Cited by 473CRISPR and Genetic EngineeringRNA regulation and diseaseEpigenetics and DNA Methylation

Evaluation and minimization of Cas9-independent off-target DNA editing by cytosine base editors

Open access
Doman, Jordan L., Raguram, Aditya, Newby, Gregory A., Liu, David R.·2020·Nature Biotechnology

Abstract

Cytosine base editors (CBEs) enable targeted C•G-to-T•A conversions in genomic DNA. Recent studies report that BE3, the original CBE, induces a low frequency of genome-wide Cas9-independent off-target C•G-to-T•A mutation in mouse embryos and in rice. Here we develop multiple rapid, cost-effective methods to screen the propensity of different CBEs to induce Cas9-independent deamination in Escherichia coli and in human cells. We use these assays to identify CBEs with reduced Cas9-independent deamination and validate via whole-genome sequencing that YE1, a narrowed-window CBE variant, displays background levels of Cas9-independent off-target editing. We engineered YE1 variants that retain the substrate-targeting scope of high-activity CBEs while maintaining minimal Cas9-independent off-target editing. The suite of CBEs characterized and engineered in this study collectively offer ~10-100-fold lower average Cas9-independent off-target DNA editing while maintaining robust on-target editing at most positions targetable by canonical CBEs, and thus are especially promising for applications in which off-target editing must be minimized.

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/s41587-020-0414-6

Cites

59 of 59 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?

  • The primer base editors CBE and ABE have been improved through several modifications with increased specificity and reduced deaminase-induced off-target activity.

    “The primer base editors CBE and ABE have been improved a lot through several modifications with increased specificity and reduced deaminase—induced off-target activity (Doman et al., 2020).”

    From Emerging applications of gene editing technologies for the development of climate-resilient crops (2025) · cites this paper as Doman et al., 2020

    The Results (Human cell orthogonal R-loop assay) and Discussion report modified CBE variants with substantially reduced Cas9-independent off-target deamination. The Results (Comparison of adenine and cytosine base editors) report low off-target activity for the canonical ABE, but do not show that modifications improved ABE specificity or reduced its deaminase-induced off-target activity. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [57]Garrison E, Marth G, Haplotype-based variant detection from short-read sequencing. arXiv preprint (2012).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Doman, J. L., Raguram, A., Newby, G. A., & Liu, D. R.
Affiliations
Broad Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Liu, David R.
Venue
Nature Biotechnology
Published
2020-02-10
Volume
38
Issue
5
Pages
620-628
ISSN
  • 0733-222X (ISSN-L)
  • 1087-0156
  • 1546-1696
OpenAlex
W3004494456
Cited by
473
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 68 · 2025: 70 · 2024: 64 · 2023: 82 · 2022: 70 · 2021: 71 · 2020: 47
FWCI
21.90
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
  • Division of Intramural Research, 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 General Medical Sciences (R35 GM118062)
  • 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 › Epigenetics and DNA Methylation
Keywords
cytosine base editors, BE3, genome editing safety, Escherichia coli, human cells
MeSH terms
Gene Editing, Whole Genome Sequencing, CRISPR-Associated Protein 9, Cytosine, Escherichia coli, Humans, Mutation, HEK293 Cells

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