq enables genome-wide profiling of off-target cleavage by CRISPR–Cas nucleases. Nat. Biotechnol. 33, 187–197 (2015).
Doench, J. G. et al. Optimized sgRNA design to maximize activity and minimize off-target effects of CRISPR–Cas9. Nat. Biotechnol. 34, 184–191 (2016).
Rees, H. A., Wilson, C., Doman, J. L. & Liu, D. R. Analysis and minimization of cellular RNA editing by DNA adenine base editors. Sci. Adv. 5, eaax5717 (2019).
Nachtegael, C. et al. Scaling up oligogenic diseases research with OLIDA: the Oligogenic Diseases Database. Database 2022, baac023 (2022).
Arbab, M. et al. Determinants of base editing outcomes from target library analysis and machine learning. Cell 182, 463–480.e30 (2020).
Kim, N. et al. Deep learning models to predict the editing efficiencies and outcomes of diverse base editors. Nat. Biotechnol. 42, 484–497 (2023).
Kovalevich, J. & Langford, D. in Neuronal Cell Culture (eds Amini, S. & White, M. K.) Vol. 1078, 9–21 (Humana Press, 2013).
Shipley, M. M., Mangold, C. A. & Szpara, M. L. Differentiation of the SH-SY5Y human neuroblastoma cell line. J. Vis. Exp. 17, 53193 (2016).
Garaffo, G. et al. The Dlx5 and Foxg1 transcription factors, linked via miRNA-9 and -200, are required for the development of the olfactory and GnRH system. Mol. Cell. Neurosci. 68, 103–119 (2015).
Yan, Y. et al. Endoplasmic reticulum stress-related calcium imbalance plays an important role on zinc oxide nanoparticles-induced failure of neural tube closure during embryogenesis. Environ. Int. 152, 106495 (2021).
Riordan, J. D. & Nadeau, J. H. From peas to disease: modifier genes, network resilience, and the genetics of health. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 101, 177–191 (2017).
Nelson, J. W. et al. Engineered pegRNAs improve prime editing efficiency. Nat. Biotechnol. 40, 402–410 (2022).
Yuan, Q. & Gao, X. Multiplex base- and prime-editing with drive-and-process CRISPR arrays. Nat. Commun. 13, 2771 (2022).
Di Blasi, R. et al. Resource-aware construct design in mammalian cells. Nat. Commun. 14, 3576 (2023).
Maynard, S. et al. Human embryonic stem cells have enhanced repair of multiple forms of DNA damage. Stem Cells 26, 2266–2274 (2008).
Wang, X. et al. Cas12a base editors induce efficient and specific editing with low DNA damage response. Cell Rep. 31, 107723 (2020).
Park, J.-C. et al. High expression of uracil DNA glycosylase determines C to T substitution in human pluripotent stem cells. Mol. Ther. Nucleic Acids 27, 175–183 (2022).
Park, J.-C., Kim, Y.-J., Kang, C. Y., Bae, S. & Cha, H.-J. Enhancing precise genome editing in human pluripotent stem cells through dual inhibition of dna damage response and repair pathways. Preprint at Research Square https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3028152/v1 (2023).
Wang, C. et al. Microbial single-strand annealing proteins enable CRISPR gene-editing tools with improved knock-in efficiencies and reduced off-target effects. Nucleic Acids Res. 49, e36 (2021).
Najm, F. J. et al. Orthologous CRISPR–Cas9 enzymes for combinatorial genetic screens. Nat. Biotechnol. 36, 179–189 (2018).
McCarty, N. S., Graham, A. E., Studená, L. & Ledesma-Amaro, R. Multiplexed CRISPR technologies for gene editing and transcriptional regulation. Nat. Commun. 11, 1281 (2020).
Vasquez, C. A., Cowan, Q. T. & Komor, A. C. Base editing in human cells to produce single‐nucleotide‐variant clonal cell lines. Curr. Protoc. Mol. Biol. 133, e129 (2020).
Salomonsen, B., Mortensen, U. H. & Halkier, B. A. in DNA Cloning and Assembly Methods (eds Valla, S. & Lale, R.) vol. 1116, 59–72 (Humana Press, 2014).
Adikusuma, F., Pfitzner, C. & Thomas, P. Q. Versatile single-step-assembly CRISPR–Cas9 vectors for dual gRNA expression. PLoS ONE 12, e0187236 (2017).
Rees, H. A. et al. Improving the DNA specificity and applicability of base editing through protein engineering and protein delivery. Nat. Commun. 8, 15790 (2017).
Rallapalli, K. L., Ranzau, B. L., Ganapathy, K. R., Paesani, F. & Komor, A. C. Combined theoretical, bioinformatic, and biochemical analyses of RNA editing by adenine base editors. CRISPR J. 5, 294–310 (2022).
Clement, K. et al. CRISPResso2 provides accurate and rapid genome editing sequence analysis. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 224–226 (2019).
Liao, Y., Smyth, G. K. & Shi, W. The R package Rsubread is easier, faster, cheaper and better for alignment and quantification of RNA sequencing reads. Nucleic Acids Res. 47, e47 (2019).
Li, H. et al. The sequence alignment/map format and SAMtools. Bioinformatics 25, 2078–2079 (2009).
Cowan, Q. T. et al. Development of multiplexed orthogonal base editor (MOBE) systems. NCBI Bioproject https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bioproject/PRJNA836633 (2024).
Cowan, Q. T. et al. MOBEnto (quantification of haplotypes from multiplexed genome editing using next-generation sequencing data). GitHub https://github.com/Komorlab/MOBEnto (2024).
