Barrangou, R. et al. CRISPR provides acquired resistance against viruses in prokaryotes. Science 315, 1709–1712 (2007).

CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Marraffini, L. A. & Sontheimer, E. J. CRISPR interference limits horizontal gene transfer in Staphylococci by targeting DNA. Science 322, 1843–1845 (2008).

CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Deltcheva, E. et al. CRISPR RNA maturation by trans-encoded small RNA and host factor RNase III. Nature 471, 602–607 (2011).

CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Jinek, M. et al. A programmable dual-RNA–guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity. Science 337, 816 (2012). This paper reports the use of SpCas9 nuclease and nickases and the development of single-guide RNAs for programmable DNA cutting.

CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Pickar-Oliver, A. & Gersbach, C. A. The next generation of CRISPR–Cas technologies and applications. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 20, 490–507 (2019).

CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Anzalone, A. V., Koblan, L. W. & Liu, D. R. Genome editing with CRISPR–Cas nucleases, base editors, transposases and prime editors. Nat. Biotechnol. 38, 824–844 (2020).

CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Lieber, M. R. The mechanism of double-strand DNA break repair by the nonhomologous DNA end-joining pathway. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 79, 181–211 (2010).

CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

van Overbeek, M. et al. DNA repair profiling reveals nonrandom outcomes at Cas9-mediated breaks. Mol. Cell 63, 633–646 (2016).

PubMed  Google Scholar 

Shen, M. W. et al. Predictable and precise template-free CRISPR editing of pathogenic variants. Nature 563, 646–651 (2018).

CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Allen, F. et al. Predicting the mutations generated by repair of Cas9-induced double-strand breaks. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 64–72 (2019).

CAS  Google Scholar 

Chen, W. et al. Massively parallel profiling and predictive modeling of the outcomes of CRISPR/Cas9-mediated double-strand break repair. Nucleic Acids Res. 47, 7989–8003 (2019).

CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Iyer, S. et al. Precise therapeutic gene correction by a simple nuclease-induced double-stranded break. Nature 568, 561–565 (2019).

CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Rouet, P., Smih, F. & Jasin, M. Expression of a site-specific endonuclease stimulates homologous recombination in mammalian cells. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 91, 6064–6068 (1994).

CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Rouet, P., Smih, F. & Jasin, M. Introduction of double-strand breaks into the genome of mouse cells by expression of a rare-cutting endonuclease. Mol. Cell. Biol. 14, 8096–8106 (1994).

CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Heyer, W.-D., Ehmsen, K. T. & Liu, J. Regulation of homologous recombination in eukaryotes. Annu. Rev. Genet. 44, 113–139 (2010).

CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Komor, A. C., Badran, A. H. & Liu, D. R. CRISPR-based technologies for the manipulation of eukaryotic genomes. Cell 168, 20–36 (2017).

CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Paquet, D. et al. Efficient introduction of specific homozygous and heterozygous mutations using CRISPR/Cas9. Nature 533, 125–129 (2016).

CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Suzuki, K. et al. In vivo genome editing via CRISPR/Cas9 mediated homology-independent targeted integration. Nature 540, 144–149 (2016).

CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Kosicki, M., Tomberg, K. & Bradley, A. Repair of double-strand breaks induced by CRISPR–Cas9 leads to large deletions and complex rearrangements. Nat. Biotechnol. 36, 765–771 (2018).

CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Cullot, G. et al. CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing induces megabase-scale chromosomal truncations. Nat. Commun. 10, 1136 (2019).

PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Alanis-Lobato, G. et al. Frequent loss of heterozygosity in CRISPR-Cas9 edited early human embryos. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 118, e2004832117 (2021).

CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Leibowitz, M. L. et al. Chromothripsis as an on-target consequence of CRISPR–Cas9 genome editing. Nat. Genet. 53, 895–905 (2021).

CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Tao, J., Wang, Q., Mendez-Dorantes, C., Burns, K. H. & Chiarle, R. Frequency and mechanisms of LINE-1 retrotransposon insertions at CRISPR/Cas9 sites. Nat. Commun. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-31322-3 (2022).

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Ihry, R. J. et al. p53 inhibits CRISPR–Cas9 engineering in human pluripotent stem cells. Nat. Med. 24, 939–946 (2018).

CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Haapaniemi, E., Botla, S., Persson, J., Schmierer, B. & Taipale, J. CRISPR–Cas9 genome editing induces a p53-mediated DNA damage response. Nat. Med. 24, 927–930 (2018).

CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Enache, O. M. et al. Cas9 activates the p53 pathway and selects for p53-inactivating mutations. Nat. Genet. 52, 662–668 (2020).

CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Komor, A. C., Kim, Y. B., Packer, M. S., Zuris, J. A. & Liu, D. R. Programmable editing of a target base in genomic DNA without double-stranded DNA cleavage. Nature 533, 420–424 (2016). This paper details the development of the first cytosine base editor.

CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Nishida, K. et al. Targeted nucleotide editing using hybrid prokaryotic and vertebrate adaptive immune systems. Science 353, aaf8729 (2016).

PubMed  Google Scholar 

Gaudelli, N. M. et al. Programmable base editing of A*T to G*C in genomic DNA without DNA cleavage. Nature 551, 464–471 (2017). This article describes the engineering and evolution of the first adenine base editor.

CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Mok, B. Y. et al. A bacterial cytidine deaminase toxin enables CRISPR-free mitochondrial base editing. Nature 583, 631–637 (2020).

CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Cho, S.-I. et al. Targeted A-to-G base editing in human mitochondrial DNA with programmable deaminases. Cell 185, 1764–1776.e1712 (2022).

CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Yang, L. et al. Engineering and optimising deaminase fusions for genome editing. Nat. Commun. 7, 13330 (2016).

CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Kurt, I. C. et al. CRISPR C-to-G base editors for inducing targeted DNA transversions in human cells. Nat. Biotechnol. 39, 41–46 (2021).

CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Zhao, D. et al. Glycosylase base editors enable C-to-A and C-to-G base changes. Nat. Biotechnol. 39, 35–40 (2021).

CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Chen, L. et al. Programmable C:G to G:C genome editing with CRISPR-Cas9-directed base excision repair proteins. Nat. Commun. 12, 1384 (2021).

CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Koblan, L. W. et al. Efficient C•G-to-G•C base editors developed using CRISPRi screens, target-library analysis, and machine learning. Nat. Biotechnol. 39, 1414–1425 (2021).

CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Ferrari, S. et al. Efficient gene editing of human long-term hematopoietic stem cells validated by clonal tracking. Nat. Biotechnol. 38, 1298–1308 (2020).

CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Song, Y. et al. Large-fragment deletions induced by Cas9 cleavage while not in the BEs system. Mol. Ther. Nucleic Acids 21, 523–526 (2020).

CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Rees, H. A. & Liu, D. R. Base editing: precision chemistry on the genome and transcriptome of living cells. Nat. Rev. Genet. 19, 770–788 (2018).

CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Jin, S. et al. Cytosine, but not adenine, base editors induce genome-wide off-target mutations in rice. Science 364, 292–295 (2019).

CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Zuo, E. et al. Cytosine base editor generates substantial off-target single-nucleotide variants in mouse embryos. Science 364, 289–292 (2019).

CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Grünewald, J. et al. Transcriptome-wide off-target RNA editing induced by CRISPR-guided DNA base editors. Nature 569, 433–437 (2019).

PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Gehrke, J. M. et al. A