Sensitive, direct detection of non-coding off-target base editor unwinding and editing in primary cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Base editors create precise nucleotide changes in DNA, but their off-target activity remains challenging to quantify. Here, we develop and deploy a direct, in cellulo sequencing assay that simultaneously measures both Cas9-mediated unwinding and deaminase editing of genomic DNA (beCasKAS). Our strategy nominates >460-fold more potential off-target sites than other methods by enriching for Cas9-dependent R-loops immediately preceding editing. Using beCasKAS in primary human T-cells, we observe that mRNA-encoded ABE8e and PAMless ABE8e-SpRY base editors have distinct off-target profiles that can be mitigated by optimizing mRNA dose. Finally, we combine beCasKAS with base-resolution deep learning models to risk-stratify off-target edits by their likelihood of epigenetic dysregulation. Collectively, beCasKAS offers a sensitive and facile tool to optimize the balance between base editor on- and off-target activity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".