Cited by 347CRISPR and Genetic EngineeringRNA regulation and diseaseEnzyme Catalysis and Immobilization

Continuous evolution of base editors with expanded target compatibility and improved activity

Open access
Thuronyi, B W., Koblan, Luke W., Levy, Jonathan M., Yeh, Wei-Hsi, Zheng, Christine, Newby, Gregory A., Wilson, Christopher, Bhaumik, Mantu +3 more·2019·Nature Biotechnology

Abstract

Base editors use DNA-modifying enzymes targeted with a catalytically impaired CRISPR protein to precisely install point mutations. Here, we develop phage-assisted continuous evolution of base editors (BE-PACE) to improve their editing efficiency and target sequence compatibility. We used BE-PACE to evolve cytosine base editors (CBEs) that overcome target sequence context constraints of canonical CBEs. One evolved CBE, evoAPOBEC1-BE4max, is up to 26-fold more efficient at editing cytosine in the GC context, a disfavored context for wild-type APOBEC1 deaminase, while maintaining efficient editing in all other sequence contexts tested. Another evolved deaminase, evoFERNY, is 29% smaller than APOBEC1 and edits efficiently in all tested sequence contexts. We also evolved a CBE based on CDA1 deaminase with much higher editing efficiency at difficult target sites. Finally, we used data from evolved CBEs to illuminate the relationship between deaminase activity, base editing efficiency, editing window width and byproduct formation. These findings establish a system for rapid evolution of base editors and inform their use and improvement.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41587-019-0193-0

Cites

65 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Evolved base editor variants such as EvoFERNY and CBE6-variants no longer have the GC sequence context restriction.

    “The evolved variants such as EvoFERNY and CBE6-variants do no longer have this sequence context.”

    From Protocol to create isogenic disease models from adult stem cell-derived organoids using next-generation CRISPR tools (2024) · cites this paper as [25]

    The Discussion (page not available) says evoFERNY-BE4max and evoAPOBEC1-BE4max showed no apparent bias against GC targets at the sites tested. The paper does not identify a family called “CBE6-variants,” and its finding is limited to tested sites rather than establishing that the restriction is absent in every context. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Editors such as CBE6b or EvoFERNY do not have the sequence context limitation of not editing when a G precedes the target C.

    “For this reason, make sure to always be updated with the literature and find editors that do not have such a sequence context, such as CBE6b or EvoFERNY.25,53”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Thuronyi, B. W., Koblan, L. W., Levy, J. M., Yeh, W.-H., Zheng, C., Newby, G. A., Wilson, C., Bhaumik, M., Shubina-Oleinik, O., Holt, J. R., & Liu, D. R.
Affiliations
  • Broad Institute (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Boston Children's Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Liu, David R.
Venue
Nature Biotechnology
Published
2019-07-22
Volume
37
Issue
9
Pages
1070-1079
ISSN
  • 0733-222X (ISSN-L)
  • 1087-0156
  • 1546-1696
OpenAlex
W2963629338
Cited by
347
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 31 · 2025: 56 · 2024: 55 · 2023: 51 · 2022: 46 · 2021: 45 · 2020: 53 · 2019: 9
FWCI
12.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Biotechnology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | NIH | National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (U01 AI142756)
  • U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | NIH | National Human Genome Research Institute (RM1 HG009490)
  • U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | NIH | National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (R01 EB022376)
  • U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | NIH | National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R35 GM118062)
  • United States Department of Defense | Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (HR0011-17-2-0049)
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute (Liu Investigatorship)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › CRISPR and Genetic Engineering
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › RNA regulation and disease
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Enzyme Catalysis and Immobilization
Keywords
base editors, phage-assisted continuous evolution, cytosine base editors, editing efficiency, deaminase activity, by-product formation
MeSH terms
Gene Editing, Adenosine Deaminase, Animals, Base Sequence, Cell Line, Humans, Gene Expression Regulation, Enzymologic, Gene Targeting, Directed Molecular Evolution, Mice, INDEL Mutation, CRISPR-Cas Systems

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review