published-canonicalconceptmaha-epistemic/1.0

Prime editing

The 2019 founding study demonstrated targeted substitutions, insertions, and deletions using prime editors in four human cell lines and primary post-mitotic mouse cortical neurons, with efficiency varying by edit and system. Within this page, that proposition is limited to The experiments, cell systems, loci, editor variants, assays, and comparisons reported in the founding Nature paper and its supplementary information.

Substantial reference · 9 evidence dimensions · maha-substantial-publication/1.5

Bounded definition

The 2019 founding study demonstrated targeted substitutions, insertions, and deletions using prime editors in four human cell lines and primary post-mitotic mouse cortical neurons, with efficiency varying by edit and system. Within this page, that proposition is limited to The experiments, cell systems, loci, editor variants, assays, and comparisons reported in the founding Nature paper and its supplementary information.

Definition and evidence boundary

A genome-editing method coupling a Cas9 nickase–reverse-transcriptase fusion with a prime-editing guide RNA that identifies a target and encodes a desired edit. The bounded proposition retained by the canonical record is: The 2019 founding study demonstrated targeted substitutions, insertions, and deletions using prime editors in four human cell lines and primary post-mitotic mouse cortical neurons, with efficiency varying by edit and system.

The applicable scope is The experiments, cell systems, loci, editor variants, assays, and comparisons reported in the founding Nature paper and its supplementary information. This definition must not be generalized beyond the cited source and exact record boundary.

Claims: urn:maha:claim:prime-editing-demonstration

Mechanism and technical context

The paper introduces the prime-editing architecture and reports targeted edit classes across specified human cell lines and primary mouse neurons with experiment-dependent efficiencies and byproducts. This is the source-bound technical context for the record; no uncited mechanism is added by the compiler.

The experiments do not establish safe delivery, whole-organism efficacy, long-term clinical outcomes, or suitability for any individual treatment. The mechanism or method is therefore presented as one component of a larger system, not as evidence for every downstream outcome.

Claims: urn:maha:claim:prime-editing-demonstration

How to interpret the evidence

The source reports experiment-specific means and variation; there is no single valid efficiency or error interval for prime editing across targets and biological systems. The evidence maturity recorded here is single study, and the claim kind is empirical claim.

This Phase 1 record is deliberately bounded to the founding study and does not yet compile independent replication evidence. It is not clinical evidence, does not establish delivery to human tissues, and does not provide a universal safety or efficacy estimate for all prime-editor designs. These qualifications travel with the claim whenever it is reused.

Claims: urn:maha:claim:prime-editing-demonstration

What the source supports and what remains unknown

The inspected source supports exactly this: The paper introduces the prime-editing architecture and reports targeted edit classes across specified human cell lines and primary mouse neurons with experiment-dependent efficiencies and byproducts. It was read at Abstract; Figures 1–5; Methods; Extended Data; Supplementary Tables 1–5.

What remains unknown is everything outside that locator. The experiments do not establish safe delivery, whole-organism efficacy, long-term clinical outcomes, or suitability for any individual treatment. No quantity, comparison, or downstream outcome is established here unless a separately scoped record measures it.

Claims: urn:maha:claim:prime-editing-demonstration

Source identity, locator, and reuse boundary

The bound source is “Search-and-replace genome editing without double-strand breaks or donor DNA” by Andrew V. Anzalone, Peyton B. Randolph, Jessie R. Davis, Alexander A. Sousa, Luke W. Koblan, et al., published by Nature on 2019-10-21; its declared stable identity is doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1711-4, accession:PRJNA565979.

The inspected-content locator is Abstract; Figures 1–5; Methods; Extended Data; Supplementary Tables 1–5. Reuse is limited to citation-with-paraphrase. The Maha page paraphrases the reported method and scope, links to the version of record, and reproduces no paywalled passage. This metadata establishes source identity and inspection scope, not the truth of claims outside the cited locator.

Claims: urn:maha:claim:prime-editing-demonstration

Comparison and calculation boundary

Applicability is decided explicitly, not filled with generic material.

Comparison · not-applicable

This record carries 1 source-bound proposition and therefore has no second supported side. A comparison would have to be manufactured from an adjacent title rather than from a second inspected claim, which the gate forbids.

Calculation · not-applicable

The canonical claim declares no reproducible numerical inputs, equation, units, or uncertainty propagation; recorded uncertainty kind is quantitative. Supplying sample values would invent an unsupported quantitative result.

Limitations and prohibited inference

The claim stops where its evidence stops.

  • record boundary

    In-vitro or ex-vivo editing performance does not establish in-vivo delivery, safety, efficacy, or clinical benefit.

  • record boundary

    Efficiency and byproduct measurements are target-, editor-, protocol-, assay-, and cell-system-specific.

  • prohibited inference

    Do not use this record as medical advice or as evidence that a disease can currently be treated safely with prime editing.

  • prohibited inference

    Do not generalize one experiment’s efficiency or off-target result to all prime editors, targets, tissues, or delivery systems.

  • editorial

    This compilation reorganizes an existing inspected claim and its declared source; it does not add a new experiment, measurement, or independent replication.

  • editorial

    Internal editorial inspection is not external peer review, and no result on this page has been independently reproduced.

Related records and mathematical bridges

prerequisite

Adenine base editing

Same canonical domain (synthetic-biology). Domain membership only: no shared source or declared edge links these two records.

Selection: domain adjacency

prerequisite

Prime-editing guide RNA mechanism

Declared mechanistic-dependency edge into this record, so it is positioned earlier in the same bounded sequence.

Selection: bridge edge

When no declared bridge edge is present, related records are linked by shared evidence or canonical domain adjacency. Those links are navigational and do not claim mathematical or physical equivalence.

Connected domain graph

Typed dependencies preserve publication state.

Only independently canonical records receive public links and relation statements. Draft graph topology remains private.

mechanistic dependencycanonical

Prime-editing guide RNA mechanism

inbound connection · mechanism

The pegRNA and fused editor form the central mechanism of the prime-editing method.

Claim ledger

Every proposition keeps its own evidence state.

empirical-claimsingle-study

The 2019 founding study demonstrated targeted substitutions, insertions, and deletions using prime editors in four human cell lines and primary post-mitotic mouse cortical neurons, with efficiency varying by edit and system.

Scope
The experiments, cell systems, loci, editor variants, assays, and comparisons reported in the founding Nature paper and its supplementary information.
Boundary
The experiments do not establish safe delivery, whole-organism efficacy, long-term clinical outcomes, or suitability for any individual treatment.
Uncertainty
The source reports experiment-specific means and variation; there is no single valid efficiency or error interval for prime editing across targets and biological systems.
Replication
This Phase 1 record is deliberately bounded to the founding study and does not yet compile independent replication evidence.

Primary sources

Citation, locator, rights, and boundary travel together.

  1. Source 1 · Nature

    Search-and-replace genome editing without double-strand breaks or donor DNA

    Andrew V. Anzalone, Peyton B. Randolph, Jessie R. Davis, Alexander A. Sousa, Luke W. Koblan, et al.

    Exact locator
    Abstract; Figures 1–5; Methods; Extended Data; Supplementary Tables 1–5.
    Establishes
    The paper introduces the prime-editing architecture and reports targeted edit classes across specified human cell lines and primary mouse neurons with experiment-dependent efficiencies and byproducts.
    Boundary
    It is not clinical evidence, does not establish delivery to human tissues, and does not provide a universal safety or efficacy estimate for all prime-editor designs.
    Rights basis
    citation with paraphrase · The Maha page paraphrases the reported method and scope, links to the version of record, and reproduces no paywalled passage.
    Declared interests
    The publisher record states that authors filed patent applications and identifies company relationships involving genome-editing technologies.