2023
DOI: 10.1016/j.ccell.2022.12.009
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Base editing screens map mutations affecting interferon-γ signaling in cancer

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
38
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 42 publications
(42 citation statements)
references
References 87 publications
1
38
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For granular accounting of variants that enabled growth in the presence of erlotinib or osimertinib after editing with AID-dCas9 we performed a secondary screen using select sgRNAs identified in the primary screen coupled to a single cell genotyping readout (Figure 4A). Single cell (sc) genotyping was performed using the Tapestri platform, which has been applied previously to interrogate genome editing outcomes in a screening context (29, 69, 70). Vectors expressing the most significantly enriched sgRNAs for EGFR regions 1-4 and BRAF regions 1-2 were pooled, along with the weak hit sgRNAs.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For granular accounting of variants that enabled growth in the presence of erlotinib or osimertinib after editing with AID-dCas9 we performed a secondary screen using select sgRNAs identified in the primary screen coupled to a single cell genotyping readout (Figure 4A). Single cell (sc) genotyping was performed using the Tapestri platform, which has been applied previously to interrogate genome editing outcomes in a screening context (29, 69, 70). Vectors expressing the most significantly enriched sgRNAs for EGFR regions 1-4 and BRAF regions 1-2 were pooled, along with the weak hit sgRNAs.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although CRISPRa has been widely used for GOF mutations in preclinical studies, 17,30 the requirement of long‐term presence of CRISPR components raises safety concerns, making it less ideal for clinical practices. However, base editing 136 and prime editing 13 hold significant potential for introducing GOF mutations without causing DSBs, offering a safer approach to generating therapeutic T‐cell products with enhanced functionality. To fully harness the potential of GOF mutations, an important direction of future work should aim at identifying targets that can significantly boost T‐cell functionality.…”
Section: Conclusion and Future Directionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although CRISPRa has been widely used for GOF mutations in preclinical studies, 17,30 the requirement of long-term presence of CRISPR components raises safety concerns, making it less ideal for clinical practices. However, base editing 136 and prime editing 13 One of the significant obstacles to achieving effective antitumor efficacy of genome-edited T cells is their poor persistence in vivo. Although several factors, such as exhaustion and hostile tumor microenvironment, could contribute to this issue, it is essential to consider the activation of endogenous immunity against CRISPR-Cas peptides presented by the edited T cells, given that CRISPR-Cas systems are derived from pathogenic bacteria.…”
Section: New Screening Strategies To Address Old Questionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…12 Base editing is a form of precision genome editing that has enabled the direct mutational scanning of a variety of endogenous proteins. [13][14][15][16] Base editing has the advantage of targeting the native gene, avoiding the confounding effects of overexpressing mutants of a protein of interest. By coupling a fluorescence-based DNA methylation reporter system with base editing to generate a library of mutants, we previously identified a wide variety of LOF mutations in DNMT3A, and highlighted the importance of the PWWP domain for enzyme activity, particularly in its ability to bind to DNA.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%