Mathis, N. et al. Predicting prime editing efficiency and product purity by deep learning. Nat. Biotechnol. 41, 1151–1159 (2023).
Kim, H. K. et al. Predicting the efficiency of prime editing guide RNAs in human cells. Nat. Biotechnol. 39, 198–206 (2021).
Koeppel, J. et al. Prediction of prime editing insertion efficiencies using sequence features and DNA repair determinants. Nat. Biotechnol. 41, 1446–1456 (2023).
Yu, G. et al. Prediction of efficiencies for diverse prime editing systems in multiple cell types. Cell 186, 2256–2272 (2023).
Chen, P. J. et al. Enhanced prime editing systems by manipulating cellular determinants of editing outcomes. Cell 184, 5635–5652 (2021).
Ferreira da Silva, J. et al. Prime editing efficiency and fidelity are enhanced in the absence of mismatch repair. Nat. Commun. 13, 760 (2022).
Trojan, J. et al. Functional analysis of hMLH1 variants and HNPCC-related mutations using a human expression system. Gastroenterology 122, 211–219 (2002).
Matheson, E. C. & Hall, A. G. Assessment of mismatch repair function in leukaemic cell lines and blasts from children with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. Carcinogenesis 24, 31–38 (2003).
Böck, D. et al. In vivo prime editing of a metabolic liver disease in mice. Sci. Transl. Med. 14, eabl9238 (2022).
Lundberg, S. M. & Lee, S. I. A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30 (NIPS 2017) (eds. Guyon, I. et al.) 4766–4775 (Curran Associates, 2017).
Chen, T. & Guestrin, C. XGBoost: a scalable tree boosting system. In Proc. 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (eds Krishnapuram, B. et al.) 785–794 (ACM, 2016).
Anzalone, A. V. et al. Search-and-replace genome editing without double-strand breaks or donor DNA. Nature 576, 149–157 (2019).
Brooks, D. L. et al. Efficient in vivo prime editing corrects the most frequent phenylketonuria variant, associated with high unmet medical need. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 110, 2003–2014 (2023).
Schep, R. et al. Impact of chromatin context on Cas9-induced DNA double-strand break repair pathway balance. Mol. Cell 81, 2216–2230 (2021).
Chen, E. et al. Decorating chromatin for enhanced genome editing using CRISPR−Cas9. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119, e2204259119 (2022).
Daer, R. M., Cutts, J. P., Brafman, D. A. & Haynes, K. A. The impact of chromatin dynamics on Cas9-mediated genome editing in human cells. ACS Synth. Biol. 6, 428–438 (2017).
Ding, X. et al. Improving CRISPR−Cas9 genome editing efficiency by fusion with chromatin-modulating peptides. CRISPR J. 2, 51–63 (2019).
Pokusaeva, V. O., Diez, A. R., Espinar, L., Pérez, A. T. & Filion, G. J. Strand asymmetry influences mismatch resolution during single-strand annealing. Genome Biol. 23, 93 (2022).
Akhtar, W. et al. Using TRIP for genome-wide position effect analysis in cultured cells. Nat. Protoc. 9, 1255–1281 (2014).
Luo, Y. et al. New developments on the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) data portal. Nucleic Acids Res. 48, D882–D889 (2020).
Buenrostro, J., Wu, B., Chang, H. & Greenleaf, W. ATAC-seq: a method for assaying chromatin accessibility genome-wide. Curr. Protoc. Mol. Biol. 109, 21.29.1–21.29.9 (2015).
Wang, Z. et al. Genome-wide mapping of HATs and HDACs reveals distinct functions in active and inactive genes. Cell 138, 1019–1031 (2009).
Heintzman, N. D. et al. Distinct and predictive chromatin signatures of transcriptional promoters and enhancers in the human genome. Nat. Genet. 39, 311–318 (2007).
Bonasio, R., Tu, S. & Reinberg, D. Molecular signals of epigenetic states. Science 330, 612–616 (2010).
Peters, A. H. F. M. et al. Partitioning and plasticity of repressive histone methylation states in mammalian chromatin. Mol. Cell 12, 1577–1589 (2003).
McInnes, L., Healy, J. & Melville, J. UMAP: uniform manifold approximation and projection for dimension reduction. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.03426 (2020).
Bannister, A. J. et al. Spatial distribution of di- and tri-methyl lysine 36 of histone H3 at active genes. J. Biol. Chem. 280, 17732–17736 (2005).
Li, X., et al. Chromatin context-dependent regulation and epigenetic manipulation of prime editing. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.04.12.536587 (2023).
Kim, H. K. et al. SpCas9 activity prediction by DeepSpCas9, a deep learning–based model with high generalization performance. Sci. Adv. 5, eaax9249 (2019).
Park, S.-J. et al. Targeted mutagenesis in mouse cells and embryos using an enhanced prime editor. Genome Biol. 22, 170 (2021).
Liu, N. et al. HDAC inhibitors improve CRISPR/Cas9 mediated prime editing and base editing. Mol. Ther. Nucleic Acids 29, 36–46 (2022).
Cirincione, A. et al. A benchmarked, high-efficiency prime editing platform for multiplexed dropout screening. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.03.25.585978 (2024).
Mathis, N. & Allam, A. GitHub code repository for PRIDICT2.0. GitHub https://github.com/uzh-dqbm-cmi/PRIDICT2 (2024).
Mathis, N. GitHub code repository for ePRIDICT. GitHub https://github.com/Schwank-Lab/epridict (2024).
Arbab, M. et al. Determinants of base editing outcomes from target library analysis and machine learning. Cell 182, 463–480 (2020).
Nelson, J. W. et al. Engineered pegRNAs improve prime editing efficiency. Nat. Biotechnol. 40, 402–410 (2022).
Sanjana, N. E., Shalem, O. & Zhang, F. Improved vectors and genome-wide libraries for CRISPR screening. Nat. Methods 11, 783–784 (2014).
Mátés, L. et al. Molecular evolution of a novel hyperactive Sleeping Beauty transposase enables robust stable gene transfer in vertebrates. Nat. Genet. 41, 753–761 (2009).
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).
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).
Martin, M. Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads. EMBnet J. 17, 10 (2011).
Lorenz, R. et al. ViennaRNA package 2.0. Algorithms Mol. Biol. 6, 26 (2011).
Langmead, B. & Salzberg, S. L. Fast gapped-read alignment with Bowtie 2. Nat. Methods 9, 357–359 (2012).
Clement, K. et al. CRISPResso2 provides accurate and rapid genome editing sequence analysis. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 224–226 (2019).
Paszke, A. et al. PyTorch: an imperative style, high-performance deep learning library. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.01703 (2019).
Pedregosa, F. et al. Scikit-learn: machine learning in Python. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 12, 2825–2830 (2011).
Yu, G. GenET: Python package for genome editing research (v. 0.12.0). Python Software Foundation https://pypi.org/project/genet/0.12.0/ (2024).
Weller, J. GitHub code repository for Koeppel, et al. 2023 (MinsePIE). GitHub https://github.com/julianeweller/MinsePIE (2023).
Abadi, M. et al. TensorFlow: large-scale machine learning on heterogeneous systems. Zenodo https://zenodo.org/records/8117732 (2015).
Ryan, D. et al. deeptools/pyBigWig: 0.3.22. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7809144 (2023).
Mathis, N. Sequencing data deposition: prime editing efficiency prediction with sequence and chromatin context (PRJNA1025026). Sequence Read Archive https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sra/?term=PRJNA1025026 (2024).
