Extended Data Fig. 8: ProPE editing on genomic targets.
Amplicon sequencing results of prime editing using tevopreQ1 extension, panels d,e also contain editing results using tpg/pegRNAs without the tevopreQ1 extension. a-c, Individual edit (a), indel background (b) and specificity (c) results of PE5max and corresponding proPE5max editings are shown for seven pathogenic mutations not accessible in the effective editing window of PE. d,e, 130 different genomic PE4max and PE5max editings were tested in HEK293 cells in this study, of which 59% (76 editings) did not reach the 5% efficiency level. For these edits, editing efficiency (d) and specificity (e) are shown. ProPE increased editing efficiency with up to 29.3%, N = 76. f, Comparison of four prime editors as indicated in the figure, SPRY editor variants demonstrated lower editing efficiency when compared to PE4max/PE5max or proPE4max/proPE5max, presented as aggregates. Data are presented as mean values (a-f) ± SD (a-c). Medians are shown (d-f), statistical significance was assessed by a two-tailed Mann-Whitney test, p-values and fold change between proPE and PE are indicated on the top and next to the dots, respectively, N = 76 (d,e). Panels a-c supplement Fig. 7d, e and panels d,e supplement Fig. 7f. Further information on panel f can be found in Supplementary figure 4.
