<HashMap><database>GEO</database><file_versions><headers><Content-Type>application/xml</Content-Type></headers><body><files><Other>ftp://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/series/GSE255nnn/GSE255315/</Other></files><type>primary</type></body><statusCode>OK</statusCode><statusCodeValue>200</statusCodeValue></file_versions><scores/><additional><omics_type>Other</omics_type><species>Homo sapiens</species><gds_type>Other</gds_type><full_dataset_link>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE255315</full_dataset_link><repository>GEO</repository><entry_type>GSE</entry_type></additional><is_claimable>false</is_claimable><name>Base editors provoke non-predictable chromosomal translocations and off-target editing - rhAmp</name><description>Base editing has emerged as a promising alternative to CRISPR-Cas nuclease-based genome editing, in part because of its promise of reduced genotoxicity. Here, we performed a comprehensive genome-wide analysis of base editing-induced off-target effects. Primary human T cells were edited at three genomic loci (CCR5, EMX1, FANCF) using either CRISPR-Cas9 nuclease, an adenine base editor (ABE8e), one of three cytosine base editors (CBEs), or Cas9 nickase. We used CAST-Seq to identify gross chromosomal aberrations and off-target sites (OTs), followed by rhAmp-Seq to evaluate on-target activity (44-84% modified alleles) and mutagenic effects at >100 putative OTs. On-target CAST-Seq reads showed large (>200 bp) aberrations ranging from 45% for Cas9 to 5% for ABE, 2-7% for CBEs, and 0% for nickase-edited cells. While ABE8e editing induced few translocations, more than 10% of the alleles were modified in 17 of the 40 identified OTs. In contrast, chromosomal translocation events in some CBE-treated cells exceeded that found in Cas9-edited T cells by 3-fold. Furthermore, extensive C-to-T conversion (≤99% of alleles) and mutagenesis (≤7% of alleles) were detected in T cells edited with a hyperactive CBE, whereas recently developed CBE variants (TadCBEd or CBE-T1.52) showed only marginal OT activity. In conclusion, our study revealed the genotoxic potential of ABE8e and the hyperactive evoCDA1-BE4max. These base editors induced mutagenic OT editing at sites that were not altered by CRISPR-Cas9 nucleases complexed with the same gRNA, suggesting that the mechanism of gRNA-dependent OT activity of base editors is different from that of CRISPR-Cas nucleases.</description><dates><publication>2026/09/28</publication></dates><accession>GSE255315</accession><cross_references><GSM>GSM8862233</GSM><GSM>GSM8862232</GSM><GSM>GSM8862235</GSM><GSM>GSM8862234</GSM><GSM>GSM8862237</GSM><GSM>GSM8862236</GSM><GSM>GSM8862239</GSM><GSM>GSM8862238</GSM><GSM>GSM8862244</GSM><GSM>GSM8862243</GSM><GSM>GSM8862246</GSM><GSM>GSM8862245</GSM><GSM>GSM8862240</GSM><GSM>GSM8069002</GSM><GSM>GSM8068990</GSM><GSM>GSM8069003</GSM><GSM>GSM8068992</GSM><GSM>GSM8069000</GSM><GSM>GSM8862242</GSM><GSM>GSM8068991</GSM><GSM>GSM8862241</GSM><GSM>GSM8069001</GSM><GSM>GSM8069006</GSM><GSM>GSM8068994</GSM><GSM>GSM8068993</GSM><GSM>GSM8068996</GSM><GSM>GSM8069004</GSM><GSM>GSM8068995</GSM><GSM>GSM8069005</GSM><GSM>GSM8862248</GSM><GSM>GSM8068998</GSM><GSM>GSM8068997</GSM><GSM>GSM8862247</GSM><GSM>GSM8862249</GSM><GSM>GSM8068999</GSM><GSM>GSM8068979</GSM><GSM>GSM8862255</GSM><GSM>GSM8862254</GSM><GSM>GSM8862257</GSM><GSM>GSM8862256</GSM><GSM>GSM8862251</GSM><GSM>GSM8862250</GSM><GSM>GSM8862253</GSM><GSM>GSM8068981</GSM><GSM>GSM8068980</GSM><GSM>GSM8862252</GSM><GSM>GSM8068983</GSM><GSM>GSM8068982</GSM><GSM>GSM8068985</GSM><GSM>GSM8068984</GSM><GSM>GSM8068987</GSM><GSM>GSM8068986</GSM><GSM>GSM8068989</GSM><GSM>GSM8068988</GSM><GSM>GSM8068974</GSM><GSM>GSM8068976</GSM><GSM>GSM8068975</GSM><GSM>GSM8068978</GSM><GSM>GSM8068977</GSM><GPL>24676</GPL><GSE>255315</GSE><taxon>Homo sapiens</taxon></cross_references></HashMap>