4.2 Review

Off-target effects of base editors: what we know and how we can reduce it

Journal

CURRENT GENETICS
Volume 68, Issue 1, Pages 39-48

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00294-021-01211-1

Keywords

Base editing; Cytosine base editor; Adenine base editor; Off-target; rAPOBEC1

Funding

  1. Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Base editors (BEs) are considered one of the most promising tools for correcting disease-causing mutations in humans, but some of them may lead to the formation of a large number of off-targets. By introducing mutations into the domains of deaminases or inhibiting Cas9, it is possible to significantly reduce the off-target activity of BEs.
The recently discovered CRISPR-Cas9 modification, base editors (BEs), is considered as one of the most promising tools for correcting disease-causing mutations in humans, since it allows point substitutions to be edited without generating double-stranded DNA breaks, and, therefore, with a significant decrease in non-specific activity. Until recently, this method was considered the safest, but at the same time, it is quite effective. However, recent studies of non-specific activity of BEs revealed that some of them lead to the formation of a huge number of off-targets in both DNA and RNA, occurring due to the nature of the Cas9-fused proteins used. In this review article, we have considered and combined data from numerous studies about the most commonly used and more described in detail APOBEC-based BEs and Target-AID version of CBE, as well as ABE7 and ABE8 with their basic modifications into TadA to improve BEs' specificity. In our opinion, modern advances in molecular genetics make it possible to dramatically reduce the off-target activity of base editors due to introducing mutations into the domains of deaminases or inhibition of Cas9 by anti-CRISPR proteins, which returns BEs to the leading position in genome editing technologies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available