2021
DOI: 10.1038/s41587-021-00901-y
|View full text |Cite|
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

CRISPR prime editing with ribonucleoprotein complexes in zebrafish and primary human cells

Abstract: Prime Editors have been delivered using DNA or mRNA vectors. Here we demonstrate prime editing (PE) with purified ribonucleoprotein (RNP) complexes. We introduced somatic mutations in zebrafish embryos with frequencies as high as 30% and demonstrate germline transmission. We also observed unintended insertions, deletions and pegRNA scaffold incorporations. In HEK293T and primary human T cells, PE RNP complexes introduced desired edits with frequencies of up to 21% and 7.5%, respectively.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

3
86
0
2

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
2
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 153 publications
(91 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
3
86
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…The highly efficient PEn editing also generated undesired consequences of DSB repair, such as indels, shorter prime edits and longer than intended prime edits which we found to contain additional RT-template integrations. Similar bystander editing was also observed to various extents in the PE2 editing approach 26 . While the presence of the unintended integrations represents a downside of PEn editing, its high robustness and efficiency might be advantageous over the existing methods in situations where a seamless 3' end of the insertion to maintain an open reading frame of the target is not necessary, such as during the correction of frameshift mutations, gene disruption by defined stop codon integration or exon-intron junction editing.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 68%
“…The highly efficient PEn editing also generated undesired consequences of DSB repair, such as indels, shorter prime edits and longer than intended prime edits which we found to contain additional RT-template integrations. Similar bystander editing was also observed to various extents in the PE2 editing approach 26 . While the presence of the unintended integrations represents a downside of PEn editing, its high robustness and efficiency might be advantageous over the existing methods in situations where a seamless 3' end of the insertion to maintain an open reading frame of the target is not necessary, such as during the correction of frameshift mutations, gene disruption by defined stop codon integration or exon-intron junction editing.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 68%
“…While variants of Cas9 with different PAM requirements are rapidly emerging, they are not yet commercially available as recombinant proteins to use in Cas9-gRNA RNP complex injections in zebrafish embryos. Techniques such as base-editing and prime-editing are often seen as the solution to this problem [10,11]. However, the studies describing these techniques have prepared their own recombinant proteins for microinjection, and/or are currently restricted to the injection of in-vitro transcribed mRNA.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Prime editor (PE) 2 is composed of a Cas9-nickase reverse-transcriptase (RT) fusion protein and a prime-editing guide RNA (pegRNA) 1 . PE2 has been shown to induce prime editing in various species and cell types, including human cells [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] . However, depending on the target sequence and the used cell type, the efficiency of PE2 is often insufficient 1,2 .…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%