From muscles to nerves, our body is formed of many kinds of cells which can each respond slightly differently to the same harmful genetic changes. Understanding the exact relationship between mutations and cell-type specific function is essential to better grasp how conditions such as Parkinson’s disease or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis progress and can be treated.

Stem cells could be an important tool in that effort, as they can be directed to mature into many cell types in the laboratory. Yet it remains difficult to precisely introduce disease-relevant mutations in these cells.

To remove this obstacle, Li et al. focused on prime editing, a cutting-edge ‘search and replace’ approach which can introduce new genetic information into a specific DNA sequence. However, it was unclear whether this technique could be used to efficiently create stem cell models of human diseases.

A first set of experiments showed that prime editing is superior to conventional approaches when generating mutated genes in stem cells. Li et al. then further improved the efficiency and precision of the method by tweaking how prime editing components are delivered into the cells. The refined approach could be harnessed to quickly generate large numbers of stem cells carrying mutations associated with Parkinson’s disease; crucially, prime editing could then also be used to revert a mutated gene back to its healthy form.

The improved prime editing approach developed by Li et al. removes a major hurdle for scientists hoping to use stem cells to study genetic diseases. This could potentially help to unlock progress in how we understand and ultimately treat these conditions.

One of the current challenges of using human pluripotent stem cells (hPSCs) to model human diseases is to precisely and efficiently engineer the genome to introduce designer mutations (Hockemeyer and Jaenisch, 2016; Soldner and Jaenisch, 2018). Currently, the predominant approach in hPSCs is to induce targeted DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) using highly active site-specific nucleases, such as the clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)/Cas9 system (Cong et al., 2013; Ding et al., 2013; Jinek et al., 2012; Jinek et al., 2013; Mali et al., 2013) or protein engineering platforms including zinc finger nucleases (Hockemeyer et al., 2009; Soldner et al., 2011; Zou et al., 2009) and transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALEN) (Boch et al., 2009; Cermak et al., 2011; Hockemeyer et al., 2011). Such targeted DSBs have been shown to substantially increase genome editing efficiency over conventional homologous recombination. However, since nuclease-induced DSBs are in most contexts preferentially repaired by non-homologous end joining compared with homology-directed repair (HDR) mechanisms, DSB-mediated genome editing frequently generates undesirable compound heterozygous editing outcomes with one correctly targeted allele and insertion or deletion (indel) on the second allele, causing the disruption of the protein-coding sequence (Cox et al., 2015). Therefore, it has been challenging to generate disease-associated dominant mutations in a heterozygous setting. By contrast, PE has been shown to overcome this limitation in a wide variety of cell types, as it does not require a DSB but directly repairs a nicked DNA strand (Anzalone et al., 2019). PE is a multicomponent editing system composed of a Cas9-nickase fused to a reverse transcriptase (nCas9-RT) and an extended prime editing (PE) guide RNA (pegRNA) that is reverse transcribed and functions as a repair template at the target site (Anzalone et al., 2019). While successful PE has been previously demonstrated in hPSCs (Chemello et al., 2021; Chen et al., 2021; Sürün et al., 2020), it remains unclear whether this approach has the potential to facilitate the generation of hPSC-based disease models. Here, we systematically compare different genome editing methods and show that PE is overall more efficient and precise to introduce heterozygous point mutations into hPSCs. Furthermore, by optimizing the delivery modality of the PE components, we were able to establish a highly efficient genome editing platform for hPSCs. By comparing plasmid, ribonucleoprotein (RNP), and in vitro transcribed mRNA delivery, we found that nucleofecting nCas9-RT as mRNA combined with synthetically generated and chemically modified pegRNAs yielded editing efficiencies exceeding 60%, which is comparable to efficiencies observed in tumor cell lines (Anzalone et al., 2019; Nelson et al., 2021). Together, these data indicate that PE has the potential to become the preferred method for genome editing of hPSCs.

To evaluate the potential use of PE to genetically modify hPSCs, we directly compared editing outcomes of PE to established CRISPR/Cas9 and TALEN targeting approaches with the goal of introducing disease-relevant point mutations. Initially, we chose to target the leucine rich repeat kinase 2 (LRRK2) gene to introduce the G2019S (G6055A) mutation (Gilks et al., 2005), which is one of the most frequent pathogenic substitutions linked to Parkinson’s disease (PD). This mutation is found in approximately 4% of dominantly inherited familial PD cases, in both heterozygous and homozygous forms, and around 1% of sporadic PD cases (Healy et al., 2008). To introduce the G2019S (G6055A) mutation into hPSCs, we generated plasmid-based CRISPR/Cas9, TALEN and PE reagents (without [PE2] or with secondary nicking guide RNAs [ngRNA; PE3]) using previously established optimized design and targeting procedures (Figure 1A; Anzalone et al., 2019; Hockemeyer et al., 2011; Hsu et al., 2021; Soldner et al., 2011; Soldner et al., 2016). Briefly, we co-electroporated the human embryonic stem cell (hESC) line WIBR3 with the respective genome engineering components and an enhanced green fluorescent protein (EGFP)-expressing plasmid to allow for the enrichment of transfected cells by fluorescence activated cell sorting (FACS). Genome editing outcomes were evaluated in the transfected bulk cell population (EGFP-positive) 72 hr after electroporation and in single cell-derived subclones. Next generation sequencing (NGS) of amplicons spanning the G2019S (G6055A) region indicated that 2–4% of alleles carried the correct G2019S (G6055A) substitution (Figure 1B and Figure 1—figure supplement 1A). While we observed roughly comparable editing efficiencies using CRISPR/Cas9, TALEN, and PE (with secondary ngRNA [PE3]) gene targeting, all HDR-based approaches generated a significantly higher number of undesired editing outcomes with 19.6 and 3.3% indels for CRISPR/Cas9 and TALEN, respectively, compared with less than 0.5% for PE (Figure 1B and Figure 1—figure supplement 1A). Genotyping of expanded single cell-derived clones showed higher efficiency in generating heterozygous correctly targeted cell lines using PE primarily due to a substantially higher number of compound heterozygous editing outcomes for CRISPR/Cas9 and TALEN targeting with the correctly inserted G6055A sequence variant on one allele and indels on the second allele (Figure 1C, as identified by restriction fragment length polymorphism [RFLP] and Sanger sequencing analysis). Together, these data indicate that PE is overall more efficient and substantially more precise in generating heterozygous mutations in hPSCs, as compared with traditional DSB-based genome engineering approaches.

Figure 1 with 3 supplements see all

Download asset Open asset

To scale the PE-based genome editing approach and streamline the derivation of correctly modified single cell clones, we applied a recently established genome editing platform, which employs multiplex low cell number nucleofection, limited dilution, and NGS-dependent genotyping instead of the time-consuming and laborious FACS sorting and manual single cell expansion steps to isolate correctly edited hPSC lines (see Figure 1—figure supplement 2 and Experimental procedures for details). While this approach results in slightly lower overall bulk editing efficiencies (as determined by NGS), most likely due to the lack of FACS-based enrichment of transfected cells, the substantially reduced number of cells required and the streamlined workflow allows for highly efficient, multiplexed generation of genome-edited hPSC lines in parallel in less than 4 weeks (Figure 1—figure supplement 2). Importantly for this work, the omission of FACS enrichment allowed us to systematically and simultaneously compare a larger number of delivery modalities, as described below.

To confirm the feasibility of using PE to introduce point mutations efficiently and robustly into hPSCs, we tested PE at additional genomic loci. We were able to introduce mutations into the previously published and commonly targeted HEK site 3 (HEK3) locus (CTT-sequence insertion) (Anzalone et al., 2019), as well as two additional PD-associated mutations into the α-Synuclein (SNCA) locus (A30P [G88C]; Krüger et al., 1998; and A53T [G209A] Polymeropoulos et al., 1997; Figure 1—figure supplement 1B, C) with editing efficiencies comparable to the LRRK2 locus (Figure 1D and E; quantified as pure prime editing efficiencies [PPE] as defined in Petri et al., 2021). As described for LRRK2, the analysis of single cell-expanded clones revealed the efficient generation of heterozygous and homozygous hPSC lines carrying the dominant A30P mutation in the SNCA gene (Figure 1—figure supplement 3A, B). Importantly, representative cytogenetic analysis of single cell-expanded LRRK2 (G2019S) and SNCA (A30P) clones showed normal karyotypes for seven out of seven tested cell lines. Together, these experiments demonstrate that PE can be used to robustly and efficiently introduce disease-associated mutations into hPSCs to generate isogenic disease models.

During these experiments, we noted that editing outcomes for both the PE2 and PE3 approaches appeared considerably lower than what was previously reported for a variety of human tumor cell lines (Anzalone et al., 2019; Nelson et al., 2021). Indeed, we found that plasmid-based targeting of the HEK3 (CTT insertion) locus resulted in only ~4.3% PPE in WIBR3 hESCs compared with ~12.7% PPE in HEK293T tumor cells using the PE3 strategy (Figure 1E). Similar differences in gene editing efficiencies between hPSCs, primary cells, and tumor cell lines have been commonly observed for other genome engineering approaches including CRISPR/Cas9 targeting (Bowden et al., 2020; Haapaniemi et al., 2018; Ihry et al., 2018). It remains unclear if this difference is the result of cell-intrinsic factors that restrict genome editing specifically in hPSCs or whether the low efficiency is a consequence of insufficient delivery of the PE components.

To estimate to which extend PE efficiencies could be increased in WIBR3 hESCs by optimized delivery of the prime editor, we used a recently described approach (Bharucha et al., 2021; Habib et al., 2022) and expressed the nCas9-RT protein (PE2 version of the prime editor protein as described in Anzalone et al., 2019) followed by a 2A-EGFP fluorescent reporter from the AAVS1 safe harbor locus (DeKelver et al., 2010; Hockemeyer et al., 2009; Figure 2A). We established an hPSC clone that uniformly expressed GFP and maintained pluripotency (Figure 2B and Figure 2—figure supplement 1). Nucleofection of these cells with a plasmid encoding the HEK3 (CTT insertion) pegRNA (without [PE2] or with [PE3] secondary ngRNA) or with a chemically-modified synthetic pegRNA (without [PE2] or with [PE3] secondary ngRNA) resulted in substantially increased editing efficiencies of up to 22% of correctly inserted modifications (Figure 2C). Similarly, targeting the LRRK2 (G2019S) and SNCA (A30P) loci with chemically-modified synthetic pegRNAs (without [PE2] or with [PE3] secondary ngRNA) resulted in editing efficiencies up to 12% and 27%, respectively (Figure 2D). While these data do not exclude fundamental biological differences in the PE process between hPSCs and other cell types, these experiments demonstrate that the method of delivery of the PE components has a significant role in dictating the genome editing efficiency in hPSCs, which can be comparable to the efficiencies observed in tumor cell lines and primary cells.

Figure 2 with 2 supplements see all

Download asset Open asset

To improve PE efficiencies using transient delivery of the PE components, we set out to optimize PE delivery conditions. Initially, we focused on delivering the PE components as RNPs, a highly efficient approach described for CRISPR/Cas9-mediated genome editing (Zuris et al., 2015), which was recently successfully adapted for PE in zebrafish and human primary T cells (Petri et al., 2021). Using recombinant nCas9-RT protein (PE2 version of the prime editor protein as described in Anzalone et al., 2019 purified from bacteria; Figure 2—figure supplement 2A) and the previously established protocols for RNP-based CRISPR/Cas9 editing (Petri et al., 2021; Zuris et al., 2015), we nucleofected pre-assembled RNPs containing the recombinant nCas9-RT protein and chemically modified synthetic pegRNAs (without [PE2] or with [PE3] secondary ngRNA) targeting the HEK3 (CTT insertion), LRRK2 (G2019S), and SNCA (A30P) loci. Consistent with previous reports on other cell types, we observed RNP-mediated editing outcomes in hPSCs with locus-dependent efficiencies between 1 and 6% (Figure 2E and Figure 2—figure supplement 2B and Figure 2—figure supplement 2C). While these data clearly indicate the feasibility of RNP-based PE in hPSCs, the observed efficiencies are comparable to the plasmid-based approach and far below the efficiencies observed with stable expression of nCas9-RT from the AAVS1 locus. To exclude that RNP-based PE efficiencies were concentration- or batch-dependent, we repeated some of these experiments with protein from independently purified nCas9-RT batches (Figure 2—figure supplement 2D) and used higher protein concentrations (Figure 2—figure supplement 2E). However, none of these conditions resulted in substantially improved RNP-based editing efficiencies in hPSCs.

An alternative approach, allowing highly efficient delivery of Cas9 for CRISPR/Cas9-based genome editing (Chang et al., 2013; Hwang et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2013), is to deliver the prime editor using in vitro transcribed mRNA (Chen et al., 2021; Sürün et al., 2020). To systematically compare plasmid-, RNP-, and mRNA-based PE at the above-established HEK3 (CTT insertion), LRRK2 (G2019S), and SNCA (A30P) loci, we nucleofected either: (i) plasmid-based nCas9-RT together with plasmid-based pegRNAs (without [PE2] or with [PE3] secondary ngRNA), (ii) preassembled RNPs containing nCas9-RT protein and chemically modified synthetic pegRNAs (without [PE2] or with [PE3] secondary ngRNA), or (iii) in vitro transcribed nCas9-RT mRNA together with chemically modified synthetic pegRNAs (without [PE2] or with [PE3] secondary ngRNA). Bulk NGS revealed that the combination of in vitro transcribed mRNA-based delivery of the nCas9-RT with chemically modified synthetic pegRNAs and ngRNAs consistently increased editing efficiencies across all three tested loci up to 13-fold compared with plasmid- and 8-fold compared with RNP-delivery (Figure 3A). Using this optimized in vitro transcribed mRNA-based delivery approach allowed us to achieve editing efficiencies up to 26.7% (for the SNCA locus). When combined with secondary nicking of the non-edited strand (PE3), these editing efficiencies are similar to using the stably nCas9-RT expressing cell lines and comparable to efficiencies commonly observed in human tumor cell lines (Anzalone et al., 2019; Nelson et al., 2021). While mRNA-based editing efficiencies seem to depend on the approach used to in vitro transcribe the nCas9-RT mRNA (Figure 3—figure supplement 1A), we found that mRNA-based editing efficiencies are highly consistent across different nCas9-RT mRNA batches when using the best in vitro transcription conditions (Figure 3—figure supplement 1B). Furthermore, we observed that using single-stranded mRNA compared with either RNPs or double-stranded plasmid DNAs resulted in improved overall health and increased survival of single cells as indicated by increased clonal survival following nucleofection (Figure 3B). To test if the high efficiency of mRNA-based PE is a unique feature of the WIBR3 hESCs, we repeated some key experiments in a second human-induced pluripotent stem cell (hiPSC) line 8858 (Paşca et al., 2015) by targeting the LRRK2 (G2019S) and SNCA (A30P) loci and found comparable editing efficiencies (Figure 3C). Importantly, we were able to establish single cell-derived clones carrying the correct SNCA (A30P) and LRRK2 (G2019S) mutations with high efficiency (Figure 3D). Considering that potential therapeutic applications would require precise genome editing of hPSCs in xeno-free conditions, we were able to show efficient and robust PE of the LRRK2 (G2019S) locus in WIBR3 hESCs using several commonly used feeder-free culture systems with comparably high PE efficiencies (Figure 3—figure supplement 1C).

Figure 3 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

A major limitation of classical CRISPR/Cas9 targeting remains the high number and complexity of undesirable editing outcomes (indels). These alleles are resistant to targeting with the same reagents and thus limit the overall HR editing efficiencies in the context of continued editing or retargeting. Given the much reduced occurrence of indel-containing alleles in mRNA-based PE, we hypothesized that this approach might allow efficient retargeting of the same locus. Indeed, we find for all tested loci (HEK3, LRRK2, and SNCA) that additional rounds of mRNA-based PE of the same cell population could substantially increase overall editing efficiencies (Figure 4A). This indicates that multiple rounds of mRNA-based PE could result in precise and nearly complete editing of a bulk hPSC population without any type of selection.

Figure 4

Download asset Open asset

The data presented thus far describes the insertion of disease-associated mutations into a wild-type genetic background. To test whether mRNA-based PE can be used to correct disease-causing mutations, we designed pegRNAs to specifically target only the mutated SNCA (A30P) allele to revert this mutation back to wild type in hPSCs. When targeting heterozygous (Figure 4B and C) or homozygous (Figure 4D and E) SNCA (A30P) hESC lines, bulk NGS indicated the correction of 31.0 (Figure 4B) and 30.1% (Figure 4D) of the mutated A30P alleles, respectively. Subsequent genotyping of single-cell derived clones indicated 26.2 (Figure 4C) and 48% (Figure 4D; combined heterozygous and homozygous) precisely corrected clones without additional undesired modifications (indels) of the wild-type allele. Taken together, our data indicate that in vitro transcribed mRNA-based PE is a highly efficient gene editing approach in hPSCs that has the potential to greatly facilitate the generation of disease-specific hPSC models.

The experiments performed here provide a detailed experimental road map for how to implement PE towards genome engineering of hPSCs. We show that mRNA transfection of the prime editor component (nCas9-RT) paired with the transfection of chemically modified guide RNAs is well tolerated and highly effective for introducing precise designer mutations in hiPSCs and hESCs. This work focuses on PE, which is highly versatile to introduce not only a wide range of disease-associated single nucleotide sequence variants but also more complex genetic alterations such as insertions and deletions. However, there are additional non-DSB-based genome editing approaches (e.g. based editors) which, dependent on the specific context, have been shown to efficiently introduce genetic modifications in hPSCs (we refer to recent reviews for a detailed discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of such approaches Anzalone et al., 2020; Molla et al., 2021; Zeballos C and Gaj, 2021). Although not tested, we believe that the here described RNA transfection-based delivery modalities could be adapted to increase genome editing efficiencies for genome editing approaches other than PE. Considering that mRNA-based PE does not require specialized molecular or biochemical skills and consistently achieves high editing efficiency in hESC and hiPSC lines, we predict that this approach has the potential to greatly facilitate the generation of disease-specific hPSC models and will be widely adopted by researchers.

During the process of establishing this workflow, we made several key observations. We find that PE can be as efficient in hPSCs as has been reported for cancer cells (Anzalone et al., 2019; Nelson et al., 2021). We demonstrate that this approach efficiently allows for the introduction or correction of heterozygous disease-related mutations in hPSCs with base-pair precision and without introducing undesired additional modifications on the second allele. The resulting cells showed a normal karyotype, consistent with low genotoxicity of PE due to the lack of DSBs (Anzalone et al., 2019).

A recent study reported comparable high PE efficiencies in a doxycycline-inducible PE2-expressing hESC line (Habib et al., 2022). The authors observe that PE3-mediated PE is generally accompanied by the generation of indels around the target site caused by the combinatory activity of the RT and pegRNA. While we also find a certain degree of indels (impure PE [IPE] and by-products) at the target site using the PE3 approach, the frequency is usually low compared with the intended sequence modifications which is consistent with previous data in other cell types (Anzalone et al., 2019; Chen et al., 2021; Nelson et al., 2021). While it has been shown that the frequency of undesired edits varies widely across genomic loci and is pegRNA dependent, it is possible that indel frequency is also affected by the different delivery modalities (e.g. different mRNA transfection of the PE component paired with the transfection of chemically modified guide RNAs has different kinetics and expression levels compared with other approaches). Due to the unique property of hPSCs to allow for the expansion of clonal cell lines, we do not believe that such on-target indels limit the use of PE for disease modeling approaches because undesired modifications can be easily excluded through targeted sequencing during quality control of individual clones.

In the past, generating such isogenic cell lines that differ exclusively at individual disease-causing sequence variants was highly laborious and an experimental bottleneck. Here we overcome this challenge by deploying PE via optimized delivery methods. We demonstrate that hPSCs can be subjected to several rounds of PE, eventually yielding up to 60% correctly targeted alleles. Importantly, PE efficiencies might be further increased by including mRNAs coding for DNA mismatch repair inhibiting proteins, a novel approach that has been recently shown to significantly improve the PE platform (Chen et al., 2021). These very high editing efficiencies without the need for selection of enrichment of targeted clones provide an intriguing platform to develop more robust in vitro disease models and potential therapeutic applications of PE in hPSCs or differentiated cell types. In our study, we successfully introduced three out of three familial PD point mutations into hPSCs using previously established algorithms to design pegRNAs (Hsu et al., 2021). In each case, a classical protospacer adjacent motif (PAM) was present close to the intended amino acid substitution and we did not explore more complex or challenging genetic modifications. As is the case for all genome editing approaches, PE efficiencies vary widely depending on the specific genomic context and pegRNA design, and certain genetic modifications will require more extensive pegRNA testing and validation. However, we expect systematic approaches that establish optimized design parameters for PE, as recently described for cancer cells (Kim et al., 2020b; Nelson et al., 2021) and the development of Cas9 variants with non-classical PAMs (Chatterjee et al., 2020; Kleinstiver et al., 2015; Miller et al., 2020) will overcome these limitations and combined with the optimized protocols reported here will allow PE to become a general method of choice for genome editing in hPSCs.

The focus of this work was to establish a highly efficient platform for PE in hPSCs and although all generated prime edited cell lines showed a normal karyotype consistent with low genotoxicity of PE due to the lack of DSBs (Anzalone et al., 2019), it is important to point out that we refrained from a detailed off-target analysis. We believe that there are already available substantial datasets in a variety of cell types indicating that PE is highly specific and shows much lower guide RNA-dependent or independent off-target effects compared with DSB-based CRISPR/Cas9 or base editing approaches (Gao et al., 2021; Geurts et al., 2021; Habib et al., 2022; Jin et al., 2021; Kim et al., 2020a; Schene et al., 2020). Genome-wide off-target analyses of in vitro generated cell lines including whole genome sequencing-based approaches remain challenging even for conventional CRISPR/Cas9-based cutting approaches due to the substantial number of genetic alterations which occur during regular cell culture (Kuijk et al., 2020). Thus, a key future step toward the development of clinical PE approaches will require the development of sophisticated off-target analyses tools that account for nCas9 single strand break-mediated and transient reverse transcriptase expression-mediated genetic alterations.

Sequencing data can be accessed through the repository platform Zenodo (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6941502). The datasets for AAVS1 knock-in genotyping, aCGH karyotyping, and the source data files used to generate the featured graphs and tables can be found on Zenodo (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6941599). Plasmids referred to in this paper have been deposited to Addgene's Michael J. Fox Foundation Plasmid Resource and their associated RRID can be found in Supplemental table 2.

1. 1. Li H
   2. Busquets O
   3. Verma Y
   4. Syed K
   5. Kutnowski N
   6. Pangilinan G
   7. Gilbert L
   8. Bateup H
   9. Rio D
   10. Hockemeyer D
   11. Soldner F

   (2022) Zenodo

   Bulk NGS/allele quantification - Highly efficient generation of isogenic pluripotent stem cell models using prime editing.

   https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6941502
2. 1. Li H
   2. Busquets O
   3. Verma Y
   4. Syed K
   5. Kutnowski N
   6. Pangilinan G
   7. Gilbert L
   8. Bateup H
   9. Rio D
   10. Hockemeyer D
   11. Soldner F

   (2022) Zenodo

   Highly efficient generation of isogenic pluripotent stem cell models using prime editing - Datasets.

   https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6941599

1. 1. Anzalone AV
   2. Randolph PB
   3. Davis JR
   4. Sousa AA
   5. Koblan LW
   6. Levy JM
   7. Chen PJ
   8. Wilson C
   9. Newby GA
   10. Raguram A
   11. Liu DR

   (2019) Search-and-replace genome editing without double-strand breaks or donor DNA

   Nature 576:149–157.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1711-4

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Anzalone AV
   2. Koblan LW
   3. Liu DR

   (2020) Genome editing with CRISPR-Cas nucleases, base editors, transposases and prime editors

   Nature Biotechnology 38:824–844.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-020-0561-9

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Bharucha N
   2. Ataam JA
   3. Gavidia AA
   4. Karakikes I

   (2021) Generation of AAVS1 integrated doxycycline-inducible CRISPR-Prime editor human induced pluripotent stem cell line

   Stem Cell Research 57:102610.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scr.2021.102610

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Boch J
   2. Scholze H
   3. Schornack S
   4. Landgraf A
   5. Hahn S
   6. Kay S
   7. Lahaye T
   8. Nickstadt A
   9. Bonas U

   (2009) Breaking the code of DNA binding specificity of TAL-type III effectors

   Science 326:1509–1512.

   https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1178811

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Bowden AR
   2. Morales-Juarez DA
   3. Sczaniecka-Clift M
   4. Agudo MM
   5. Lukashchuk N
   6. Thomas JC
   7. Jackson SP

   (2020) Parallel CRISPR-Cas9 screens clarify impacts of p53 on screen performance

   eLife 9:e55325.

   https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.55325

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Cermak T
   2. Doyle EL
   3. Christian M
   4. Wang L
   5. Zhang Y
   6. Schmidt C
   7. Baller JA
   8. Somia NV
   9. Bogdanove AJ
   10. Voytas DF

   (2011) Efficient design and assembly of custom TALEN and other TAL effector-based constructs for DNA targeting

   Nucleic Acids Research 39:e82.

   https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkr218

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Chang N
   2. Sun C
   3. Gao L
   4. Zhu D
   5. Xu X
   6. Zhu X
   7. Xiong JW
   8. Xi JJ

   (2013) Genome editing with RNA-guided Cas9 nuclease in zebrafish embryos

   Cell Research 23:465–472.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/cr.2013.45

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Chatterjee P
   2. Jakimo N
   3. Lee J
   4. Amrani N
   5. Rodríguez T
   6. Koseki SRT
   7. Tysinger E
   8. Qing R
   9. Hao S
   10. Sontheimer EJ
   11. Jacobson J

   (2020) An engineered ScCas9 with broad PAM range and high specificity and activity

   Nature Biotechnology 38:1154–1158.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-020-0517-0

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Chemello F
   2. Chai AC
   3. Li H
   4. Rodriguez-Caycedo C
   5. Sanchez-Ortiz E
   6. Atmanli A
   7. Mireault AA
   8. Liu N
   9. Bassel-Duby R
   10. Olson EN

   (2021) Precise correction of Duchenne muscular dystrophy exon deletion mutations by base and prime editing

   Science Advances 7:eabg4910.

   https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abg4910

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Chen PJ
    2. Hussmann JA
    3. Yan J
    4. Knipping F
    5. Ravisankar P
    6. Chen P-F
    7. Chen C
    8. Nelson JW
    9. Newby GA
    10. Sahin M
    11. Osborn MJ
    12. Weissman JS
    13. Adamson B
    14. Liu DR

    (2021) Enhanced prime editing systems by manipulating cellular determinants of editing outcomes

    Cell 184:5635–5652.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2021.09.018

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Clement K
    2. Rees H
    3. Canver MC
    4. Gehrke JM
    5. Farouni R
    6. Hsu JY
    7. Cole MA
    8. Liu DR
    9. Joung JK
    10. Bauer DE
    11. Pinello L

    (2019) CRISPResso2 provides accurate and rapid genome editing sequence analysis

    Nature Biotechnology 37:224–226.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-019-0032-3

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Cong L
    2. Ran FA
    3. Cox D
    4. Lin S
    5. Barretto R
    6. Habib N
    7. Hsu PD
    8. Wu X
    9. Jiang W
    10. Marraffini LA
    11. Zhang F

    (2013) Multiplex genome engineering using CRISPR/Cas systems

    Science 339:819–823.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1231143

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Cox DBT
    2. Platt RJ
    3. Zhang F

    (2015) Therapeutic genome editing: prospects and challenges

    Nature Medicine 21:121–131.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nm.3793

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
14. 1. DeKelver RC
    2. Choi VM
    3. Moehle EA
    4. Paschon DE
    5. Hockemeyer D
    6. Meijsing SH
    7. Sancak Y
    8. Cui X
    9. Steine EJ
    10. Miller JC
    11. Tam P
    12. Bartsevich VV
    13. Meng X
    14. Rupniewski I
    15. Gopalan SM
    16. Sun HC
    17. Pitz KJ
    18. Rock JM
    19. Zhang L
    20. Davis GD
    21. Rebar EJ
    22. Cheeseman IM
    23. Yamamoto KR
    24. Sabatini DM
    25. Jaenisch R
    26. Gregory PD
    27. Urnov FD

    (2010) Functional genomics, proteomics, and regulatory DNA analysis in isogenic settings using zinc finger nuclease-driven transgenesis into a safe harbor locus in the human genome

    Genome Research 20:1133–1142.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.106773.110

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Ding Q
    2. Regan SN
    3. Xia Y
    4. Oostrom LA
    5. Cowan CA
    6. Musunuru K

    (2013) Enhanced efficiency of human pluripotent stem cell genome editing through replacing TALENs with CRISPRs

    Cell Stem 12:393–394.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stem.2013.03.006

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Gao P
    2. Lyu Q
    3. Ghanam AR
    4. Lazzarotto CR
    5. Newby GA
    6. Zhang W
    7. Choi M
    8. Slivano OJ
    9. Holden K
    10. Walker JA
    11. Kadina AP
    12. Munroe RJ
    13. Abratte CM
    14. Schimenti JC
    15. Liu DR
    16. Tsai SQ
    17. Long X
    18. Miano JM

    (2021) Prime editing in mice reveals the essentiality of a single base in driving tissue-specific gene expression

    Genome Biology 22:83.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-021-02304-3

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Geurts MH
    2. de Poel E
    3. Pleguezuelos-Manzano C
    4. Oka R
    5. Carrillo L
    6. Andersson-Rolf A
    7. Boretto M
    8. Brunsveld JE
    9. van Boxtel R
    10. Beekman JM
    11. Clevers H

    (2021) Evaluating CRISPR-based prime editing for cancer modeling and CFTR repair in organoids

    Life Science Alliance 4:e202000940.

    https://doi.org/10.26508/lsa.202000940

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Gilks WP
    2. Abou-Sleiman PM
    3. Gandhi S
    4. Jain S
    5. Singleton A
    6. Lees AJ
    7. Shaw K
    8. Bhatia KP
    9. Bonifati V
    10. Quinn NP
    11. Lynch J
    12. Healy DG
    13. Holton JL
    14. Revesz T
    15. Wood NW

    (2005) A common LRRK2 mutation in idiopathic Parkinson’s disease

    Lancet 365:415–416.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(05)17830-1

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
19. Book

    1. Green MR
    2. Sambrook J

    (2012)

    Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual

    Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press.

    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Haapaniemi E
    2. Botla S
    3. Persson J
    4. Schmierer B
    5. Taipale J

    (2018) CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing induces a p53-mediated DNA damage response

    Nature Medicine 24:927–930.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-018-0049-z

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Habib O
    2. Habib G
    3. Hwang GH
    4. Bae S

    (2022) Comprehensive analysis of prime editing outcomes in human embryonic stem cells

    Nucleic Acids Research 50:1187–1197.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkab1295

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Healy DG
    2. Falchi M
    3. O’Sullivan SS
    4. Bonifati V
    5. Durr A
    6. Bressman S
    7. Brice A
    8. Aasly J
    9. Zabetian CP
    10. Goldwurm S
    11. Ferreira JJ
    12. Tolosa E
    13. Kay DM
    14. Klein C
    15. Williams DR
    16. Marras C
    17. Lang AE
    18. Wszolek ZK
    19. Berciano J
    20. Schapira AHV
    21. Lynch T
    22. Bhatia KP
    23. Gasser T
    24. Lees AJ
    25. Wood NW
    26. International LRRK2 Consortium

    (2008) Phenotype, genotype, and worldwide genetic penetrance of LRRK2-associated Parkinson’s disease: a case-control study

    The Lancet. Neurology 7:583–590.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(08)70117-0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Hernandez DG
    2. Paisán-Ruíz C
    3. McInerney-Leo A
    4. Jain S
    5. Meyer-Lindenberg A
    6. Evans EW
    7. Berman KF
    8. Johnson J
    9. Auburger G
    10. Schäffer AA
    11. Lopez GJ
    12. Nussbaum RL
    13. Singleton AB

    (2005) Clinical and positron emission tomography of Parkinson’s disease caused by LRRK2

    Annals of Neurology 57:453–456.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.20401

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Hockemeyer D
    2. Soldner F
    3. Beard C
    4. Gao Q
    5. Mitalipova M
    6. DeKelver RC
    7. Katibah GE
    8. Amora R
    9. Boydston EA
    10. Zeitler B
    11. Meng X
    12. Miller JC
    13. Zhang L
    14. Rebar EJ
    15. Gregory PD
    16. Urnov FD
    17. Jaenisch R

    (2009) Efficient targeting of expressed and silent genes in human ESCs and iPSCs using zinc-finger nucleases

    Nature Biotechnology 27:851–857.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.1562

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Hockemeyer D
    2. Wang H
    3. Kiani S
    4. Lai CS
    5. Gao Q
    6. Cassady JP
    7. Cost GJ
    8. Zhang L
    9. Santiago Y
    10. Miller JC
    11. Zeitler B
    12. Cherone JM
    13. Meng X
    14. Hinkley SJ
    15. Rebar EJ
    16. Gregory PD
    17. Urnov FD
    18. Jaenisch R

    (2011) Genetic engineering of human pluripotent cells using TALE nucleases

    Nature Biotechnology 29:731–734.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.1927

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Hockemeyer D
    2. Jaenisch R

    (2016) Induced pluripotent stem cells meet genome editing

    Cell Stem 18:573–586.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stem.2016.04.013

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Hsu JY
    2. Grünewald J
    3. Szalay R
    4. Shih J
    5. Anzalone AV
    6. Lam KC
    7. Shen MW
    8. Petri K
    9. Liu DR
    10. Joung JK
    11. Pinello L

    (2021) PrimeDesign software for rapid and simplified design of prime editing guide RNAs

    Nature Communications 12:1034.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-21337-7

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Hwang WY
    2. Fu Y
    3. Reyon D
    4. Maeder ML
    5. Tsai SQ
    6. Sander JD
    7. Peterson RT
    8. Yeh J-RJ
    9. Joung JK

    (2013) Efficient genome editing in zebrafish using a CRISPR-Cas system

    Nature Biotechnology 31:227–229.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2501

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Ihry RJ
    2. Worringer KA
    3. Salick MR
    4. Frias E
    5. Ho D
    6. Theriault K
    7. Kommineni S
    8. Chen J
    9. Sondey M
    10. Ye C
    11. Randhawa R
    12. Kulkarni T
    13. Yang Z
    14. McAllister G
    15. Russ C
    16. Reece-Hoyes J
    17. Forrester W
    18. Hoffman GR
    19. Dolmetsch R
    20. Kaykas A

    (2018) P53 inhibits CRISPR-Cas9 engineering in human pluripotent stem cells

    Nature Medicine 24:939–946.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-018-0050-6

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Jin S
    2. Lin Q
    3. Luo Y
    4. Zhu Z
    5. Liu G
    6. Li Y
    7. Chen K
    8. Qiu JL
    9. Gao C

    (2021) Genome-wide specificity of prime editors in plants

    Nature Biotechnology 39:1292–1299.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-021-00891-x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Jinek M
    2. Chylinski K
    3. Fonfara I

    (2012) A programmable dual-RNA–guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity

    Science 337:816–821.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1225829

    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Jinek M
    2. East A
    3. Cheng A
    4. Lin S
    5. Ma E
    6. Doudna J

    (2013) RNA-programmed genome editing in human cells

    eLife 2:e00471.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.00471

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Kim DY
    2. Moon SB
    3. Ko JH
    4. Kim YS
    5. Kim D

    (2020a) Unbiased investigation of specificities of prime editing systems in human cells

    Nucleic Acids Research 48:10576–10589.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkaa764

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Kim HK
    2. Yu G
    3. Park J
    4. Min S
    5. Lee S
    6. Yoon S
    7. Kim HH

    (2020b) Predicting the efficiency of prime editing guide RNAs in human cells

    Nature Biotechnology 39:198–206.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-020-0677-y

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Kleinstiver BP
    2. Prew MS
    3. Tsai SQ
    4. Nguyen NT
    5. Topkar VV
    6. Zheng Z
    7. Joung JK

    (2015) Broadening the targeting range of Staphylococcus aureus CRISPR-Cas9 by modifying PAM recognition

    Nature Biotechnology 33:1293–1298.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3404

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Krüger R
    2. Kuhn W
    3. Müller T
    4. Woitalla D
    5. Graeber M
    6. Kösel S
    7. Przuntek H
    8. Epplen JT
    9. Schöls L
    10. Riess O

    (1998) Ala30Pro mutation in the gene encoding α-synuclein in Parkinson’s disease

    Nature Genetics 18:106–108.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ng0298-106

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Kuijk E
    2. Jager M
    3. van der Roest B
    4. Locati MD
    5. Van Hoeck A
    6. Korzelius J
    7. Janssen R
    8. Besselink N
    9. Boymans S
    10. van Boxtel R
    11. Cuppen E

    (2020) The mutational impact of culturing human pluripotent and adult stem cells

    Nature Communications 11:2493.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-16323-4

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Lengner CJ
    2. Gimelbrant AA
    3. Erwin JA
    4. Cheng AW
    5. Guenther MG
    6. Welstead GG
    7. Alagappan R
    8. Frampton GM
    9. Xu P
    10. Muffat J
    11. Santagata S
    12. Powers D
    13. Barrett CB
    14. Young RA
    15. Lee JT
    16. Jaenisch R
    17. Mitalipova M

    (2010) Derivation of pre-X inactivation human embryonic stem cells under physiological oxygen concentrations

    Cell 141:872–883.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2010.04.010

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Mali P
    2. Yang L
    3. Esvelt KM
    4. Aach J
    5. Guell M
    6. DiCarlo JE
    7. Norville JE
    8. Church GM

    (2013) RNA-guided human genome engineering via Cas9

    Science 339:823–826.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1232033

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Miller SM
    2. Wang T
    3. Randolph PB
    4. Arbab M
    5. Shen MW
    6. Huang TP
    7. Matuszek Z
    8. Newby GA
    9. Rees HA
    10. Liu DR

    (2020) Continuous evolution of SpCas9 variants compatible with non-G PAMs

    Nature Biotechnology 38:471–481.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-020-0412-8

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Molla KA
    2. Sretenovic S
    3. Bansal KC
    4. Qi Y

    (2021) Precise plant genome editing using base editors and prime editors

    Nature Plants 7:1166–1187.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-021-00991-1

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Nelson JW
    2. Randolph PB
    3. Shen SP
    4. Everette KA
    5. Chen PJ
    6. Anzalone AV
    7. An M
    8. Newby GA
    9. Chen JC
    10. Hsu A
    11. Liu DR

    (2021) Engineered pegRNAs improve prime editing efficiency

    Nature Biotechnology 40:402–410.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-021-01039-7

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Paşca AM
    2. Sloan SA
    3. Clarke LE
    4. Tian Y
    5. Makinson CD
    6. Huber N
    7. Kim CH
    8. Park J-Y
    9. O’Rourke NA
    10. Nguyen KD
    11. Smith SJ
    12. Huguenard JR
    13. Geschwind DH
    14. Barres BA
    15. Paşca SP

    (2015) Functional cortical neurons and astrocytes from human pluripotent stem cells in 3D culture

    Nature Methods 12:671–678.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.3415

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Petri K
    2. Zhang W
    3. Ma J
    4. Schmidts A
    5. Lee H
    6. Horng JE
    7. Kim DY
    8. Kurt IC
    9. Clement K
    10. Hsu JY
    11. Pinello L
    12. Maus MV
    13. Joung JK
    14. Yeh JRJ

    (2021) CRISPR prime editing with ribonucleoprotein complexes in zebrafish and primary human cells

    Nature Biotechnology 40:189–193.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-021-00901-y

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Polymeropoulos MH
    2. Lavedan C
    3. Leroy E
    4. Ide SE
    5. Dehejia A
    6. Dutra A
    7. Pike B
    8. Root H
    9. Rubenstein J
    10. Boyer R
    11. Stenroos ES
    12. Chandrasekharappa S
    13. Athanassiadou A
    14. Papapetropoulos T
    15. Johnson WG
    16. Lazzarini AM
    17. Duvoisin RC
    18. Di Iorio G
    19. Golbe LI
    20. Nussbaum RL

    (1997) Mutation in the α-synuclein gene identified in families with Parkinson’s disease

    Science 276:2045–2047.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.276.5321.2045

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Schene IF
    2. Joore IP
    3. Oka R
    4. Mokry M
    5. van Vugt AHM
    6. van Boxtel R
    7. van der Doef HPJ
    8. van der Laan LJW
    9. Verstegen MMA
    10. van Hasselt PM
    11. Nieuwenhuis EES
    12. Fuchs SA

    (2020) Prime editing for functional repair in patient-derived disease models

    Nature Communications 11:5352.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-19136-7

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Soldner F
    2. Laganière J
    3. Cheng AW
    4. Hockemeyer D
    5. Gao Q
    6. Alagappan R
    7. Khurana V
    8. Golbe LI
    9. Myers RH
    10. Lindquist S
    11. Zhang L
    12. Guschin D
    13. Fong LK
    14. Vu BJ
    15. Meng X
    16. Urnov FD
    17. Rebar EJ
    18. Gregory PD
    19. Zhang HS
    20. Jaenisch R

    (2011) Generation of isogenic pluripotent stem cells differing exclusively at two early onset Parkinson point mutations

    Cell 146:318–331.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2011.06.019

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Soldner F
    2. Stelzer Y
    3. Shivalila CS
    4. Abraham BJ
    5. Latourelle JC
    6. Barrasa MI
    7. Goldmann J
    8. Myers RH
    9. Young RA
    10. Jaenisch R

    (2016) Parkinson-associated risk variant in distal enhancer of α-synuclein modulates target gene expression

    Nature 533:95–99.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature17939

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Soldner F
    2. Jaenisch R

    (2018) Stem cells, genome editing, and the path to translational medicine

    Cell 175:615–632.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2018.09.010

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Sürün D
    2. Schneider A
    3. Mircetic J
    4. Neumann K
    5. Lansing F
    6. Paszkowski-Rogacz M
    7. Hänchen V
    8. Lee-Kirsch MA
    9. Buchholz F

    (2020) Efficient generation and correction of mutations in human iPS cells utilizing mrnas of CRISPR base editors and prime editors

    Genes 11:E511.

    https://doi.org/10.3390/genes11050511

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Wang H
    2. Yang H
    3. Shivalila CS
    4. Dawlaty MM
    5. Cheng AW
    6. Zhang F
    7. Jaenisch R

    (2013) One-step generation of mice carrying mutations in multiple genes by CRISPR/Cas-mediated genome engineering

    Cell 153:910–918.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2013.04.025

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Zeballos C MA
    2. Gaj T

    (2021) Next-generation CRISPR technologies and their applications in gene and cell therapy

    Trends in Biotechnology 39:692–705.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2020.10.010

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Zou J
    2. Maeder ML
    3. Mali P
    4. Pruett-Miller SM
    5. Thibodeau-Beganny S
    6. Chou BK
    7. Chen G
    8. Ye Z
    9. Park IH
    10. Daley GQ
    11. Porteus MH
    12. Joung JK
    13. Cheng L

    (2009) Gene targeting of a disease-related gene in human induced pluripotent stem and embryonic stem cells

    Stem Cell 5:97–110.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stem.2009.05.023

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
54. 1. Zuris JA
    2. Thompson DB
    3. Shu Y
    4. Guilinger JP
    5. Bessen JL
    6. Hu JH
    7. Maeder ML
    8. Joung JK
    9. Chen ZY
    10. Liu DR

    (2015) Cationic lipid-mediated delivery of proteins enables efficient protein-based genome editing in vitro and in vivo

    Nature Biotechnology 33:73–80.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3081

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar

Author details

1. Hanqin Li

   1. Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, United States
   2. Innovative Genomics Institute, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, United States
   3. Aligning Science Across Parkinson’s (ASAP) Collaborative Research Network, Chevy Chase, United States

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Validation, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing

   Contributed equally with

   Oriol Busquets

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7995-1084

2. Oriol Busquets

   1. Aligning Science Across Parkinson’s (ASAP) Collaborative Research Network, Chevy Chase, United States
   2. Dominick P. Purpura Department of Neuroscience, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, The Bronx, United States

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Validation, Investigation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing

   Contributed equally with

   Hanqin Li

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1372-9699

3. Yogendra Verma

   1. Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, United States
   2. Aligning Science Across Parkinson’s (ASAP) Collaborative Research Network, Chevy Chase, United States

   Contribution

   Formal analysis, Investigation

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

4. Khaja Mohieddin Syed

   1. Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, United States
   2. Aligning Science Across Parkinson’s (ASAP) Collaborative Research Network, Chevy Chase, United States

   Contribution

   Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

5. Nitzan Kutnowski

   Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, United States

   Contribution

   Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3012-4616

6. Gabriella R Pangilinan

   1. Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, United States
   2. Aligning Science Across Parkinson’s (ASAP) Collaborative Research Network, Chevy Chase, United States

   Contribution

   Formal analysis, Investigation

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

7. Luke A Gilbert

   1. Aligning Science Across Parkinson’s (ASAP) Collaborative Research Network, Chevy Chase, United States
   2. Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
   3. Department of Urology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
   4. Arc Institute, Palo Alto, United States

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

8. Helen S Bateup

   1. Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, United States
   2. Aligning Science Across Parkinson’s (ASAP) Collaborative Research Network, Chevy Chase, United States
   3. Chan Zuckerberg Biohub, San Francisco, United States
   4. Helen Wills Neuroscience Institute, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, United States

   Contribution

   Supervision, Funding acquisition, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0135-0972

9. Donald C Rio

   1. Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, United States
   2. Aligning Science Across Parkinson’s (ASAP) Collaborative Research Network, Chevy Chase, United States

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Validation, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Project administration, Writing – review and editing

   For correspondence

   don_rio@berkeley.edu

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-4775-3515

10. Dirk Hockemeyer

    1. Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, United States
    2. Innovative Genomics Institute, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, United States
    3. Aligning Science Across Parkinson’s (ASAP) Collaborative Research Network, Chevy Chase, United States
    4. Chan Zuckerberg Biohub, San Francisco, United States

    Contribution

    Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Validation, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Project administration, Writing – review and editing

    For correspondence

    hockemeyer@berkeley.edu

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

    "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5598-5092

11. Frank Soldner

    1. Aligning Science Across Parkinson’s (ASAP) Collaborative Research Network, Chevy Chase, United States
    2. Dominick P. Purpura Department of Neuroscience, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, The Bronx, United States
    3. Department of Genetics, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, The Bronx, United States
    4. Ruth L. and David S. Gottesman Institute for Stem Cell and Regenerative Medicine Research, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, The Bronx, United States

    Contribution

    Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Validation, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Project administration, Writing – review and editing

    For correspondence

    frank.soldner@einsteinmed.edu

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

    "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-7102-8655

• 4,819

  views

• 1,032

  downloads

• 33

  citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.