ArticleNucleic acids research2023
Annotation and evaluation of base editing outcomes in multiple cell types using CRISPRbase.
Article in Nucleic acids research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Making base editing accessible: Evaluating computational workflows for ABE-mediated gene knockout.Molecular therapy. Nucleic acids · 2026Article
- PCdb: A comprehensive plant genome-editing database integrating sgRNA efficiency, off-target predictions, and epigenomic landscapes.Plant communications · 2026Article
- CircleBase V2: an eccDNA annotation platform across cancers and species.Nucleic acids research · 2026Article
- CRISPR-GATE: a one-stop repository and guide to computational resources for genome editing experimentation.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2025Review
- Comprehensive evaluation and prediction of editing outcomes for near-PAMless adenine and cytosine base editors.Communications biology · 2024Article
- Editorial: Biomedical application of DNA modifications.Frontiers in genetics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
CRISPR-Cas base editing (BE) system is a powerful tool to expand the scope and efficiency of genome editing with single-nucleotide resolution. The editing efficiency, product purity, and off-target effect differ among various BE systems. Herein, we developed CRISPRbase (http://crisprbase.maolab.org), by integrating 1 252 935 records of base editing outcomes in more than 50 cell types from 17 species. CRISPRbase helps to evaluate the putative editing precision of different BE systems by integrating multiple annotations, functional predictions and a blasting system for single-guide RNA sequences. We systematically assessed the editing window, editing efficiency and product purity of various BE systems. Intensive efforts were focused on increasing the editing efficiency and product purity of base editors since the byproduct could be detrimental in certain applications. Remarkably, more than half of cancer-related off-target mutations were non-synonymous and extremely damaging to protein functions in most common tumor types. Luckily, most of these cancer-related mutations were passenger mutations (4840/5703, 84.87%) rather than cancer driver mutations (863/5703, 15.13%), indicating a weak effect of off-target mutations on carcinogenesis. In summary, CRISPRbase is a powerful and convenient tool to study the outcomes of different base editors and help researchers choose appropriate BE designs for functional studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.