Araya, C. L. & Fowler, D. M. Deep mutational scanning: assessing protein function on a massive scale. Trends Biotechnol. 29, 435–442 (2011).
Fowler, D. M. & Fields, S. Deep mutational scanning: a new style of protein science. Nat. Methods 11, 801–807 (2014).
Wei, H. & Li, X. Deep mutational scanning: a versatile tool in systematically mapping genotypes to phenotypes. Front. Genet. 14, 1087267 (2023).
Patwardhan, R. P. et al. High-resolution analysis of DNA regulatory elements by synthetic saturation mutagenesis. Nat. Biotechnol. 27, 1173–1175 (2009).
Patwardhan, R. P. et al. Massively parallel functional dissection of mammalian enhancers in vivo. Nat. Biotechnol. 30, 265–270 (2012).
Melnikov, A. et al. Systematic dissection and optimization of inducible enhancers in human cells using a massively parallel reporter assay. Nat. Biotechnol. 30, 271–277 (2012).
Findlay, G. M., Boyle, E. A., Hause, R. J., Klein, J. C. & Shendure, J. Saturation editing of genomic regions by multiplex homology-directed repair. Nature 513, 120–123 (2014).
Findlay, G. M. et al. Accurate classification of BRCA1 variants with saturation genome editing. Nature 562, 217–222 (2018).
Anzalone, A. V. et al. Search-and-replace genome editing without double-strand breaks or donor DNA. Nature 576, 149–157 (2019).
Yan, J. et al. Improving prime editing with an endogenous small RNA-binding protein. Nature 628, 639–647 (2024).
Erwood, S. et al. Saturation variant interpretation using CRISPR prime editing. Nat. Biotechnol. 40, 885–895 (2022).
Gould, S. I. et al. High-throughput evaluation of genetic variants with prime editing sensor libraries. Nat. Biotechnol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-024-02172-9 (2024).
Komor, A. C., Kim, Y. B., Packer, M. S., Zuris, J. A. & Liu, D. R. Programmable editing of a target base in genomic DNA without double-stranded DNA cleavage. Nature 533, 420–424 (2016).
Gaudelli, N. M. et al. Programmable base editing of A•T to G•C in genomic DNA without DNA cleavage. Nature 551, 464–471 (2017).
Neugebauer, M. E. et al. Evolution of an adenine base editor into a small, efficient cytosine base editor with low off-target activity. Nat. Biotechnol. 41, 673–685 (2023).
Hanna, R. E. et al. Massively parallel assessment of human variants with base editor screens. Cell 184, 1064–1080.e20 (2021).
Sánchez-Rivera, F. J. et al. Base editing sensor libraries for high-throughput engineering and functional analysis of cancer-associated single nucleotide variants. Nat. Biotechnol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-021-01172-3 (2022).
Perner, F. et al. MEN1 mutations mediate clinical resistance to menin inhibition. Nature 615, 913–919 (2023).
Martin-Rufino, J. D. et al. Massively parallel base editing to map variant effects in human hematopoiesis. Cell 186, 2456–2474.e24 (2023).
Lue, N. Z. et al. Base editor scanning charts the DNMT3A activity landscape. Nat. Chem. Biol. 19, 176–186 (2023).
Kennedy, P. H. et al. Post-translational modification-centric base editor screens to assess phosphorylation site functionality in high throughput. Nat. Methods 21, 1033–1043 (2024).
Li, H. et al. Assigning functionality to cysteines by base editing of cancer dependency genes. Nat. Chem. Biol. 19, 1320–1330 (2023).
Cabrera, A. et al. The sound of silence: transgene silencing in mammalian cell engineering. Cell Syst. 13, 950–973 (2022).
Chew, W. L. et al. A multifunctional AAV-CRISPR-Cas9 and its host response. Nat. Methods 13, 868–874 (2016).
Serrao, E. & Engelman, A. N. Sites of retroviral DNA integration: from basic research to clinical applications. Crit. Rev. Biochem. Mol. Biol. 51, 26–42 (2016).
Shao, L. et al. Genome-wide profiling of retroviral DNA integration and its effect on clinical pre-infusion CAR T-cell products. J. Transl. Med. 20, 514 (2022).
Baugh, E. H., Ke, H., Levine, A. J., Bonneau, R. A. & Chan, C. S. Why are there hotspot mutations in the TP53 gene in human cancers?. Cell Death Differ. 25, 154–160 (2018).
Olivier, M., Hollstein, M. & Hainaut, P. TP53 mutations in human cancers: origins, consequences, and clinical use. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 2, a001008 (2010).
The TP53 Database (National Cancer Institute, 2025); https://tp53.cancer.gov/
Petitjean, A., Achatz, M. I. W., Borresen-Dale, A. L., Hainaut, P. & Olivier, M. TP53 mutations in human cancers: functional selection and impact on cancer prognosis and outcomes. Oncogene 26, 2157–2165 (2007).
Donehower, L. A. et al. Integrated analysis of TP53 gene and pathway alterations in the cancer genome atlas. Cell Rep. 28, 1370–1384.e5 (2019).
Wang, H., Guo, M., Wei, H. & Chen, Y. Targeting p53 pathways: mechanisms, structures and advances in therapy. Signal Transduct. Target. Ther. 8, 92 (2023).
Arya, A. K. et al. Nutlin-3, the small-molecule inhibitor of MDM2, promotes senescence and radiosensitises laryngeal carcinoma cells harbouring wild-type p53. Br. J. Cancer 103, 186–195 (2010).
Giacomelli, A. O. et al. Mutational processes shape the landscape of TP53 mutations in human cancer. Nat. Genet. 50, 1381–1387 (2018).
Kucab, J. E., Hollstein, M., Arlt, V. M. & Phillips, D. H. Nutlin-3a selects for cells harbouring TP53 mutations. Int. J. Cancer 140, 877–887 (2017).
Montecucco, A., Zanetta, F. & Biamonti, G. Molecular mechanisms of etoposide. EXCLI J. 14, 95–108 (2015).
Menendez, D. et al. Etoposide-induced DNA damage is increased in p53 mutants: identification of ATR and other genes that influence effects of p53 mutations on Top2-induced cytotoxicity. Oncotarget 13, 332–346 (2022).
Sangree, A. K. et al. Benchmarking of SpCas9 variants enables deeper base editor screens of BRCA1 and BCL2. Nat. Commun. 13, 1318 (2022).
Richter, M. F. et al. Phage-assisted evolution of an adenine base editor with improved Cas domain compatibility and activity. Nat. Biotechnol. 38, 883–891 (2020).
Nishimasu, H. et al. Engineered CRISPR-Cas9 nuclease with expanded targeting space. Science 361, 1259–1262 (2018).
Clement, K. et al. CRISPResso2 provides accurate and rapid genome editing sequence analysis. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 224–226 (2019).
Jabbur, J. R. et al. Mdm-2 binding and TAF(II)31 recruitment is regulated by hydrogen bond disruption between the p53 residues Thr18 and Asp21. Oncogene 21, 7100–7113 (2002).
Hafsi, H., Santos-Silva, D., Courtois-Cox, S. & Hainaut, P. Effects of Δ40p53, an isoform of p53 lacking the N-terminus, on transactivation capacity of the tumor suppressor protein p53. BMC Cancer 13, 134 (2013).
Joruiz, S. M. & Bourdon, J.-C. P53 isoforms: key regulators of the cell fate decision. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Med. 6, a026039 (2016).
McGee, A. V. et al. Modular vector assembly enables rapid assessment of emerging CRISPR technologies. Cell Genom. 4, 100519 (2024).
Walton, R. T., Christie, K. A., Whittaker, M. N. & Kleinstiver, B. P. Unconstrained genome targeting with near-PAMless engineered CRISPR-Cas9 variants. Science 368, 290–296 (2020).
Kurt, I. C. et al. CRISPR C-to-G base editors for inducing targeted DNA transversions in human cells. Nat. Biotechnol. 39, 41–46 (2021).
Lam, D. K. et al. Improved cytosine base editors generated from TadA variants. Nat. Biotechnol. 41, 686–697 (2023).
Huang, T. P. et al. Circularly permuted and PAM-modified Cas9 variants broaden the targeting scope of base editors. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 626–631 (2019).
Kluesner, M. G. et al. EditR: a method to quantify base editing from Sanger sequencing. CRISPR J. 1, 239–250 (2018).
Shy, B. R., MacDougall, M. S., Clarke, R. & Merrill, B. J. Co-incident insertion enables high efficiency genome engineering in mouse embryonic stem cells. Nucleic Acids Res. 44, 7997–8010 (2016).
Agudelo, D. et al. Marker-free coselection for CRISPR-driven genome editing in human cells. Nat. Methods 14, 615–620 (2017).
Xu, D.-H. et al. SV40 intron, a potent strong intron element that effectively increases transgene expression in transfected Chinese hamster ovary cells. J. Cell. Mol. Med. 22, 2231–2239 (2018).
Bae, S., Park, J. & Kim, J.-S. Cas-OFFinder: a fast and versatile algorithm that searches for potential off-target sites of Cas9 RNA-guided endonucleases. Bioinformatics 30, 1473–1475 (2014).
Hibshman, G. N. et al. Unraveling the mechanisms of PAMless DNA interrogation by SpRY-Cas9. Nat. Commun. 15, 3663 (2024).
Shi, H. et al. Rapid two-step target capture ensures efficient CRISPR-Cas9-guided genome editing. Mol. Cell 85, 1730–1742.e9 (2025).
Ren, Q. et al. PAM-less plant genome editing using a CRISPR-SpRY toolbox. Nat. Plants 7, 25–33 (2021).
Shi, J. et al. Discovery of cancer drug targets by CRISPR-Cas9 screening of protein domains. Nat. Biotechnol. 33, 661–667 (2015).
He, W. et al. De novo identification of essential protein domains from CRISPR-Cas9 tiling-sgRNA knockout screens. Nat. Commun. 10, 4541 (2019).
Munoz, D. M. et al. CRISPR screens provide a comprehensive assessment of cancer vulnerabilities but generate false-positive hits for highly amplified genomic regions. Cancer Discov. 6, 900–913 (2016).
Schoonenberg, V. A. C. et al. CRISPRO: identification of functional protein coding sequences based on genome editing dense mutagenesis. Genome Biol. 19, 169 (2018).
Herman, J. A. et al. Functional dissection of human mitotic genes using CRISPR-Cas9 tiling screens. Genes Dev. 36, 495–510 (2022).
Landrum, M. J. et al. ClinVar: public archive of relationships among sequence variation and human phenotype. Nucleic Acids Res. 42, D980–D985 (2014).
Levesque, S. et al. Marker-free co-selection for successive rounds of prime editing in human cells. Nat. Commun. 13, 5909 (2022).
Herger, M. et al. High-throughput screening of human genetic variants by pooled prime editing. Cell Genom. 5, 100814 (2025).
Chen, P. J. et al. Enhanced prime editing systems by manipulating cellular determinants of editing outcomes. Cell 184, 5635–5652.e29 (2021).
Hsu, J. Y. et al. PrimeDesign software for rapid and simplified design of prime editing guide RNAs. Nat. Commun. 12, 1034 (2021).
Nelson, J. W. et al. Engineered pegRNAs improve prime editing efficiency. Nat. Biotechnol. 40, 402–410 (2022).
Reis, A. C. et al. Simultaneous repression of multiple bacterial genes using nonrepetitive extra-long sgRNA arrays. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 1294–1301 (2019).
Katti, A. et al. GO: a functional reporter system to identify and enrich base editing activity. Nucleic Acids Res. 48, 2841–2852 (2020).
Coelho, M. A. et al. BE-FLARE: a fluorescent reporter of base editing activity reveals editing characteristics of APOBEC3A and APOBEC3B. BMC Biol. 16, 150 (2018).
Li, S. et al. Universal toxin-based selection for precise genome engineering in human cells. Nat. Commun. 12, 497 (2021).
Schmidt, R. et al. Base-editing mutagenesis maps alleles to tune human T cell functions. Nature 625, 805–812 (2024).
Kim, Y., Oh, H.-C., Lee, S. & Kim, H. H. Saturation profiling of drug-resistant genetic variants using prime editing. Nat. Biotechnol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-024-02465-z (2024).
Coelho, M. A. et al. Base editing screens map mutations affecting interferon-γ signaling in cancer. Cancer Cell 41, 288–303.e6 (2023).
Pablo, J. L. B. et al. Scanning mutagenesis of the voltage-gated sodium channel NaV1.2 using base editing. Cell Rep. 42, 112563 (2023).
Coelho, M. A. et al. Base editing screens define the genetic landscape of cancer drug resistance mechanisms. Nat. Genet. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-024-01948-8 (2024).
Rubin, A. F. et al. MaveDB 2024: a curated community database with over seven million variant effects from multiplexed functional assays. Genome Biol. 26, 13 (2025).
Li, W. et al. MAGeCK enables robust identification of essential genes from genome-scale CRISPR/Cas9 knockout screens. Genome Biol. 15, 554 (2014).
Bock, C. et al. High-content CRISPR screening. Nat. Rev. Methods Primers 2, 8 (2022).
Kaplan, E. et al. Data: activity-based selection for enhanced base editor mutational scanning. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16642753 (2025).
Drepanos, L. TP53 base editing tiling screen with activity-based selection (Etoposide arm). MaveDB https://www.mavedb.org/experiments/urn:mavedb:00001245-a (2025).
Kaplan, E. & Drepanos, L. Code: activity-based selection for enhanced base editor mutational scanning. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16624354 (2025).