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.
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
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 are demonstrated.
J. Collantes, Kellen Xu, M. Ruiz-Urigüen et al.· The CRISPR Journal· 0 citations