• Adli M.

The CRISPR tool kit for genome editing and beyond.

Nat. Commun. 2018; 9: 1911

• Moon S.B.
• et al.

Recent advances in the CRISPR genome editing tool set.

Exp. Mol. Med. 2019; 51: 1-11

• Hsu P.D.
• et al.

Development and applications of CRISPR–Cas9 for genome engineering.

Cell. 2014; 157: 1262-1278

• Jinek M.
• et al.

A programmable dual-RNA-guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity.

Science. 2012; 337: 816-821

• Cong L.
• et al.

Multiplex genome engineering using CRISPR/Cas systems.

Science. 2013; 339: 819-823

• Liang F.
• et al.

Homology-directed repair is a major double-strand break repair pathway in mammalian cells.

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 1998; 95: 5172-5177

• Jeggo P.

DNA breakage and repair.

Adv. Genet. 1998; 38: 185-218

• Ceccaldi R.
• et al.

Repair pathway choices and consequences at the double-strand break.

Trends Cell Biol. 2016; 26: 52-64

• Lieber M.R.

The mechanism of double-strand DNA break repair by the nonhomologous DNA end joining pathway.

Annu. Rev. Biochem. 2010; 79: 181-211

• Chiruvella K.K.
• et al.

Repair of double-strand breaks by end joining.

Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 2013; 5a012757

• Heyer W.-D.
• et al.

Regulation of homologous recombination in eukaryotes.

Annu. Rev. Genet. 2010; 44: 113-139

• Yeh C.D.
• et al.

Advances in genome editing through control of DNA repair pathways.

Nat. Cell Biol. 2019; 21: 1468-1478

• Lin S.
• et al.

Enhanced homology-directed human genome engineering by controlled timing of CRISPR/Cas9 delivery.

eLife. 2014; 3e04766

• Mali P.
• et al.

RNA-guided human genome engineering via Cas9.

Science. 2013; 339: 823-826

• Kosicki M.
• et al.

Repair of double-strand breaks induced by CRISPR–Cas9 leads to large deletions and complex rearrangements.

Nat. Biotechnol. 2018; 36: 765-771

• Mani R.S.
• Chinnaiyan A.M.

Triggers for genomic rearrangements: insights into genomic, cellular and environmental influences.

Nat. Rev. Genet. 2010; 11: 819-829

• Ihry R.J.
• et al.

p53 inhibits CRISPR–Cas9 engineering in human pluripotent stem cells.

Nat. Med. 2018; 24: 939-946

• Enache O.M.
• et al.

Cas9 activates the p53 pathway and selects for p53-inactivating mutations.

Nat. Genet. 2020; 52: 662-668

• Haapaniemi E.
• et al.

CRISPR–Cas9 genome editing induces a p53-mediated DNA damage response.

Nat. Med. 2018; 24: 927-930

• Nishimasu H.
• et al.

Crystal structure of Cas9 in complex with guide RNA and target DNA.

Cell. 2014; 156: 935-949

• Davis L.
• Maizels N.

Homology-directed repair of DNA nicks via pathways distinct from canonical double-strand break repair.

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2014; 111: E924-E932

• Porto E.M.
• et al.

Base editing: advances and therapeutic opportunities.

Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2020; 19: 839-859

• Anzalone A.V.
• et al.

Genome editing with CRISPR–Cas nucleases, base editors, transposases and prime editors.

Nat. Biotechnol. 2020; 38: 824-844

• Komor A.C.
• et al.

Programmable editing of a target base in genomic DNA without double-stranded DNA cleavage.

Nature. 2016; 533: 420-424

• Gaudelli N.M.
• et al.

Programmable base editing of A*T to G*C in genomic DNA without DNA cleavage.

Nature. 2017; 551: 464-471

• Gehrke J.M.
• et al.

An APOBEC3A–Cas9 base editor with minimized bystander and off-target activities.

Nat. Biotechnol. 2018; 36: 977-982

• Anzalone A.V.
• et al.

Search-and-replace genome editing without double-strand breaks or donor DNA.

Nature. 2019; 576: 149-157

• Park S.J.
• et al.

Targeted mutagenesis in mouse cells and embryos using an enhanced prime editor.

Genome Biol. 2021; 22: 170

• Liu Y.
• et al.

Efficient generation of mouse models with the prime editing system.

Cell Discov. 2020; 6: 27

• Lin J.
• et al.

Modeling a cataract disorder in mice with prime editing.

Mol. Ther. Nucleic Acids. 2021; 25: 494-501

• Gao P.
• et al.

Prime editing in mice reveals the essentiality of a single base in driving tissue-specific gene expression.

Genome Biol. 2021; 22: 83

• Schene I.F.
• et al.

Prime editing for functional repair in patient-derived disease models.

Nat. Commun. 2020; 11: 5352

• Geurts M.H.
• et al.

Evaluating CRISPR-based prime editing for cancer modeling and CFTR repair in organoids.

Life Sci. Alliance. 2021; 4e202000940

• Jin S.
• et al.

Genome-wide specificity of prime editors in plants.

Nat. Biotechnol. 2021; 39: 1292-1299

• Petri K.
• et al.

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

Nat. Biotechnol. 2022; 40: 189-193

• Doman J.L.
• et al.

Evaluation and minimization of Cas9-independent off-target DNA editing by cytosine base editors.

Nat. Biotechnol. 2020; 38: 620-628

• Grünewald J.
• et al.

Transcriptome-wide off-target RNA editing induced by CRISPR-guided DNA base editors.

Nature. 2019; 569: 433-437

• Fan J.
• et al.

Cytosine and adenine deaminase base-editors induce broad and nonspecific changes in gene expression and splicing.

Commun. Biol. 2021; 4: 882

• Bosch J.A.
• et al.

Precise genome engineering in Drosophila using prime editing.

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2021; 118e2021996118

• Kim D.Y.
• et al.

Unbiased investigation of specificities of prime editing systems in human cells.

Nucleic Acids Res. 2020; 48: 10576-10589

• Habib O.
• et al.

Comprehensive analysis of prime editing outcomes in human embryonic stem cells.

Nucleic Acids Res. 2022; 50: 1187-1197

• Adikusuma F.
• et al.

Optimized nickase- and nuclease-based prime editing in human and mouse cells.

Nucleic Acids Res. 2021; 49: 10785-10795

• Surun D.
• et al.

Efficient generation and correction of mutations in human iPS cells utilizing mRNAs of CRISPR base editors and prime editors.

Genes (Basel). 2020; 11: 511

• Song M.
• et al.

Generation of a more efficient prime editor 2 by addition of the Rad51 DNA-binding domain.

Nat. Commun. 2021; 12: 5617

• Zheng C.
• et al.

A flexible split prime editor using truncated reverse transcriptase improves dual-AAV delivery in mouse liver.

Mol. Ther. 2022; 30: 1343-1351

• Aida T.
• et al.

Prime editing primarily induces undesired outcomes in mice.

bioRxiv. 2020; (Published online August 6, 2020)

• Böck D.
• et al.

In vivo prime editing of a metabolic liver disease in mice.

Sci. Transl. Med. 2022; 14: eabl9238

• Liu P.
• et al.

Improved prime editors enable pathogenic allele correction and cancer modelling in adult mice.

Nat. Commun. 2021; 12: 2121

• Wang L.
• et al.

Spelling changes and fluorescent tagging with prime editing vectors for plants.

Front. Genome Ed. 2021; 3617553

• Lin Q.
• et al.

Prime genome editing in rice and wheat.

Nat. Biotechnol. 2020; 38: 582-585

• Jiang Y.Y.
• et al.

Prime editing efficiently generates W542L and S621I double mutations in two ALS genes in maize.

Genome Biol. 2020; 21: 257

• Lu Y.
• et al.

Precise genome modification in tomato using an improved prime editing system.

Plant Biotechnol. J. 2021; 19: 415-417

• Lin Q.
• et al.

High-efficiency prime editing with optimized, paired pegRNAs in plants.

Nat. Biotechnol. 2021; 39: 923-927

• Kim H.K.
• et al.

Predicting the efficiency of prime editing guide RNAs in human cells.

Nat. Biotechnol. 2021; 39: 198-206

• Arezi B.
• Hogrefe H.

Novel mutations in Moloney murine leukemia virus reverse transcriptase increase thermostability through tighter binding to template-primer.

Nucleic Acids Res. 2009; 37: 473-481

• Chen P.J.
• et al.

Enhanced prime editing systems by manipulating cellular determinants of editing outcomes.

Cell. 2021; 184: 5635-5652

• Velimirovic M.
• et al.

Peptide fusion improves prime editing efficiency.

Nat. Commun. 2022; 13: 3512

• Zong Y.
• et al.

An engineered prime editor with enhanced editing efficiency in plants.

Nat. Biotechnol. 2022; 40: 1394-1402

• Chow R.D.
• et al.

A web tool for the design of prime-editing guide RNAs.

Nat. Biomed. Eng. 2021; 5: 190-194

• Hsu J.Y.
• et al.

PrimeDesign software for rapid and simplified design of prime editing guide RNAs.

Nat. Commun. 2021; 12: 1034

• Hwang G.H.
• et al.

PE-Designer and PE-Analyzer: web-based design and analysis tools for CRISPR prime editing.

Nucleic Acids Res. 2021; 49: W499-W504

• Siegner S.M.
• et al.

PnB Designer: a web application to design prime and base editor guide RNAs for animals and plants.

BMC Bioinformatics. 2021; 22: 101

• Anderson M.V.
• et al.

pegIT – a web-based design tool for prime editing.

Nucleic Acids Res. 2021; 49: W505-W509

• Liu Y.
• et al.

Enhancing prime editing by Csy4-mediated processing of pegRNA.

Cell Res. 2021; 31: 1134-1136

• Li X.
• et al.

Highly efficient prime editing by introducing same-sense mutations in pegRNA or stabilizing its structure.

Nat. Commun. 2022; 13: 1669

• Zhang G.
• et al.

Enhancement of prime editing via xrRNA motif-joined pegRNA.

Nat. Commun. 2022; 13: 1856

• Nelson J.W.
• et al.

Engineered pegRNAs improve prime editing efficiency.

Nat. Biotechnol. 2022; 40: 402-410

• Choi J.
• et al.

Precise genomic deletions using paired prime editing.

Nat. Biotechnol. 2022; 40: 218-226

• Anzalone A.V.
• et al.

Programmable deletion, replacement, integration and inversion of large DNA sequences with twin prime editing.

Nat. Biotechnol. 2022; 40: 731-740

• Jiang T.
• et al.

Deletion and replacement of long genomic sequences using prime editing.

Nat. Biotechnol. 2022; 40: 227-234

• Tao R.
• et al.

Bi-PE: bi-directional priming improves CRISPR/Cas9 prime editing in mammalian cells.

Nucleic Acids Res. 2022; 50: 6423-6434

• Wang J.
• et al.

Efficient targeted insertion of large DNA fragments without DNA donors.

Nat. Methods. 2022; 19: 331-340

• Ferreira da Silva J.
• et al.

Prime editing efficiency and fidelity are enhanced in the absence of mismatch repair.

Nat. Commun. 2022; 13: 760

• Kleinstiver B.P.
• et al.

Engineered CRISPR–Cas9 nucleases with altered PAM specificities.

Nature. 2015; 523: 481-485

• Hu J.H.
• et al.

Evolved Cas9 variants with broad PAM compatibility and high DNA specificity.

Nature. 2018; 556: 57-63

• Nishimasu H.
• et al.

Engineered CRISPR–Cas9 nuclease with expanded targeting space.

Science. 2018; 361: 1259-1262

• Kweon J.
• et al.

Engineered prime editors with PAM flexibility.

Mol. Ther. 2021; 29: 2001-2007

• Wu Z.
• et al.

Adeno-associated virus serotypes: vector toolkit for human gene therapy.

Mol. Ther. 2006; 14: 316-327

• Zhi S.
• et al.

Dual-AAV delivering split prime editor system for in vivo genome editing.

Mol. Ther. 2022; 30: 283-294

• Liu B.
• et al.

A split prime editor with untethered reverse transcriptase and circular RNA template.

Nat. Biotechnol. 2022; 40: 1388-1393

• Doudna J.A.

The promise and challenge of therapeutic genome editing.

Nature. 2020; 578: 229-236

• Chemello F.
• et al.

Precise correction of Duchenne muscular dystrophy exon deletion mutations by base and prime editing.

Sci. Adv. 2021; 7: eabg4910

• Jang H.
• et al.

Application of prime editing to the correction of mutations and phenotypes in adult mice with liver and eye diseases.

Nat. Biomed. Eng. 2022; 6: 181-194

• Shedlovsky A.
• et al.

Mouse models of human phenylketonuria.

Genetics. 1993; 134: 1205-1210

• Aulicino F.
• et al.

Highly efficient CRISPR-mediated large DNA docking and multiplexed prime editing using a single baculovirus.

Nucleic Acids Res. 2022; 50: 7783-7799

• Li H.
• et al.

Multiplex precision gene editing by a surrogate prime editor in rice.

Mol. Plant. 2022; 15: 1077-1080

• Torkamani A.
• et al.

The personal and clinical utility of polygenic risk scores.

Nat. Rev. Genet. 2018; 19: 581-590

• Wrona D.
• et al.

CRISPR-directed therapeutic correction at the NCF1 locus is challenged by frequent incidence of chromosomal deletions.

Mol. Ther. Methods Clin. Dev. 2020; 17: 936-943

• Asmamaw Mengstie M.

Viral vectors for the in vivo delivery of CRISPR components: advances and challenges.

Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2022; 10895713

• Taha E.A.
• et al.

Delivery of CRISPR–Cas tools for in vivo genome editing therapy: trends and challenges.

J. Control. Release. 2022; 342: 345-361

• Kazemian P.
• et al.

Lipid-nanoparticle-based delivery of CRISPR/Cas9 genome-editing components.

Mol. Pharm. 2022; 19: 1669-1686

• D’Astolfo D.S.
• et al.

Efficient intracellular delivery of native proteins.

Cell. 2015; 161: 674-690

• Staahl B.T.
• et al.

Efficient genome editing in the mouse brain by local delivery of engineered Cas9 ribonucleoprotein complexes.

Nat. Biotechnol. 2017; 35: 431-434

• Raguram A.
• et al.

Therapeutic in vivo delivery of gene editing agents.

Cell. 2022; 185: 2806-2827

• Lino C.A.
• et al.

Delivering CRISPR: a review of the challenges and approaches.

Drug Delivery. 2018; 25: 1234-1257

• Verdera H.C.
• et al.

AAV vector immunogenicity in humans: a long journey to successful gene transfer.

Mol. Ther. 2020; 28: 723-746

• Asmamaw M.
• Zawdie B.

Mechanism and applications of CRISPR/Cas-9-mediated genome editing.

Biologics: Targets Ther. 2021; 15: 353

• Chen S.
• et al.

Highly efficient mouse genome editing by CRISPR ribonucleoprotein electroporation of zygotes.

J. Biol. Chem. 2016; 291: 14457-14467

• Yin H.
• et al.

Therapeutic genome editing by combined viral and non-viral delivery of CRISPR system components in vivo.

Nat. Biotechnol. 2016; 34: 328-333

• Zuris J.A.
• et al.

Cationic lipid-mediated delivery of proteins enables efficient protein-based genome editing in vitro and in vivo.

Nat. Biotechnol. 2015; 33: 73-80

• Ramakrishna S.
• et al.

Gene disruption by cell-penetrating peptide-mediated delivery of Cas9 protein and guide RNA.

Genome Res. 2014; 24: 1020-1027

• Gori J.L.
• et al.

Delivery and specificity of CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing technologies for human gene therapy.

Hum. Gene Ther. 2015; 26: 443-451

• Yang H.
• et al.

One-step generation of mice carrying reporter and conditional alleles by CRISPR/Cas-mediated genome engineering.

Cell. 2013; 154: 1370-1379

• Lyu P.
• et al.

Virus-like particle mediated CRISPR/Cas9 delivery for efficient and safe genome editing.

Life. 2020; 10: 366

• Larrea A.A.
• et al.

SnapShot: DNA mismatch repair.

Cell. 2010; 141: 730-731

• Iyer R.R.
• et al.

DNA mismatch repair: functions and mechanisms.

Chem. Rev. 2006; 106: 302-323

• Kunkel T.A.
• Erie D.A.

DNA mismatch repair.

Annu. Rev. Biochem. 2005; 74: 681-710

• Li G.-M.

Mechanisms and functions of DNA mismatch repair.

Cell Res. 2008; 18: 85-98

• Gupta S.
• et al.

Mechanism of mismatch recognition revealed by human MutSβ bound to unpaired DNA loops.

Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 2012; 19: 72-78

• Warren J.J.
• et al.

Structure of the human MutSα DNA lesion recognition complex.

Mol. Cell. 2007; 26: 579-592

• Kadyrov F.A.
• et al.

Endonucleolytic function of MutLα in human mismatch repair.

Cell. 2006; 126: 297-308

• Pluciennik A.
• et al.

PCNA function in the activation and strand direction of MutLα endonuclease in mismatch repair.

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2010; 107: 16066-16071

• Genschel J.
• et al.

Human exonuclease I is required for 5′ and 3′ mismatch repair.

J. Biol. Chem. 2002; 277: 13302-13311

• Zhang Y.
• et al.

Reconstitution of 5′-directed human mismatch repair in a purified system.

Cell. 2005; 122: 693-705