Back

Prime editing primarily induces undesired outcomes in mice

Aida, T.; Wilde, J. J.; Yang, L.; Hou, Y.; Li, M.; Xu, D.; Lin, J.; Qi, P.; Lu, Z.; Feng, G.

2020-08-06 molecular biology
10.1101/2020.08.06.239723 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Genome editing has transformed biomedical science, but is still unpredictable and often induces undesired outcomes. Prime editing (PE) is a promising new approach due to its proposed flexibility and ability to avoid unwanted indels. Here, we show highly efficient PE-mediated genome editing in mammalian zygotes. Utilizing chemically modified guideRNAs, PE efficiently introduced 10 targeted modifications including substitutions, deletions, and insertions across 6 genes in mouse embryos. However, we unexpectedly observed a high frequency of undesired outcomes such as large deletions and found that these occurred more often than pure intended edits across all of the edits/genes. We show that undesired outcomes result from the double-nicking PE3 strategy, but that omission of the second nick largely ablates PE function. However, sequential double-nicking with PE3b, which is only applicable to a fraction of edits, eliminated undesired outcomes. Overall, our findings demonstrate the promising potential of PE for predictable, flexible, and highly efficient in vivo genome editing, but highlight the need for improved variations of PE before it is ready for widespread use.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Molecular Cell
○ 350 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
12.7%
Similar papers in this journal
2
eLife
● 5828 papers in training set
Top 7%
12.5%
Similar papers in this journal
3
Nature Communications
○ 5641 papers in training set
Top 19%
9.6%
Similar papers in this journal
4
Nucleic Acids Research
◐ 1281 papers in training set
Top 2%
9.6%
Similar papers in this journal
5
Cell Reports
○ 1498 papers in training set
Top 5%
6.7%
Similar papers in this journal
50% of probability mass above
6
Nature Biotechnology
○ 172 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
4.8%
7
Cell
○ 431 papers in training set
Top 2%
4.8%
8
Cell Reports Methods
○ 165 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
3.5%
9
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
● 2444 papers in training set
Top 16%
3.2%
10
Genome Research
● 468 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.6%
11
Cell Genomics
○ 172 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.4%
12
Genes & Development
● 90 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.9%
13
Science
● 477 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.7%
14
Genome Biology
○ 637 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.7%
15
iScience
○ 1154 papers in training set
Top 18%
1.7%
16
Nature
○ 645 papers in training set
Top 8%
1.4%
17
The EMBO Journal
○ 309 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.3%
18
Nature Methods
○ 385 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.1%
19
Developmental Cell
○ 196 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
20
EMBO Reports
○ 263 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.1%
21
Cell Systems
○ 201 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
22
Science Advances
● 1243 papers in training set
Top 31%
0.8%
23
PLOS Biology
● 486 papers in training set
Top 14%
0.6%
24
Cell Reports Medicine
○ 153 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.6%
25
Cell Stem Cell
○ 62 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
26
Stem Cell Reports
○ 130 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.