High-precision cytosine base editors by evolving nucleic-acid-recognition hotspots in deaminase
Krishnan, A., Iyer, L. M., Holland, S. J., Boehm, T. & Aravind, L. Diversification of AID/APOBEC-like deaminases in metazoa: multiplicity of clades and widespread roles in immunity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, E3201–E3210 (2018).
Google Scholar
Conticello, S. G. The AID/APOBEC family of nucleic acid mutators. Genome Biol. 9, 229 (2008).
Google Scholar
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).
Google Scholar
Nishida, K. et al. Targeted nucleotide editing using hybrid prokaryotic and vertebrate adaptive immune systems. Science 353, aaf8729 (2016).
Google Scholar
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).
Google Scholar
Rallapalli, K. L. & Komor, A. C. The design and application of DNA-editing enzymes as base editors. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 92, 43–79 (2023).
Google Scholar
Rees, H. A. & Liu, D. R. Base editing: precision chemistry on the genome and transcriptome of living cells. Nat. Rev. Genet. 19, 770–788 (2018).
Google Scholar
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).
Google Scholar
Huang, J. et al. Discovery of deaminase functions by structure-based protein clustering. Cell 186, 3182–3195 (2023).
Google Scholar
Vaisvila, R. et al. Discovery of cytosine deaminases enables base-resolution methylome mapping using a single enzyme. Mol. Cell 84, 854–866 (2024).
Google Scholar
Gehrke, J. M. et al. An APOBEC3A–Cas9 base editor with minimized bystander and off-target activities. Nat. Biotechnol. 36, 977–982 (2018).
Google Scholar
Liu, Z. et al. Precise base editing with CC context-specificity using engineered human APOBEC3G–nCas9 fusions. BMC Biol. 18, 111 (2020).
Google Scholar
Thuronyi, B. W. et al. Continuous evolution of base editors with expanded target compatibility and improved activity. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 1070–1079 (2019).
Google Scholar
Mok, B. Y. et al. CRISPR-free base editors with enhanced activity and expanded targeting scope in mitochondrial and nuclear DNA. Nat. Biotechnol. 40, 1378–1387 (2022).
Google Scholar
Xiao, Y. L., Wu, Y. & Tang, W. An adenine base editor variant expands context compatibility. Nat. Biotechnol. 42, 1442–1453 (2024).
Google Scholar
Rubio, M. A. et al. Editing and methylation at a single site by functionally interdependent activities. Nature 542, 494–497 (2017).
Google Scholar
Iyer, L. M., Zhang, D., Rogozin, I. B. & Aravind, L. Evolution of the deaminase fold and multiple origins of eukaryotic editing and mutagenic nucleic acid deaminases from bacterial toxin systems. Nucleic Acids Res. 39, 9473–9497 (2011).
Google Scholar
Gerber, A. P. & Keller, W. An adenosine deaminase that generates inosine at the wobble position of tRNAs. Science 286, 1146–1149 (1999).
Google Scholar
Wolf, J., Gerber, A. P. & Keller, W. TadA, an essential tRNA-specific adenosine deaminase from Escherichia coli. EMBO J. 21, 3841–3851 (2002).
Google Scholar
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).
Google Scholar
Gaudelli, N. M. et al. Directed evolution of adenine base editors with increased activity and therapeutic application. Nat. Biotechnol. 38, 892–900 (2020).
Google Scholar
Lapinaite, A. et al. DNA capture by a CRISPR–Cas9-guided adenine base editor. Science 369, 566–571 (2020).
Google Scholar
Kim, H. S., Jeong, Y. K., Hur, J. K., Kim, J. S. & Bae, S. Adenine base editors catalyze cytosine conversions in human cells. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 1145–1148 (2019).
Google Scholar
Jeong, Y. K. et al. Adenine base editor engineering reduces editing of bystander cytosines. Nat. Biotechnol. 39, 1426–1433 (2021).
Google Scholar
Kim, J. et al. Structural and kinetic characterization of Escherichia coli TadA, the wobble-specific tRNA deaminase. Biochemistry 45, 6407–6416 (2006).
Google Scholar
Losey, H. C., Ruthenburg, A. J. & Verdine, G. L. Crystal structure of Staphylococcus aureus tRNA adenosine deaminase TadA in complex with RNA. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 13, 153–159 (2006).
Google Scholar
Di Tommaso, P. et al. T-Coffee: a web server for the multiple sequence alignment of protein and RNA sequences using structural information and homology extension. Nucleic Acids Res. 39, W13–W17 (2011).
Google Scholar
Logue, E. C. et al. A DNA sequence recognition loop on APOBEC3A controls substrate specificity. PLoS ONE 9, e97062 (2014).
Google Scholar
Koblan, L. W. et al. Improving cytidine and adenine base editors by expression optimization and ancestral reconstruction. Nat. Biotechnol. 36, 843–846 (2018).
Google Scholar
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).
Google Scholar
Zhang, X. et al. Dual base editor catalyzes both cytosine and adenine base conversions in human cells. Nat. Biotechnol. 38, 856–860 (2020).
Google Scholar
Grunewald, J. et al. A dual-deaminase CRISPR base editor enables concurrent adenine and cytosine editing. Nat. Biotechnol. 38, 861–864 (2020).
Google Scholar
Sakata, R. C. et al. Base editors for simultaneous introduction of C-to-T and A-to-G mutations. Nat. Biotechnol. 38, 865–869 (2020).
Google Scholar
Li, C. et al. Targeted, random mutagenesis of plant genes with dual cytosine and adenine base editors. Nat. Biotechnol. 38, 875–882 (2020).
Google Scholar
Hecht, A. et al. Measurements of translation initiation from all 64 codons in E. coli. Nucleic Acids Res. 45, 3615–3626 (2017).
Google Scholar
Chen, L. et al. Re-engineering the adenine deaminase TadA-8e for efficient and specific CRISPR-based cytosine base editing. Nat. Biotechnol. 41, 663–672 (2023).
Google Scholar
Neugebauer, M. E. et al. Evolution of an adenine base editor into a small, efficient cytosine base editor with low off-target activity. Nat. Biotechnol. 41, 673–685 (2023).
Google Scholar
Lam, D. K. et al. Improved cytosine base editors generated from TadA variants. Nat. Biotechnol. 41, 686–697 (2023).
Google Scholar
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).
Google Scholar
Wolfe, A. D., Li, S., Goedderz, C. & Chen, X. S. The structure of APOBEC1 and insights into its RNA and DNA substrate selectivity. NAR Cancer 2, zcaa027 (2020).
Google Scholar
Kouno, T. et al. Crystal structure of APOBEC3A bound to single-stranded DNA reveals structural basis for cytidine deamination and specificity. Nat. Commun. 8, 15024 (2017).
Google Scholar
Arbab, M. et al. Determinants of base editing outcomes from target library analysis and machine learning. Cell 182, 463–480 (2020).
Google Scholar
Song, M. et al. Sequence-specific prediction of the efficiencies of adenine and cytosine base editors. Nat. Biotechnol. 38, 1037–1043 (2020).
Google Scholar
Kim, N. et al. Deep learning models to predict the editing efficiencies and outcomes of diverse base editors. Nat. Biotechnol. 42, 484–497 (2024).
Google Scholar
Sanchez-Rivera, F. J. et al. Base editing sensor libraries for high-throughput engineering and functional analysis of cancer-associated single nucleotide variants. Nat. Biotechnol. 40, 862–873 (2022).
Google Scholar
Landrum, M. J. et al. ClinVar: public archive of relationships among sequence variation and human phenotype. Nucleic Acids Res. 42, D980–D985 (2014).
Google Scholar
Landrum, M. J. et al. ClinVar: public archive of interpretations of clinically relevant variants. Nucleic Acids Res. 44, D862–D868 (2016).
Google Scholar
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).
Google Scholar
Lei, Z. et al. Detect-seq reveals out-of-protospacer editing and target-strand editing by cytosine base editors. Nat. Methods 18, 643–651 (2021).
Google Scholar
Chen, J., Yang, B. & Yang, L. To BE or not to BE, that is the question. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 520–522 (2019).
Google Scholar
Jin, S. et al. Rationally designed APOBEC3B cytosine base editors with improved specificity. Mol. Cell 79, 728–740 (2020).
Google Scholar
Wang, L. et al. Eliminating base-editor-induced genome-wide and transcriptome-wide off-target mutations. Nat. Cell Biol. 23, 552–563 (2021).
Google Scholar
Jin, S. et al. Cytosine, but not adenine, base editors induce genome-wide off-target mutations in rice. Science 364, 292–295 (2019).
Google Scholar
Zhou, C. et al. Off-target RNA mutation induced by DNA base editing and its elimination by mutagenesis. Nature 571, 275–278 (2019).
Google Scholar
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).
Google Scholar
Grunewald, J. et al. Transcriptome-wide off-target RNA editing induced by CRISPR-guided DNA base editors. Nature 569, 433–437 (2019).
Google Scholar
Grunewald, J. et al. CRISPR DNA base editors with reduced RNA off-target and self-editing activities. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 1041–1048 (2019).
Google Scholar
Zuo, E. et al. A rationally engineered cytosine base editor retains high on-target activity while reducing both DNA and RNA off-target effects. Nat. Methods 17, 600–604 (2020).
Google Scholar
Zehir, A. et al. Mutational landscape of metastatic cancer revealed from prospective clinical sequencing of 10,000 patients. Nat. Med. 23, 703–713 (2017).
Google Scholar
Tate, J. G. et al. COSMIC: the catalogue of somatic mutations in cancer. Nucleic Acids Res. 47, D941–D947 (2019).
Google Scholar
Zeissig, M. N., Ashwood, L. M., Kondrashova, O. & Sutherland, K. D. Next batter up! Targeting cancers with KRAS-G12D mutations. Trends Cancer 9, 955–967 (2023).
Google Scholar
Nishimasu, H. et al. Engineered CRISPR–Cas9 nuclease with expanded targeting space. Science 361, 1259–1262 (2018).
Google Scholar
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).
Google Scholar
Anzalone, A. V. et al. Search-and-replace genome editing without double-strand breaks or donor DNA. Nature 576, 149–157 (2019).
Google Scholar
Chen, P. J. & Liu, D. R. Prime editing for precise and highly versatile genome manipulation. Nat. Rev. Genet. 24, 161–177 (2023).
Google Scholar
Hu, J. et al. Targeting mutant p53 for cancer therapy: direct and indirect strategies. J. Hematol. Oncol. 14, 157 (2021).
Google Scholar
Zhang, E., Neugebauer, M. E., Krasnow, N. A. & Liu, D. R. Phage-assisted evolution of highly active cytosine base editors with enhanced selectivity and minimal sequence context preference. Nat. Commun. 15, 1697 (2024).
Google Scholar
Zhang, S. et al. TadA reprogramming to generate potent miniature base editors with high precision. Nat. Commun. 14, 413 (2023).
Google Scholar
Zhang, S. et al. TadA orthologs enable both cytosine and adenine editing of base editors. Nat. Commun. 14, 414 (2023).
Google Scholar
Li, G. et al. Engineering TadA ortholog-derived cytosine base editor without motif preference and adenosine activity limitation. Nat. Commun. 15, 8090 (2024).
Google Scholar
Kohli, R. M. et al. A portable hot spot recognition loop transfers sequence preferences from APOBEC family members to activation-induced cytidine deaminase. J. Biol. Chem. 284, 22898–22904 (2009).
Google Scholar
Carpenter, M. A., Rajagurubandara, E., Wijesinghe, P. & Bhagwat, A. S. Determinants of sequence-specificity within human AID and APOBEC3G. DNA Repair 9, 579–587 (2010).
Google Scholar
Wang, M., Rada, C. & Neuberger, M. S. Altering the spectrum of immunoglobulin V gene somatic hypermutation by modifying the active site of AID. J. Exp. Med. 207, 141–153 (2010).
Google Scholar
Chen, P. J. et al. Enhanced prime editing systems by manipulating cellular determinants of editing outcomes. Cell 184, 5635–5652 (2021).
Google Scholar
Yan, J. et al. Improving prime editing with an endogenous small RNA-binding protein. Nature 628, 639–647 (2024).
Google Scholar
Nelson, J. W. et al. Engineered pegRNAs improve prime editing efficiency. Nat. Biotechnol. 40, 402–410 (2022).
Google Scholar
Doman, J. L. et al. Phage-assisted evolution and protein engineering yield compact, efficient prime editors. Cell 186, 3983–4002 (2023).
Google Scholar
Yu, G. et al. Prediction of efficiencies for diverse prime editing systems in multiple cell types. Cell 186, 2256–2272 (2023).
Google Scholar
Mathis, N. et al. Machine learning prediction of prime editing efficiency across diverse chromatin contexts. Nat. Biotechnol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-024-02268-2 (2024).
Ran, F. A. et al. In vivo genome editing using Staphylococcus aureus Cas9. Nature 520, 186–191 (2015).
Google Scholar
Esvelt, K. M. et al. Orthogonal Cas9 proteins for RNA-guided gene regulation and editing. Nat. Methods 10, 1116–1121 (2013).
Google Scholar
Hou, Z. et al. Efficient genome engineering in human pluripotent stem cells using Cas9 from Neisseria meningitidis. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 15644–15649 (2013).
Google Scholar
Edraki, A. et al. A compact, high-accuracy Cas9 with a dinucleotide PAM for in vivo genome editing. Mol. Cell 73, 714–726 (2019).
Google Scholar
Kim, E. et al. In vivo genome editing with a small Cas9 orthologue derived from Campylobacter jejuni. Nat. Commun. 8, 14500 (2017).
Google Scholar
Harrington, L. B. et al. A thermostable Cas9 with increased lifetime in human plasma. Nat. Commun. 8, 1424 (2017).
Google Scholar
Davis, J. R. et al. Efficient in vivo base editing via single adeno-associated viruses with size-optimized genomes encoding compact adenine base editors. Nat. Biomed. Eng. 6, 1272–1283 (2022).
Google Scholar
Mok, B. Y. et al. A bacterial cytidine deaminase toxin enables CRISPR-free mitochondrial base editing. Nature 583, 631–637 (2020).
Google Scholar
Cho, S. I. et al. Targeted A-to-G base editing in human mitochondrial DNA with programmable deaminases. Cell 185, 1764–1776 (2022).
Google Scholar
Willis, J. C. W., Silva-Pinheiro, P., Widdup, L., Minczuk, M. & Liu, D. R. Compact zinc finger base editors that edit mitochondrial or nuclear DNA in vitro and in vivo. Nat. Commun. 13, 7204 (2022).
Google Scholar
Hu, J. et al. Strand-preferred base editing of organellar and nuclear genomes using CyDENT. Nat. Biotechnol. 42, 936–945 (2024).
Google Scholar
Yi, Z. et al. Strand-selective base editing of human mitochondrial DNA using mitoBEs. Nat. Biotechnol. 42, 498–509 (2024).
Google Scholar
Carlson, J. C., Badran, A. H., Guggiana-Nilo, D. A. & Liu, D. R. Negative selection and stringency modulation in phage-assisted continuous evolution. Nat. Chem. Biol. 10, 216–222 (2014).
Google Scholar
Tareen, A. & Kinney, J. B. Logomaker: beautiful sequence logos in Python. Bioinformatics 36, 2272–2274 (2020).
Google Scholar
Xiao, Y. L. et al. Transcriptome-wide profiling and quantification of N6-methyladenosine by enzyme-assisted adenosine deamination. Nat. Biotechnol. 41, 993–1003 (2023).
Google Scholar
Hunter, J. D. Matplotlib: a 2D graphics environment. Comput. Sci. Eng. 9, 90–95 (2007).
Google Scholar
Clement, K. et al. CRISPResso2 provides accurate and rapid genome editing sequence analysis. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 224–226 (2019).
Google Scholar
Crooks, G. E., Hon, G., Chandonia, J. M. & Brenner, S. E. WebLogo: a sequence logo generator. Genome Res. 14, 1188–1190 (2004).
Google Scholar
