Komor, A. C., Badran, A. H. & Liu, D. R. CRISPR-based technologies for the manipulation of eukaryotic genomes. Cell 168, 20–36 (2017).
Google Scholar
Anzalone, A. V., Koblan, L. W. & Liu, D. R. Genome editing with CRISPR–Cas nucleases, base editors, transposases and prime editors. Nat. Biotechnol. 38, 824–844 (2020).
Google Scholar
Cullot, G. et al. CRISPR–Cas9 genome editing induces megabase-scale chromosomal truncations. Nat. Commun. 10, 1136 (2019).
Google Scholar
Kosicki, M., Tomberg, K. & Bradley, A. Repair of double-strand breaks induced by CRISPR–Cas9 leads to large deletions and complex rearrangements. Nat. Biotechnol. 36, 765–771 (2018).
Google Scholar
Boroviak, K., Fu, B., Yang, F., Doe, B. & Bradley, A. Revealing hidden complexities of genomic rearrangements generated with Cas9. Sci. Rep. 7, 12867 (2017).
Google Scholar
Enache, O. M. et al. Cas9 activates the p53 pathway and selects for p53-inactivating mutations. Nat. Genet. 52, 662–668 (2020).
Google Scholar
Haapaniemi, E., Botla, S., Persson, J., Schmierer, B. & Taipale, J. CRISPR–Cas9 genome editing induces a p53-mediated DNA damage response. Nat. Med. 24, 927–930 (2018).
Google Scholar
Ihry, R. J. et al. p53 inhibits CRISPR–Cas9 engineering in human pluripotent stem cells. Nat. Med. 24, 939–946 (2018).
Google Scholar
Leibowitz, M. L. et al. Chromothripsis as an on-target consequence of CRISPR–Cas9 genome editing. Nat. Genet. 53, 895–905 (2021).
Google Scholar
Burgio, G. & Teboul, L. Anticipating and identifying collateral damage in genome editing. Trends Genet. 36, 905–914 (2020).
Google Scholar
Cox, D. B., Platt, R. J. & Zhang, F. Therapeutic genome editing: prospects and challenges. Nat. Med. 21, 121–131 (2015).
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
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
Anzalone, A. V. et al. Search-and-replace genome editing without double-strand breaks or donor DNA. Nature 576, 149–157 (2019).
Google Scholar
Houseley, J. & Tollervey, D. The many pathways of RNA degradation. Cell 136, 763–776 (2009).
Google Scholar
Hendel, A. et al. Chemically modified guide RNAs enhance CRISPR–Cas genome editing in human primary cells. Nat. Biotechnol. 33, 985–989 (2015).
Google Scholar
Geisberg, J. V., Moqtaderi, Z., Fan, X., Ozsolak, F. & Struhl, K. Global analysis of mRNA isoform half-lives reveals stabilizing and destabilizing elements in yeast. Cell 156, 812–824 (2014).
Google Scholar
Wu, X. & Bartel, D. P. Widespread influence of 3′-end structures on mammalian mRNA processing and stability. Cell 169, 905–917 (2017).
Google Scholar
Brown, J. A. et al. Structural insights into the stabilization of MALAT1 noncoding RNA by a bipartite triple helix. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 21, 633–640 (2014).
Google Scholar
Roth, A. et al. A riboswitch selective for the queuosine precursor preQ1 contains an unusually small aptamer domain. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 14, 308–317 (2007).
Google Scholar
Anzalone, A. V., Lin, A. J., Zairis, S., Rabadan, R. & Cornish, V. W. Reprogramming eukaryotic translation with ligand-responsive synthetic RNA switches. Nat. Methods 13, 453–458 (2016).
Google Scholar
Houck-Loomis, B. et al. An equilibrium-dependent retroviral mRNA switch regulates translational recoding. Nature 480, 561–564 (2011).
Google Scholar
Lorenz, R. et al. ViennaRNA package 2.0. Algorithms Mol. Biol. 6, 26 (2011).
Google Scholar
Schene, I. F. et al. Prime editing for functional repair in patient-derived disease models. Nat. Commun. 11, 5352 (2020).
Google Scholar
Kim, D. Y., Moon, S. B., Ko, J. H., Kim, Y. S. & Kim, D. Unbiased investigation of specificities of prime editing systems in human cells. Nucleic Acids Res. 48, 10576–10589 (2020).
Google Scholar
Gao, P. et al. Prime editing in mice reveals the essentiality of a single base in driving tissue specific gene expression. Genome Biol. 22, 83 (2020).
Google Scholar
Lin, Q. et al. High-efficiency prime editing with optimized, paired pegRNAs in plants. Nat. Biotechnol. 39, 923–927 (2021).
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
Schmid, M. & Jensen, T. H. The exosome: a multipurpose RNA-decay machine. Trends Biochem. Sci. 33, 501–510 (2008).
Google Scholar
Ibrahim, H., Wilusz, J. & Wilusz, C. J. RNA recognition by 3′-to-5′ exonucleases: the substrate perspective. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1779, 256–265 (2008).
Google Scholar
Green, L., Kim, C. H., Bustamante, C. & Tinoco, I. Jr. Characterization of the mechanical unfolding of RNA pseudoknots. J. Mol. Biol. 375, 511–528 (2008).
Google Scholar
Chavez, A. et al. Highly efficient Cas9-mediated transcriptional programming. Nat. Methods 12, 326–328 (2015).
Google Scholar
Hu, J. H. et al. Evolved Cas9 variants with broad PAM compatibility and high DNA specificity. Nature 556, 57–63 (2018).
Google Scholar
Nahar, S. et al. A G-quadruplex motif at the 3′ end of sgRNAs improves CRISPR–Cas9 based genome editing efficiency. Chem. Commun. 54, 2377–2380 (2018).
Google Scholar
Steckelberg, A. L. et al. A folded viral noncoding RNA blocks host cell exoribonucleases through a conformationally dynamic RNA structure. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 6404–6409 (2018).
Google Scholar
Cate, J. H. et al. Crystal structure of a group I ribozyme domain: principles of RNA packing. Science 273, 1678–1685 (1996).
Google Scholar
Fedor, M. J. & Westhof, E. Ribozymes: the first 20 years. Mol. Cell 10, 703–704 (2002).
Google Scholar
Chen, B. et al. Dynamic imaging of genomic loci in living human cells by an optimized CRISPR/Cas system. Cell 155, 1479–1491 (2014).
Google Scholar
Jost, M. et al. Titrating gene expression using libraries of systematically attenuated CRISPR guide RNAs. Nat. Biotechnol. 38, 355–364 (2020).
Google Scholar
Basila, M., Kelley, M. L. & Smith, A. V. B. Minimal 2′-O-methyl phosphorothioate linkage modification pattern of synthetic guide RNAs for increased stability and efficient CRISPR–Cas9 gene editing avoiding cellular toxicity. PLoS ONE 12, e0188593 (2017).
Google Scholar
Mead, S. et al. A novel protective prion protein variant that colocalizes with Kuru exposure. N. Engl. J. Med. 361, 2056–2065 (2009).
Google Scholar
Asante, E. A. et al. A naturally occurring variant of the human prion protein completely prevents prion disease. Nature 522, 478–481 (2015).
Google Scholar
Kim, H. K. et al. Predicting the efficiency of prime editing guide RNAs in human cells. Nat. Biotechnol. 39, 198–206 (2021).
Google Scholar
Jonsson, T. et al. A mutation in APP protects against Alzheimer’s disease and age-related cognitive decline. Nature 488, 96–99 (2012).
Google Scholar
Abifadel, M. et al. Mutations in PCSK9 cause autosomal dominant hypercholesterolemia. Nat. Genet. 34, 154–156 (2003).
Google Scholar
Bustami, J. et al. Cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) I405V polymorphism and cardiovascular disease in eastern European Caucasians—a cross-sectional study. BMC Geriatr. 16, 144 (2016).
Google Scholar
Flannick, J. et al. Loss-of-function mutations in SLC30A8 protect against type 2 diabetes. Nat. Genet. 46, 357–363 (2014).
Google Scholar
Sakuntabhai, A. et al. A variant in the CD209 promoter is associated with severity of dengue disease. Nat. Genet. 37, 507–513 (2005).
Google Scholar
Olson, H. E. et al. Cyclin-dependent kinase-like 5 deficiency disorder: clinical review. Pediatr. Neurol. 97, 18–25 (2019).
Google Scholar
Al-Saaidi, R. et al. The LMNA mutation p.Arg321Ter associated with dilated cardiomyopathy leads to reduced expression and a skewed ratio of lamin A and lamin C proteins. Exp. Cell. Res. 319, 3010–3019 (2013).
Google Scholar
Ip, J. P. K., Mellios, N. & Sur, M. Rett syndrome: insights into genetic, molecular and circuit mechanisms. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 19, 368–382 (2018).
Google Scholar
Christodoulou, J., Grimm, A., Maher, T. & Bennetts, B. RettBASE: the IRSA MECP2 variation database—a new mutation database in evolution. Hum. Mutat. 21, 466–472 (2003).
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
Clement, K. et al. CRISPResso2 provides accurate and rapid genome editing sequence analysis. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 224–226 (2019).
Google Scholar
Livak, K. J. & Schmittgen, T. D. Analysis of relative gene expression data using real-time quantitative PCR and the 2(-delta delta CT) method. Methods 25, 402–408 (2001).
Google Scholar
Fang, W. & Bartel, D. P. The menu of features that define primary microRNAs and enable de novo design of microRNA genes. Mol. Cell 60, 131–145 (2015).
Google Scholar
Romani, A. M. P. Cellular magnesium homeostasis. Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 512, 1–23 (2011).
Google Scholar
Bertsimas, D. & Tsitsiklis, J. Simulated Annealing. Stat. Sci. 8, 10–15 (1993).
Google Scholar
Win, M. N. & Smolke, C. D. A modular and extensible RNA-based gene-regulatory platform for engineering cellular function. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 14283–14288 (2007).
Google Scholar
