Peterson, C. L. & Côté, J. Cellular machineries for chromosomal DNA repair. Genes Dev. 18, 602–616 (2004).
Google Scholar
Bialk, P. et al. Analyses of point mutation repair and allelic heterogeneity generated by CRISPR/Cas9 and single-stranded DNA oligonucleotides. Sci. Rep. 6, 32681 (2016).
Google Scholar
Rivera-Torres, N. et al. Insertional mutagenesis by CRISPR/Cas9 ribonucleoprotein gene editing in cells targeted for point mutation repair directed by short single-stranded DNA oligonucleotides. PLoS One 12, e0169350 (2017).
Google Scholar
Modarai, S. R., Kanda, S., Bloh, K., Opdenaker, L. M. & Kmiec, E. B. Precise and error-prone CRISPR-directed gene editing activity in human CD34+ cells varies widely among patient samples. Gene Ther. 28, 105–113 (2020).
Google Scholar
Boel, A. et al. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated homology-directed repair by ssODNs in zebrafish induces complex mutational patterns resulting from genomic integration of repair-template fragments. Dis. Model. Mech. 11, dmm35352 (2018).
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).
Google Scholar
Lessard, S. et al. Human genetic variation alters CRISPR-Cas9 on- and off-targeting specificity at therapeutically implicated loci. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 114, E11257–E11266 (2017).
Google Scholar
DeWitt, M. A. et al. Efficient correction of the Sickle mutation in human hematopoietic stem cells using a Cas9 ribonucleoprotein complex. bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/036236 (2016).
Google Scholar
DeWitt, M. A. et al. Selection-free genome editing of the sickle mutation in human adult hematopoietic stem/progenitor cells. Sci. Transl. Med. 8, 36ra0134 (2016).
Google Scholar
Kleinstiver, B. P. et al. High-fidelity CRISPR-Cas9 nucleases with no detectable genome-wide off-target effects. Nature 529, 490–495 (2016).
Google Scholar
Kleinstiver, B. P. et al. Engineered CRISPR-Cas9 nucleases with altered PAM specificities. Nature 523, 481–485 (2015).
Google Scholar
Kleinstiver, B. P. et al. Engineered CRISPR–Cas12a variants with increased activities and improved targeting ranges for gene, epigenetic and base editing. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 276–282 (2019).
Google Scholar
Hu, J. H. et al. Evolved Cas9 variants with broad PAM compatibility and high DNA specificity. Nature 556, 57–63 (2018).
Google Scholar
Li, S.-Y., Zhao, G.-P. & Wang, J. C-brick: A new standard for assembly of biological parts using Cpf1. ACS Synth. Biol. 5, 1383–1388 (2016).
Google Scholar
Renaud, J. B. et al. Improved genome editing efficiency and flexibility using modified oligonucleotides with TALEN and CRISPR-Cas9 nucleases. Cell Rep. 14, 2263–2272 (2016).
Google Scholar
Harmsen, T. et al. DNA mismatch repair and oligonucleotide end-protection promote base-pair substitution distal from a CRISPR/Cas9-induced DNA break. Nucleic Acids Res. 46, 2945–2955 (2018).
Google Scholar
Esrick, E. B. et al. Validation of BCL11A As therapeutic target in sickle cell disease: Results from the adult cohort of a pilot/feasibility gene therapy trial inducing sustained expression of fetal hemoglobin using post-transcriptional gene silencing. Blood 134, LBA-5-LBA-5 (2019).
Google Scholar
Antoniani, C. et al. Induction of fetal hemoglobin synthesis by CRISPR/Cas9-mediated editing of the human b-globin locus. Blood 131, 1960–1973 (2018).
Google Scholar
Brusson, M. & Miccio, A. Genome editing approaches to β-hemoglobinopathies. Prog. Mol. Biol. Transl. Sci. 182, 153–183 (2021).
Google Scholar
Gillmore, J. D. et al. CRISPR-Cas9 in vivo gene editing for transthyretin amyloidosis. N. Engl. J. Med. 385, 493–502 (2021).
Google Scholar
Banas, K. et al. Kinetics of nuclear uptake and site-specific DNA cleavage during crispr-directed gene editing in solid tumor cells. Mol. Cancer Res. 18, 891–902 (2020).
Google Scholar
Azangou-Khyavy, M. et al. CRISPR/Cas: From tumor gene editing to T cell-based immunotherapy of cancer. Front. Immunol. 11, 2062 (2020).
Google Scholar
Sansbury, B. M., Wagner, A. M., Nitzan, E., Tarcic, G. & Kmiec, E. B. CRISPR-directed in vitro gene editing of plasmid DNA catalyzed by Cpf1 (Cas12a) nuclease and a mammalian cell-free extract. Cris. J. 1, 191–202 (2018).
Google Scholar
Sansbury, B. M. et al. CRISPR-directed gene editing catalyzes precise gene segment replacement in vitro enabling a novel method for multiplex site-directed mutagenesis. Cris. J. 2, 121–132 (2019).
Google Scholar
Sansbury, B. M., Hewes, A. M. & Kmiec, E. B. Understanding the diversity of genetic outcomes from CRISPR-Cas generated homology-directed repair. Commun. Biol. 2, 1–10 (2019).
Google Scholar
Hewes, A. M., Sansbury, B. M., Barth, S., Tarcic, G. & Kmiec, E. B. gRNA Sequence heterology tolerance catalyzed by CRISPR/Cas in an in vitro homology-directed repair reaction. Mol. Ther.: Nucleic Acids 20, 568–579 (2020).
Google Scholar
Hewes, A. M., Sansbury, B. M. & Kmiec, E. B. The diversity of genetic outcomes from CRISPR/Cas gene editing is regulated by the length of the symmetrical donor DNA template. Genes (Basel) 11, 1160 (2020).
Google Scholar
Fitzhugh, C. D. et al. At least 20% donor myeloid chimerism is necessary to reverse the sickle phenotype after allogeneic HSCT. Blood 130, 1946–1948 (2017).
Google Scholar
Uddin, F., Rudin, C. M. & Sen, T. CRISPR gene therapy: Applications, limitations, and implications for the future. Front. Oncol. 10, 1387 (2020).
Google Scholar
Mollanoori, H. & Teimourian, S. Therapeutic applications of CRISPR/Cas9 system in gene therapy. Biotechnol. Lett. 40, 907–914 (2018).
Google Scholar
Rautela, I. et al. An extensive review to facilitate understanding of CRISPR technology as a gene editing possibility for enhanced therapeutic applications. Gene 785, 145615 (2021).
Google Scholar
Jensen, N. M. et al. An update on targeted gene repair in mammalian cells: Methods and mechanisms. J. Biomed. Sci. 18, 10 (2011).
Google Scholar
Wang, H. & Xu, X. Microhomology-mediated end joining: New players join the team. Cell Biosci. 7, 6 (2017).
Google Scholar
Chang, H. H. Y., Pannunzio, N. R., Adachi, N. & Lieber, M. R. Non-homologous DNA end joining and alternative pathways to double-strand break repair. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 18, 495–506 (2017).
Google Scholar
Bee, L., Fabris, S., Cherubini, R., Mognato, M. & Celotti, L. The efficiency of homologous recombination and non-homologous end joining systems in repairing double-strand breaks during cell cycle progression. PLoS One 8, e69061 (2013).
Google Scholar
Bloh, K. et al. Deconvolution of complex DNA REPAIR (DECODR): Establishing a novel deconvolution algorithm for comprehensive analysis of CRISPR-edited sanger sequencing data. Cris. J. 4, 120–131 (2021).
Google Scholar
Clement, K. et al. CRISPResso2 provides accurate and rapid genome editing sequence analysis. Nat. Biotechnol 37(3), 224–226 (2019).
Google Scholar
