Predicting base editing outcomes using position-specific sequence determinants
Ananth PallaseniiD, Elin Madli PeetsiD, Jonas KoeppeliD, Juliane WelleriD, Thomas VandersticheleiD, Uyen Linh Ho, Luca CrepaldiiD, Jolanda S. van LeeuweniD, Felicity R. AlleniD, Leopold PartsiD
Abstract
Nucleotide-level control over DNA sequences is poised to power functional genomics studies and lead to new therapeutics. CRISPR/Cas base editors promise to achieve this ability, but the determinants of their activity remain incompletely understood. We measured base editing frequencies in two human cell lines for two cytosine and two adenine base editors at [~]14,000 target sequences. Base editing activity is sequence-biased, with largest effects from nucleotides flanking the target base, and is correlated with measures of Cas9 guide RNA efficiency. Whether a base is edited depends strongly on the combination of its position in the target and the preceding base, with a preceding thymine in both editor types leading to a wider editing window, while a preceding guanine in cytosine editors and preceding adenine in adenine editors to a narrower one. The impact of features on editing rate depends on the position, with guide RNA efficacy mainly influencing bases around the centre of the window, and sequence biases away from it. We use these observations to train a machine learning model to predict editing activity per position for both adenine and cytosine editors, with accuracy ranging from 0.49 to 0.72 between editors, and with better generalization performance across datasets than existing tools. We demonstrate the usefulness of our model by predicting the efficacy of potential disease mutation correcting guides, and find that most of them suffer from more unwanted editing than corrected outcomes. This work unravels the position-specificity of base editing biases, and provides a solution to account for them, thus allowing more efficient planning of base edits in experimental and therapeutic contexts.
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papers- Citations
- 57
- FWCI
- 3.02
- Field percentile
- top 7%
- Organism
- Assay
- Research Focus
- Approach
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Predicting base editing outcomes with an attention-based deep learning algorithm trained on high-throughput target library screens
Kim Fabiano Marquart, Ahmed Allam, … Gerald Schwank·Nature CommunicationsPeer-reviewed·Aug 25, 2021
- Activity and specificity trade-offs in adenine base editors
Maria Lukarska, Luke M. Oltrogge, … David F. Savage·bioRxiv·Jul 22, 2026
- CRISPR adenine and cytosine base editors with reduced RNA off-target activities
Julian Grünewald, Ronghao Zhou, … J. Keith Joung·Nature BiotechnologyPeer-reviewed·Sep 1, 2019
- A single CRISPR base editor to induce simultaneous C-to-T and A-to-G mutations
R. C. Sakata, S. Ishiguro, … N. Yachie·bioRxiv·Aug 8, 2019
- EditR: A novel base editing quantification software using Sanger sequencing
Mitchell G. Kluesner, Derek A. Nedveck, … Branden S. Moriarity·The CRISPR JournalPeer-reviewed·Jun 1, 2018
- Comprehensive evaluation and prediction of editing outcomes for near-PAMless adenine and cytosine base editors
Xiaoyu Zhou, Jingjing Gao, … Xiaoyue Wang·Communications BiologyPeer-reviewed·Oct 25, 2024