2026· American Journal of Student Research· 0 citations
TL;DR
This review compares Cas9-mediated homology-directed repair (HDR) with generations of cytosine base editors (CBE1–CBE3), adenine base editors (ABE1-ABE7), and prime editors (PE1–PE3b), focusing on their mechanistic distinctions, efficiencies, delivery challenges, and therapeutic applications.
Abstract
Over the past decade, genome editing has been transformed by RNA‑guided CRISPR‑Cas systems,
which have enabled increasingly precise and programmable DNA modification. Since CRISPR‑Cas9 was
repurposed for genome editing in 2012, base editing (2016) and prime editing (2019) have expanded
the field beyond double‑strand break–dependent repair. Two classes of DNA base-editors have been
developed, cytosine base-editors (CBEs) and adenine base-editors (ABEs). Recently, prime editing has
further expanded the CRISPR editing toolkit to all twelve possible transition and transversion mutations,
as well as small insertion or deletion mutations. Base editors enable precise transition mutations without
double-strand breaks (DSBs). In HEK293T cells, CBE3 has demonstrated a 2‑ to 6‑fold improvement
over CBE2 while maintaining low indel formation (~1.1%). Advances in ABE development include
seventh‑generation variants achieving ~50% efficiency with ≥99.9% product purity and minimal indels
in human cells. In HEK293T cells, third-generation prime editors (PE3) achieved editing efficiencies
of up to ~55%, while the subsequent PE3b strategy reduced indel formation by up to 13-fold without
compromising editing efficiency. CRISPR-Cas9 has achieved clinical success in the treatment of sickle
cell disease and β-thalassemia, while base editing and prime editing have shown promising preclinical
potential for disorders such as cystic fibrosis and Tay-Sachs disease. Together, these findings highlight
the rapid progress of genome editing while underscoring remaining challenges in delivery, specificity,
and clinical translation. This review compares Cas9-mediated homology-directed repair (HDR) with
generations of cytosine base editors (CBE1–CBE3), adenine base editors (ABE1-ABE7), and prime
editors (PE1–PE3b), focusing on their mechanistic distinctions, efficiencies, delivery challenges, and
therapeutic applications.
Base editors (BEs) are transformative genome engineering tools that enable precise nucleotide substitutions without inducing double-strand breaks (DSBs) or requiring donor DNA templates. Since the first cytosine base editor (CBE) was developed in 2016, the field has advanced rapidly, with the creation of diverse BE variants that incorporate distinct deaminases and glycosylases. These engineered editors have significantly expanded the scope of genome editing by generating deaminated bases or apurinic/apyrimidinic (AP) site lesions, thereby harnessing endogenous DNA repair or replication mechanisms to produce base transitions and transversions. Among these endogenous pathways, trans-lesion synthesis (TLS) plays a particularly critical role in converting AP sites into specific base substitutions. TLS polymerases insert nucleotides opposite AP lesions, and the final editing outcome is dictated by the unique nucleotide preferences of individual TLS polymerases. This review focuses on the action mode of different base editors, highlights their interplays with the TLS, summarizes their potential therapeutic applications and discusses perspective strategies to improve precision and expand targeting scope.
Rui Tao, Min Li, Tongyun Luo et al.· Biotechnology Advances· 0 citations
Genomic manipulation has advanced from stochastic nuclease‐mediated disruption toward programmable, deterministic precision. Early clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) strategies enabled targeted mutagenesis through double‐strand breaks; however, their therapeutic application is limited by genotoxicity, chromosomal instability, and dependence on endogenous repair pathways that are difficult to predict. In this review, we examined the transition from gene editing to genome writing, an approach that decouples genomic modification from host repair pathways to better balance efficiency, precision, and payload delivery. We also discussed the principles of precision technologies, including base and prime editors, and described emerging large‐scale writers, such as CRISPR‐associated transposases and recombinase‐based bridge RNAs, which enable the integration of multi‐kilobase synthetic modules. Beyond enzymatic mechanisms, we further considered the combined use of generative artificial intelligence, structural biology, and novel delivery architectures as potential strategies to overcome current biological limitations. Taken together, these developments point toward Generative Biology, in which computational design and high‐throughput screening transform the genome from a static substrate into a more dynamic model for complex, synthetic functional design.
Base editors (BEs) enable efficient A-to-G or C-to-T conversions without double-stranded DNA cleavage, but their editing windows remain difficult to tune, limiting genome engineering flexibility. Here, we engineered CRISPR/Cas12b sgRNA by introducing MS2 hairpins to recruit an MS2-N55K-cytidine deaminase-UGI complex, enabling programmable control of the editing window. Three modified sgRNAs were generated by replacing two loop regions, each producing distinct editing hotspots in E. coli. The AID*Δ-MSBE system (sgRNA1.1) generated a window near the PAM with peak activity at C7-C9, while the CDA-MSBE system (sgRNA1.2) produced a distal window with peak activity at C20-C23. Both systems exhibited identical editing patterns in Bacillus subtilis. A dual-orthogonal system (MS2 and PP7) was constructed to simultaneously recruit two deaminase complexes, restoring the classic dCas12b CBE editing pattern. Rifampicin resistance assays confirmed high targeting specificity with low off-target effects. As proof of concept, the MSBEs were successfully employed for the flexible reprogramming of sfGFP fluorescence and the targeted evolution of the endogenous gene rpsE, respectively. Collectively, we developed the MSBEs with tunable editing hotspots, providing innovative tools to enhance the flexibility and accessibility of BEs for genome engineering.
An efficient Cas9d system (Cas9dUltra) is developed through gRNA and protein engineering, and its base editors (9dBEs) further developed through gRNA and protein engineering, enabling efficient and precise genome editing in human cells.
Qingquan Xiao, Zhijin Tian, Luqi Weng et al.· Advancement of science· 0 citations
Base editing enables precise genome modifications without introducing DNA double-strand breaks. Using Streptococcus pyogenes Cas9 as a prototype, we previously developed a modular base editing platform in which the deaminase is recruited by an RNA aptamer engineered into the gRNA, thereby separating sequence recognition from base modification. Here, we expanded this modular base editor toolbox by engineering Staphylococcus aureus Cas9 (SaCas9) in combination with various vertebrate effectors derived from activation induced cytidine deaminase (AID) and apolipoprotein B mRNA editing enzyme, catalytic subunit 1 (APOBEC1) orthologs, from bat, lizard, human, and rat. Moreover, we adopted the SaCas9 variants with different protospacer adjacent motif requirements. These base editors generally showed high editing efficiency with low on-target indel formation and low-to-undetectable off-target activities. Quantitative and qualitative differences in editing occur among the base editors when applied to diverse loci, allowing sequence-specific optimization. Together, our study demonstrates the effectiveness of the SaCas9 modular base editors, the robustness of the platform’s modularity, and its feasibility for convenient screening of target-specific base editors.
J. Collantes, Kellen Xu, M. Ruiz-Urigüen et al.· The CRISPR Journal· 0 citations