[ad_1]
Weber, E. W., Maus, M. V. & Mackall, C. L. The emerging landscape of immune cell therapies. Cell 181, 46–62 (2020).
Google Scholar
MacLeod, D. T. et al. Integration of a CD19 CAR into the TCR alpha chain locus streamlines production of allogeneic gene-edited CAR T cells. Mol. Ther. 25, 949–961 (2017).
Google Scholar
Philip, L. P. B. et al. Multiplex genome-edited T-cell manufacturing platform for ‘off-the-shelf’ adoptive T-cell immunotherapies. Cancer Res. 75, 3853–3864 (2015).
Google Scholar
Qasim, W. et al. Molecular remission of infant B-ALL after infusion of universal TALEN gene-edited CAR T cells. Sci. Transl. Med. 9, 1–10 (2017).
Google Scholar
Osborn, M. J. et al. Evaluation of TCR gene editing achieved by TALENs, CRISPR/Cas9, and megaTAL nucleases. Mol. Ther. 24, 570–581 (2016).
Google Scholar
Stadtmauer, E. A. et al. CRISPR-engineered T cells in patients with refractory cancer. Science 367, eaba7365 (2020).
Braendstrup, P., Levine, B. L. & Ruella, M. The long road to the first FDA-approved gene therapy: chimeric antigen receptor T cells targeting CD19. Cytotherapy 22, 57–69 (2020).
Google Scholar
Eyquem, J. et al. Targeting a CAR to the TRAC locus with CRISPR/Cas9 enhances tumour rejection. Nature 543, 113–117 (2017).
Google Scholar
Roth, T. L. et al. Reprogramming human T cell function and specificity with non-viral genome targeting. Nature 559, 405–409 (2018).
Google Scholar
Schober, K. et al. Orthotopic replacement of T-cell receptor α- and β-chains with preservation of near-physiological T-cell function. Nat. Biomed. Eng. 3, 977–984 (2019).
Google Scholar
Mansilla-Soto, J. et al. HLA-independent T cell receptors for targeting tumors with low antigen density. Nat. Med. 28, 345–352 (2022).
Google Scholar
Shifrut, E. et al. Genome-wide CRISPR screens in primary human T cells reveal key regulators of immune function. Cell 175, 1958–1971 (2018).
Google Scholar
Valton, J. et al. A multidrug-resistant engineered CAR T cell for allogeneic combination immunotherapy. Mol. Ther. 23, 1507–1518 (2015).
Google Scholar
Rupp, L. J. et al. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated PD-1 disruption enhances anti-tumor efficacy of human chimeric antigen receptor T cells. Sci Rep. 7, 737 (2017).
Nahmad, A. D. et al. Engineered B cells expressing an anti-HIV antibody enable memory retention, isotype switching and clonal expansion. Nat. Commun. 17, 5851 (2020).
Charlesworth, C. T. et al. Identification of preexisting adaptive immunity to Cas9 proteins in humans. Nat. Med. 25, 249–254 (2019).
Google Scholar
Enache, O. M. et al. Cas9 activates the p53 pathway and selects for p53-inactivating mutations. Nat. Genet. 52, 662–668 (2020).
Google Scholar
Lazzarotto, C. R. et al. CHANGE-seq reveals genetic and epigenetic effects on CRISPR–Cas9 genome-wide activity. Nat. Biotechnol. 38, 1317–1327 (2020).
Google Scholar
Adikusuma, F. et al. Large deletions induced by Cas9 cleavage. Nature 560, E8–E9 (2018).
Google Scholar
Papathanasiou, S. et al. Whole chromosome loss and genomic instability in mouse embryos after CRISPR–Cas9 genome editing. Nat. Commun. 12, 5855 (2021).
Google Scholar
Alanis-lobato, G., Zohren, J., Mccarthy, A., Fogarty, N. M. E. & Kubikova, N. Frequent loss-of-heterozygosity in CRISPR–Cas9-edited early human embryos. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2004832117 (2021).
Weisheit, I. et al. Detection of deleterious on-target effects after HDR-mediated CRISPR editing. Cell Rep. 31, 107689 (2020).
Google Scholar
Boutin, J. et al. CRISPR–Cas9 globin editing can induce megabase-scale copy-neutral losses of heterozygosity in hematopoietic cells. Nat. Commun. 12, 4922 (2021).
Google Scholar
Przewrocka, J., Rowan, A., Rosenthal, R., Kanu, N. & Swanton, C. Unintended on-target chromosomal instability following CRISPR/Cas9 single gene targeting. Ann. Oncol. 31, 1270–1273 (2020).
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
Zuccaro, M. V. et al. Allele-specific chromosome removal after Cas9 cleavage in human embryos. Cell 183, 1650–1664 (2020).
Google Scholar
Leibowitz, M. L. et al. Chromothripsis as an on-target consequence of CRISPR–Cas9 genome editing. Nat. Genet. 53, 895–905 (2021).
Google Scholar
Urnov, F. D. CRISPR–Cas9 can cause chromothripsis. Nat. Genet. 53, 765–769 (2021).
Google Scholar
Patel, A. P. et al. Single-cell RNA-seq highlights intratumoral heterogeneity in primary glioblastoma. Science 344, 1396–1402 (2014).
Google Scholar
Tirosh, I. et al. Dissecting the multicellular ecosystem of metastatic melanoma by single-cell RNA-seq. Science 352, 189–196 (2016).
Google Scholar
Puig, M. et al. Determining the impact of uncharacterized inversions in the human genome by droplet digital PCR. Genome Res. 30, 724–735 (2020).
Google Scholar
Zetsche, B. et al. Cpf1 is a single RNA-guided endonuclease of a class 2 CRISPR–Cas system. Cell 163, 759–771 (2015).
Google Scholar
Ben-David, U. & Amon, A. Context is everything: aneuploidy in cancer. Nat. Rev. Genet. 21, 44–62 (2020).
Google Scholar
Mourra, N. et al. High frequency of chromosome 14 deletion in early-onset colon cancer. Dis. Colon Rectum 50, 1881–1886 (2007).
Google Scholar
Bandera, C. A. et al. Deletion mapping of two potential chromosome 14 tumor suppressor gene loci in ovarian carcinoma. Cancer Res. 57, 513–516 (1997).
Google Scholar
Tabernero, M. D. et al. Characterization of chromosome 14 abnormalities by interphase in situ hybridization and comparative genomic hybridization in 124 meningiomas. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 123, 744–751 (2005).
Lopez-Gines, C. et al. Association of chromosome 7, chromosome 10 and EGFR gene amplification in glioblastoma multiforme. Clin. Neuropathol. 24, 209–218 (2005).
Google Scholar
Kamada, N. et al. Chromosome abnormalities in adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma: a karyotype review committee report. Cancer Res. 52, 1481–1493 (1992).
Google Scholar
Webber, B. R. et al. Highly efficient multiplex human T cell engineering without double-strand breaks using Cas9 base editors. Nat. Commun. 10, 5222 (2019).
Anzalone, A. V., Koblan, L. W. & Liu, D. R. Genome editing with CRISPR–Cas nucleases, base editors, transposases and prime editors. Nat. Biotechnol. 38, 824–844 (2020).
Google Scholar
Barzel, A. et al. Promoterless gene targeting without nucleases ameliorates haemophilia B in mice. Nature 517, 360–364 (2015).
Google Scholar
Porro, F. et al. Promoterless gene targeting without nucleases rescues lethality of a Crigler–Najjar syndrome mouse model. EMBO Mol. Med. 9, 1346–1355 (2017).
Google Scholar
Chandler, R. J. et al. Promoterless, nuclease- free genome editing confers a growth advantage for corrected hepatocytes in mice with methylmalonic acidemia. Hepatology 73, 2223–2237 (2021).
Google Scholar
Rutledge, S. D. et al. Selective advantage of trisomic human cells cultured in non-standard conditions. Sci Rep. 6, 22828 (2016).
Google Scholar
Sheltzer, J. M. et al. Single-chromosome gains commonly function as tumor suppressors. Cancer Cell 31, 240–255 (2017).
Google Scholar
Stuart, T. et al. Comprehensive integration of single-cell data resource comprehensive integration of single-cell data. Cell 177, 1888–1902 (2019).
Google Scholar
Liberzon, A. et al. The Molecular Signatures Database (MSigDB) hallmark gene set collection. Cell Syst. 1, 417–425 (2015).
Google Scholar
Subramanian, A. et al. Gene set enrichment analysis: a knowledge-based approach for interpreting genome-wide expression profiles. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102, 15545–15550 (2005).
Google Scholar
Liberzon, A. et al. Molecular Signatures Database (MSigDB) 3.0. Bioinformatics 27, 1739–1740 (2011).
Google Scholar
Brinkman, E. K., Chen, T., Amendola, M. & Van Steensel, B. Easy quantitative assessment of genome editing by sequence trace decomposition. Nucleic Acids Res. 42, 1–8 (2014).
Google Scholar
