CRISPR Base Editing in Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells

  • Ya-Ju Chang
  • Christine L. Xu
  • Xuan Cui
  • Alexander G. Bassuk
  • Vinit B. Mahajan
  • Yi-Ting Tsai
  • Stephen H. Tsang
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 2045)


Induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) have demonstrated tremendous potential in numerous disease modeling and regenerative medicine-based therapies. The development of innovative gene transduction and editing technologies has further augmented the potential of iPSCs. Cas9-cytidine deaminases, for example, have developed as an alternative strategy to integrate single-base mutations (C → T or G → A transitions) at specific genomic loci. In this chapter, we specifically describe CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats) base editing in iPSCs for editing precise locations in the genome. This state-of-the-art approach enables highly efficient and accurate modifications in genes. Thus, this technique not only has the potential to have biotechnology and therapeutic applications but also the ability to reveal underlying mechanisms regarding pathologies caused by specific mutations.


Base editing iPS cells Target-AID Cas9 Precise gene editing 



The Jonas Children’s Vision Care and Bernard & Shirlee Brown Glaucoma Laboratory are supported by the National Institutes of Health [P30EY019007, R01EY018213, §R01EY024698, R01EY026682, R21AG050437], National Cancer Institute Core [5P30CA013696], Foundation Fighting Blindness [TA-NMT-0116-0692-COLU], the Research to Prevent Blindness (RPB) Physician-Scientist Award, and unrestricted funds from RPB, New York, NY, USA. S.H.T. is a member of the RD-CURE Consortium and is supported by Kobi and Nancy Karp, the Crowley Family Fund, the Rosenbaum Family Foundation, the Tistou and Charlotte Kerstan Foundation, the Schneeweiss Stem Cell Fund, New York State [C029572], and the Gebroe Family Foundation. YJC and CLX contributed equally to this work. YJC and CLX wrote and edited the manuscript. XC and YTT were responsible for developing and finalizing the protocol. AGB, VBM, and SHT oversaw the writing process.

Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Tong Y, Weber T, Lee SY (2018) CRISPR/Cas-based genome engineering in natural product discovery. Nat Prod Rep.
  2. 2.
    Wang H, La Russa M, Qi LS (2016) CRISPR/Cas9 in genome editing and beyond. Annu Rev Biochem 85:227–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dy RL et al (2014) Remarkable mechanisms in microbes to resist phage infections. Annu Rev Virol 1(1):307–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chibani-Chennoufi S et al (2004) Phage-host interaction: an ecological perspective. J Bacteriol 186(12):3677–3686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jiang F, Doudna JA (2017) CRISPR-Cas9 structures and mechanisms. Annu Rev Biophys 46:505–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hsu PD, Lander ES, Zhang F (2014) Development and applications of CRISPR-Cas9 for genome engineering. Cell 157(6):1262–1278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    de la Fuente-Nunez C, Lu TK (2017) CRISPR-Cas9 technology: applications in genome engineering, development of sequence-specific antimicrobials, and future prospects. Integr Biol (Camb) 9(2):109–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rees HA, Liu DR (2018) Base editing: precision chemistry on the genome and transcriptome of living cells. Nat Rev Genet 19(12):770–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rees HA, Liu DR (2018) Publisher correction: base editing: precision chemistry on the genome and transcriptome of living cells. Nat Rev Genet 19(12):801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hess GT et al (2017) Methods and applications of CRISPR-mediated base editing in eukaryotic genomes. Mol Cell 68(1):26–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kim D et al (2017) Genome-wide target specificities of CRISPR RNA-guided programmable deaminases. Nat Biotechnol 35(5):475–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Eid A, Alshareef S, Mahfouz MM (2018) CRISPR base editors: genome editing without double-stranded breaks. Biochem J 475(11):1955–1964CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Komor AC et al (2016) Programmable editing of a target base in genomic DNA without double-stranded DNA cleavage. Nature 533(7603):420–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zuo E et al (2019) Cytosine base editor generates substantial off-target single-nucleotide variants in mouse embryos. Science 364(6437):289–292PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kim YB et al (2017) Increasing the genome-targeting scope and precision of base editing with engineered Cas9-cytidine deaminase fusions. Nat Biotechnol 35(4):371–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nishida K et al (2016) Targeted nucleotide editing using hybrid prokaryotic and vertebrate adaptive immune systems. Science 353(6305)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gaudelli NM et al (2017) Programmable base editing of A*T to G*C in genomic DNA without DNA cleavage. Nature 551(7681):464–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Komor AC, Badran AH, Liu DR (2018) Editing the genome without double-stranded DNA breaks. ACS Chem Biol 13(2):383–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ebert AD, Liang P, Wu JC (2012) Induced pluripotent stem cells as a disease modeling and drug screening platform. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 60(4):408–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Masip M et al (2010) Reprogramming with defined factors: from induced pluripotency to induced transdifferentiation. Mol Hum Reprod 16(11):856–868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Malik N, Rao MS (2013) A review of the methods for human iPSC derivation. Methods Mol Biol 997:23–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kelaini S, Cochrane A, Margariti A (2014) Direct reprogramming of adult cells: avoiding the pluripotent state. Stem Cells Cloning 7:19–29PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ghule PN et al (2011) Reprogramming the pluripotent cell cycle: restoration of an abbreviated G1 phase in human induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells. J Cell Physiol 226(5):1149–1156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kwon DJ et al (2017) Effects of cell cycle regulators on the cell cycle synchronization of porcine induced pluripotent stem cells. Dev Reprod 21(1):47–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hwang GH et al (2018) Web-based design and analysis tools for CRISPR base editing. BMC Bioinformatics 19(1):542CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ya-Ju Chang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Christine L. Xu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Xuan Cui
    • 1
    • 2
  • Alexander G. Bassuk
    • 3
    • 4
  • Vinit B. Mahajan
    • 5
    • 6
  • Yi-Ting Tsai
    • 1
    • 7
  • Stephen H. Tsang
    • 1
    • 2
    • 7
    • 8
  1. 1.Department of OphthalmologyColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Jonas Children’s Vision Care, Bernard and Shirlee Brown Glaucoma LaboratoryColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.Department of PediatricsUniversity of IowaIowa CityUSA
  4. 4.Department of NeurologyUniversity of IowaIowa CityUSA
  5. 5.Palo Alto Veterans AdministrationPalo AltoUSA
  6. 6.Omics Lab, Department of Ophthalmology, Byers Eye InstituteStanford UniversityPalo AltoUSA
  7. 7.Institute of Human Nutrition, College of Physicians and SurgeonsColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA
  8. 8.Department of Pathology and Cell BiologyColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations