Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Apr 21.
Published in final edited form as: Nature. 2019 Oct 21;576(7785):149–157. doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1711-4

Extended Data Figure 4. Evaluation of M-MLV RT variants for prime editing.

Extended Data Figure 4.

(a) Abbreviations for prime editor variants used in this figure. (b) Targeted insertion and deletion edits with PE1 at the HEK3 locus. (c-h) Comparison of 18 prime editor constructs containing M-MLV RT variants for their ability to install (c) a +2 G•C-to-C•G transversion edit at HEK3, (d) a 24-bp FLAG insertion at the +1 position of HEK3, (e) a +1 C•G-to-A•T transversion edit at RNF2, (f) a +1 G•C-to-C•G transversion edit at EMX1, (g) a +2 T•A-to-A•T transversion edit at HBB, and (h) a +1 G•C-to-C•G transversion edit at FANCF. (i-n) Comparison of four prime editor constructs containing M-MLV variants for their ability to install the edits shown in (c-h) in a second round of independent experiments. (o-s) PE2 editing efficiency at five genomic loci with varying PBS lengths. (o) +1 T•A-to-A•T at HEK3. (p) +5 G•C-to-T•A at EMX1. (q) +5 G•C-to-T•A at FANCF. (r) +1 C•G-to-A•T at RNF2. (s) +2 G•C-to-T•A at HEK4. Editing efficiencies reflect sequencing reads that contain the intended edit and do not contain indels among all treated cells, with no sorting. Values and error bars reflect mean±s.d. of n=3 independent biological replicates.