We used BE-PACE to evolve new 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 GC, 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.Genome editing has revolutionized the life sciences and entered clinical trials to treat genetic diseases. 1 The use of programmable nucleases to generate double-stranded DNA breaks (DSBs) followed by homology-directed repair can introduce a wide variety of modifications but is inefficient in non-dividing cells, and is typically accompanied by an excess of unwanted insertions and deletions (indels), translocations, or other chromosomal rearrangements. 2 Base editing directly modifies target DNA bases in living cells and has become widely used to correct or install point mutations in organisms ranging from bacteria to human embryos. 3 Base editors use a catalytically impaired Cas9 to open a single-stranded DNA loop at a specified genomic site (Fig. 1a). Bases within the editing window (typically ~5 nt wide) in this region are modified by a tethered base-modification enzyme that only accepts single-stranded DNA.

Most genetic diseases arise from recessive point mutations that require correction, rather than disruption, of the pathogenic allele to benefit patients. Base editing has the potential to directly repair point mutations and provide therapeutic restoration of gene function. Mutations of transmembrane channel-like 1 gene (TMC1) can cause dominant or recessive deafness. We developed a base editing strategy to treat Baringo mice, which carry a recessive, loss-of-function point mutation (c.A545G; resulting in the substitution p.Y182C) in Tmc1 that causes deafness. Tmc1 encodes a protein that forms mechanosensitive ion channels in sensory hair cells of the inner ear and is required for normal auditory function. We found that sensory hair cells of Baringo mice have a complete loss of auditory sensory transduction. To repair the mutation, we tested several optimized cytosine base editors (CBEmax variants) and guide RNAs in Baringo mouse embryonic fibroblasts. We packaged the most promising CBE, derived from an activation-induced cytidine deaminase (AID), into dual adeno-associated viruses (AAVs) using a split-intein delivery system. The dual AID-CBEmax AAVs were injected into the inner ears of Baringo mice at postnatal day 1. Injected mice showed up to 51% reversion of the Tmc1 c.A545G point mutation to wild-type sequence (c.A545A) in Tmc1 transcripts. Repair of Tmc1 in vivo restored inner hair cell sensory transduction and hair cell morphology and transiently rescued low-frequency hearing 4 weeks after injection. These findings provide a foundation for a potential one-time treatment for recessive hearing loss and support further development of base editing to correct pathogenic point mutations.

Gene therapy, or the treatment of human disease using genetic material, for inner ear dysfunction is coming of age. Recent progress in developing gene therapy treatments for genetic hearing loss has demonstrated tantalizing proof-of-principle in animal models. While successful translation of this progress into treatments for humans awaits, there is growing interest from patients, scientists, clinicians, and industry. Nonetheless, it is clear that a number of hurdles remain, and expectations for total restoration of auditory function should remain tempered until these challenges have been overcome. Here, we review progress, prospects, and challenges for gene therapy in the inner ear. We focus on technical aspects, including routes of gene delivery to the inner ear, choice of vectors, promoters, inner ear targets, therapeutic strategies, preliminary success stories, and points to consider for translating of these successes to the clinic.