Auton, A. et al. A global reference for human genetic variation. Nature 526, 68–74 (2015).
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
Weischenfeldt, J., Symmons, O., Spitz, F. & Korbel, J. O. Phenotypic impact of genomic structural variation: insights from and for human disease. Nat. Rev. Genet. 14, 125–138 (2013).
Google Scholar
Cox, D. B., Platt, R. J. & Zhang, F. Therapeutic genome editing: prospects and challenges. Nat. Med. 21, 121–131 (2015).
Google Scholar
Doudna, J. A. The promise and challenge of therapeutic genome editing. Nature 578, 229–236 (2020).
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
Jinek, M. et al. A programmable dual-RNA-guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity. Science 337, 816–821 (2012).
Google Scholar
Cong, L. et al. Multiplex genome engineering using CRISPR/Cas systems. Science 339, 819–823 (2013).
Google Scholar
Mali, P. et al. RNA-guided human genome engineering via Cas9. Science 339, 823–826 (2013).
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
Canver, M. C. et al. Characterization of genomic deletion efficiency mediated by clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)/Cas9 nuclease system in mammalian cells. J. Biol. Chem. 289, 21312–21324 (2014).
Google Scholar
Suzuki, K. et al. In vivo genome editing via CRISPR/Cas9 mediated homology-independent targeted integration. Nature 540, 144–149 (2016).
Google Scholar
Wang, B. et al. Highly efficient CRISPR/HDR-mediated knock-in for mouse embryonic stem cells and zygotes. Biotechniques 59, 201–202, 204, 206–208 (2015).
Google Scholar
Pawelczak, K. S., Gavande, N. S., VanderVere-Carozza, P. S. & Turchi, J. J. Modulating DNA repair pathways to improve precision genome engineering. ACS Chem. Biol. 13, 389–396 (2018).
Google Scholar
Branzei, D. & Foiani, M. Regulation of DNA repair throughout the cell cycle. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 9, 297–308 (2008).
Google Scholar
Heyer, W. D., Ehmsen, K. T. & Liu, J. Regulation of homologous recombination in eukaryotes. Annu. Rev. Genet. 44, 113–139 (2010).
Google Scholar
Gasperini, M. et al. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated scanning for regulatory elements required for HPRT1 expression via thousands of large, programmed genomic deletions. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 101, 192–205 (2017).
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
Alanis-Lobato, G. et al. Frequent loss of heterozygosity in CRISPR–Cas9-edited early human embryos. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2004832117 (2021).
Song, Y. et al. Large-fragment deletions induced by Cas9 cleavage while not in the BEs system. Mol. Ther. Nucleic Acids 21, 523–526 (2020).
Google Scholar
Brunet, E. & Jasin, M. Induction of chromosomal translocations with CRISPR–Cas9 and other nucleases: understanding the repair mechanisms that give rise to translocations. Adv. Exp. Med. Biol. 1044, 15–25 (2018).
Google Scholar
Nahmad, A. D. et al. Frequent aneuploidy in primary human T cells following CRISPR–Cas9 cleavage. Preprint at https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.20.457092v1.abstract (2021).
Leibowitz, M. L. et al. Chromothripsis as an on-target consequence of CRISPR–Cas9 genome editing. Nat. Genet. 53, 895–905 (2021).
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
Enache, O. M. et al. Cas9 activates the p53 pathway and selects for p53-inactivating mutations. Nat. Genet. 52, 662–668 (2020).
Google Scholar
Merrick, C. A., Zhao, J. & Rosser, S. J. Serine integrases: advancing synthetic biology. ACS Synth. Biol. 7, 299–310 (2018).
Google Scholar
Karpinski, J. et al. Directed evolution of a recombinase that excises the provirus of most HIV-1 primary isolates with high specificity. Nat. Biotechnol. 34, 401–409 (2016).
Google Scholar
Chaikind, B., Bessen, J. L., Thompson, D. B., Hu, J. H. & Liu, D. R. A programmable Cas9-serine recombinase fusion protein that operates on DNA sequences in mammalian cells. Nucleic Acids Res. 44, 9758–9770 (2016).
Google Scholar
Gaj, T. et al. Enhancing the specificity of recombinase-mediated genome engineering through dimer interface redesign. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 136, 5047–5056 (2014).
Google Scholar
Kim, A. I. et al. Mycobacteriophage Bxb1 integrates into the Mycobacterium smegmatis groEL1 gene. Mol. Microbiol. 50, 463–473 (2003).
Google Scholar
Choi, J. et al. Precise genomic deletions using paired prime editing. Nat. Biotechnol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-020 (2021).
Lin, Q. et al. High-efficiency prime editing with optimized, paired pegRNAs in plants. Nat. Biotechnol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-021-00868-w (2021).
Scriver, C. R. The PAH gene, phenylketonuria, and a paradigm shift. Hum. Mutat. 28, 831–845 (2007).
Google Scholar
Nelson, J. W. et al. Engineered pegRNAs improve prime editing efficiency. Nat. Biotechnol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-021-01039-7 (2021).
Flanigan, K. M. et al. Mutational spectrum of DMD mutations in dystrophinopathy patients: application of modern diagnostic techniques to a large cohort. Hum. Mutat. 30, 1657–1666 (2009).
Google Scholar
Aartsma-Rus, A. et al. Development of exon skipping therapies for duchenne muscular dystrophy: a critical review and a perspective on the outstanding issues. Nucleic Acid Ther. 27, 251–259 (2017).
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
Jin, S. et al. Genome-wide specificity of prime editors in plants. Nat. Biotechnol. 39, 1292–1299 (2021).
Duportet, X. et al. A platform for rapid prototyping of synthetic gene networks in mammalian cells. Nucleic Acids Res. 42, 13440–13451 (2014).
Google Scholar
Jusiak, B. et al. Comparison of integrases identifies Bxb1-GA mutant as the most efficient site-specific integrase system in mammalian cells. ACS Synth. Biol. 8, 16–24 (2019).
Google Scholar
Sharma, R. et al. In vivo genome editing of the albumin locus as a platform for protein replacement therapy. Blood 126, 1777–1784 (2015).
Google Scholar
Nathwani, A. C. et al. Long-term safety and efficacy of factor IX gene therapy in hemophilia B. N. Engl. J. Med. 371, 1994–2004 (2014).
Google Scholar
Bessen, J. L. et al. High-resolution specificity profiling and off-target prediction for site-specific DNA recombinases. Nat. Commun. 10, 1937 (2019).
Google Scholar
Bondeson, M. L. et al. Inversion of the IDS gene resulting from recombination with IDS-related sequences is a common cause of the Hunter syndrome. Hum. Mol. Genet. 4, 615–621 (1995).
Google Scholar
Chen, X. et al. In trans paired nicking triggers seamless genome editing without double-stranded DNA cutting. Nat. Commun. 8, 657 (2017).
Google Scholar
Park, C. Y. et al. Targeted inversion and reversion of the blood coagulation factor 8 gene in human iPS cells using TALENs. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 9253–9258 (2014).
Google Scholar
Li, J. et al. Efficient inversions and duplications of mammalian regulatory DNA elements and gene clusters by CRISPR/Cas9. J. Mol. Cell. Biol. 7, 284–298 (2015).
Google Scholar
Clement, K. et al. CRISPResso2 provides accurate and rapid genome editing sequence analysis. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 224–226 (2019).
Google Scholar
Clement, K., Farouni, R., Bauer, D. E. & Pinello, L. AmpUMI: design and analysis of unique molecular identifiers for deep amplicon sequencing. Bioinformatics 34, i202–i210 (2018).
Google Scholar
Shen, W., Le, S., Li, Y. & Hu, F. SeqKit: a cross-platform and ultrafast toolkit for FASTA/Q file manipulation. PLoS ONE 11, e0163962 (2016).
Google Scholar
Levy, J. M. & Nicoll, R. A. Membrane-associated guanylate kinase dynamics reveal regional and developmental specificity of synapse stability. J. Physiol. 595, 1699–1709 (2017).
Google Scholar
Koblan, L. W. et al. In vivo base editing rescues Hutchinson–Gilford progeria syndrome in mice. Nature 589, 608–614 (2021).
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
