Paper check About

Search-and-Replace Genome Editing without Double-Strand Breaks or Donor DNA

2019 · paper · Biomedicine

Describes prime editing, which uses a Cas9 fused to a reverse transcriptase and a guide RNA encoding the desired edit to write new sequence without double-strand breaks or donor DNA. It made over 175 edits in human cells, including disease-related corrections.

9 findings

Substance The same HEXA 1278+TATC correction screen is given two sizes: p.10 "We used these cells to test 43 pegRNAs and three nicking sgRNAs with PE3 or PE3b systems for correction of the pathogenic insertion in HEXA (Extended Data Fig. 9b). Nineteen of the 43 pegRNAs tested resulted in ≥20% editing." versus the Extended Data Fig. 9 legend "(b) Screen of 41 pegRNAs for correction of the HEXA 1278+TATC allele in HEK293T cells with pE3 or PE3b."
  • p. 10 Results, Prime editing pathogenic mutations
    We used these cells to test 43 pegRNAs and three nicking sgRNAs with PE3 or PE3b systems
  • p. 10 Results, Prime editing pathogenic mutations
    Nineteen of the 43 pegRNAs tested resulted in ≥20% editing.
  • p. 29 Extended Data Figure 9 legend, panel (b)
    (b) Screen of 41 pegRNAs for correction of the HEXA 1278+TATC allele
  • p. 10 Results, "Prime editing pathogenic mutations", second paragraph
    We used these cells to test 43 pegRNAs and three nicking sgRNAs with PE3 or PE3b systems for correction of the pathogenic insertion in HEXA (Extended Data Fig. 9b). Nineteen of the 43 pegRNAs tested resulted in ≥20% editing.

Only the authors can say what is right here.

Judge's note: Read crops C007-a/b/d/f/h/k (p.10) and C007-c/e/g/i/j/l with the full page main-p029.png. The text prints 43 twice (including as the denominator of "Nineteen of the 43") and cites Extended Data Fig. 9b; the legend of that very panel prints 41. I looked for an explanation: the legend states that "Entries ending in 'b' use an edit-specific nicking sgRNA in combination with the pegRNA (the PE3b system)" and the text counts the three nicking sgRNAs separately from the 43 pegRNAs, so the b entries do not reconcile a difference of two; the x-axis labels of panel b are not legible at page resolution. Both counts describe the same screen and cannot both be right; only the authors can say which.

Second check: another model agreed

Report a problem with this finding
Substance Off-target analysis Methods print the significance level as "t-tests (unpaired, one-tailed, α = 0.5) were used", inconsistent with the 0.05 criterion applied two sentences later in the same paragraph.
  • p. 16 Methods, Determination of PE3 activity at known Cas9 off-target sites
    t-tests (unpaired, one-tailed, α = 0.5) were used
  • p. 16 Determination of PE3 activity at off-target sites
    one-tailed, α = 0.5
  • p. 16 same paragraph
    Variants that did not meet the criteria of p-value > 0.05 were excluded.
  • p. 16 Determination of PE3 activity at known Cas9 off-target sites
    t-tests (unpaired, one-tailed, α = 0.5)

Only the authors can say what is right here.

Judge's note: Read crops C013-a/b/d and the full page main-p016.png; the glyphs are unambiguous, "α = 0.5" (not 0.05). The same paragraph then states "Variants that did not meet the criteria of p-value > 0.05 were excluded", and Extended Data Fig. 9's RNA-seq analysis uses FDR-adjusted p < 0.05, so no justification for a 0.5 level appears anywhere in the Methods. A one-tailed test at α = 0.5 would accept essentially any positive difference; the printed threshold is a number a reader would take away as the filtering criterion, so the authors should confirm the intended value.

Second check: another model agreed

Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label PE1 indel data at five sites is cited as "(Extended Data Fig. 3a–f)", but panel a is the pegRNA schematic, panel b shows no indel data, and the fifth site (HEK4) is in panel g; the five sites with indel data are panels c–g.
  • p. 5 Results, Prime editor 1 (PE1)
    averaging 0.2±0.1% for the five sites under conditions that maximized each site’s editing efficiency (Extended Data Fig. 3a–f)
  • p. 23 Extended Data Figure 3 legend, panels (a)-(g)
    (a) pegRNAs contain a spacer sequence, an sgRNA scaffold, and a 3’ extension
  • p. 5 Prime editor 1 section
    (Extended Data Fig. 3a–f)
  • p. 23 Extended Data Fig. 3 legend
    (g) G•C-to-T•A transversion editing efficiency and indel generation by PE1 at the +2 position of HEK4

Judge's note: Viewed crop C002-a (p.5 sentence) and the whole Extended Data Fig. 3 on main-p023.png. Panel a is the pegRNA architecture schematic; panel b compares M-MLV RT–Cas9 H840A with Cas9 H840A–M-MLV RT (PE1) and plots only edited reads, with no indel series. Panels c (HEK3 +1 T to A), d (EMX1 +5 G to T), e (FANCF +5 G to T), f (RNF2 +1 C to G) and g (HEK4 +2 G to T) each carry "Correct edit (w/o indels)" and "Indels" series, i.e. the five sites. The printed range a–f therefore omits one of the five sites and includes two panels without indel data; the evident fix is 3c–g.

Second check: another model agreed

Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label Methods heading "Comparison between PE2, PE3, BE2, BE4max, ABEdmax, and ABEmax." names the non-nicking cytidine base editor "BE2", whereas the Results and Extended Data Fig. 6 call it BE2max.
  • p. 15 Methods, section heading
    Comparison between PE2, PE3, BE2, BE4max, ABEdmax, and ABEmax.
  • p. 8 Results, Prime editing compared with base editing
    without or with nickase activity (BE2max and BE4max, respectively)
  • p. 26 Extended Data Figure 6 legend, panel (a)
    for PE2, PE3, BE2max, and BE4max
  • p. 15 Methods heading
    Comparison between PE2, PE3, BE2, BE4max

Judge's note: Read crop C012-a and the full page main-p015.png for the heading, crop C012-b with main-p008.png for the Results ("current-generation CBEs31 without or with nickase activity (BE2max and BE4max, respectively)"), and crop C012-c with main-p026.png context for the Extended Data Fig. 6a legend ("for PE2, PE3, BE2max, and BE4max"). A grep of the article text confirms "BE2" occurs only in that heading; the other editors in the same heading keep their "max" suffixes. Construct label inconsistent with the construct actually compared.

Second check: another model agreed

Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label Cell viability Methods (p.17) name the editor plasmids as "750 ng of editor plasmid (PE3, PE3 R110S K103L, Cas9 H840A nickase, or dCas9), 250 ng of HEK3-targeting pegRNA plasmid", whereas the same experiment is reported as PE2 / PE2-dRT in the Results (p.9) and in the Extended Data Fig. 8 legend (p.28), which lists the same plasmid components with no nicking sgRNA.
  • p. 17 Methods, Cell viability assays
    750 ng of editor plasmid (PE3, PE3 R110S K103L, Cas9 H840A nickase, or dCas9), 250 ng of HEK3-targeting pegRNA plasmid
  • p. 28 Extended Data Figure 8 legend
    transiently transfected with plasmids encoding PE2, PE2 R110S K103L, Cas9 H840A nickase, or dCas9, together with a HEK3-targeting pegRNA plasmid
  • p. 9 Results, Off-target prime editing
    no differences in HEK293T cell viability expressing dCas9, Cas9 H840A nickase, PE2, or PE2 with R110S+K103L mutations (PE2-dRT)
  • p. 17 Cell viability assays
    PE3, PE3 R110S K103L, Cas9 H840A nickase

Judge's note: Read crops C016-a/b/c and full pages 17, 28, 9. Methods p.17 verbatim: "750 ng of editor plasmid (PE3, PE3 R110S K103L, Cas9 H840A nickase, or dCas9), 250 ng of HEK3-targeting pegRNA plasmid". Extended Data Fig. 8 title/legend p.28: "Effects of PE2, PE2-dRT, Cas9 H840A nickase, and dCas9 on cell viability..."; "transiently transfected with plasmids encoding PE2, PE2 R110S K103L, Cas9 H840A nickase, or dCas9, together with a HEK3-targeting pegRNA plasmid". Results p.9: "no differences in HEK293T cell viability expressing dCas9, Cas9 H840A nickase, PE2, or PE2 with R110S+K103L mutations (PE2-dRT)... (Extended Data Fig. 8a,b)". Both the Methods and the legend list only editor plasmid + pegRNA plasmid (no nicking sgRNA), which by the paper's own definition is PE2, so the Methods designation "PE3" is the inconsistent label. Searched the Methods page for any mention of an added nicking sgRNA in this assay; none is present.

Second check: another model agreed

Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label Extended Data Fig. 1g legend (p.21) directs the reader to the wrong display item: "in mammalian cell prime editing experiments, pegRNA scaffold insertion is much rarer than in vitro (Extended Data Fig. 6)", while the scaffold-insertion data are in Extended Data Fig. 7.
  • p. 21 Extended Data Figure 1 legend, panel (g)
    pegRNA scaffold insertion is much rarer than in vitro (Extended Data Fig. 6)
  • p. 27 Extended Data Figure 7 title
    Extended Data Figure 7. Incorporation of pegRNA scaffold sequence into target loci.
  • p. 9 Results, Off-target prime editing
    observed 1.7±1.5% average total insertion of any number of pegRNA scaffold nucleotides (Extended Data Fig. 7)
  • p. 26 Extended Data Figure 6 title
    Comparison of prime editing and base editing, and off-target editing by Cas9 and prime editors at known Cas9 off-target sites

Judge's note: Read crop C018-a and full page 21 (the pointer reads "(Extended Data Fig. 6)"), full page 26 (Extended Data Fig. 6, titled "Comparison of prime editing and base editing, and off-target editing by Cas9 and prime editors at known Cas9 off-target sites"; its panels a-f are base-editing comparisons and g-h are Cas9/PE on- and off-target heat maps — no scaffold-insertion panel), and page 27 crop C018-b (Extended Data Figure 7, "Incorporation of pegRNA scaffold sequence into target loci", whose panels plot % of reads with scaffold insertion by insertion length). The main text p.9 (crop C018-c) cites "(Extended Data Fig. 7)" for the same quantity. The legend pointer is therefore to the wrong figure.

Second check: another model agreed

Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label "For quantification of PE3 and PE3-dRT off-targets" names a construct "PE3-dRT" that is defined nowhere; the RT-dead control is PE2-dRT, used in the immediately preceding sentences ("Cas9 nuclease, Cas9 H840A nickase, dCas9, and PE2-dRT on-target and off-target editing activity").
  • p. 16 Methods, Determination of PE3 activity at known Cas9 off-target sites
    For quantification of PE3 and PE3-dRT off-targets
  • p. 16 Methods, same paragraph
    For determining Cas9 nuclease, Cas9 H840A nickase, dCas9, and PE2-dRT on-target and off-target editing activity
  • p. 16 Off-target methods
    PE3 and PE3-dRT off-targets

Judge's note: Read crops C015-a/b/c and the full page main-p016.png, plus p.9 (main-p009.png) where the control is defined: "PE2 with R110S+K103L mutations (PE2-dRT)". A grep of extract/main.txt shows "dRT" appears eleven times, always as PE2-dRT (or the typographic variant "pE2-dRT" in the Extended Data Fig. 8 legend) except for the single "PE3-dRT" on p.16; no PE3 version of the dRT control is described in the Methods, Results or any figure, and the transfections described in that paragraph used 750 ng of editor plasmid with pegRNA or sgRNA only.

Second check: another model agreed

Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label Extended Data Fig. 10 legend (p.30) panel (f) cites the wrong panel range: "does not contribute to the HDR measurements in (a-d)", whereas the PE3-versus-HDR comparisons are panels (b) HEK293T, (c) K562, (d) U2OS and (e) HeLa.
  • p. 30 Extended Data Figure 10 legend, panel (f)
    does not contribute to the HDR measurements in (a-d)
  • p. 30 Extended Data Figure 10 legend, panels (a)-(e)
    (a) Prime editing in K562 (leukemic bone marrow), U2OS (osteosarcoma), and HeLa (cervical cancer) cells. Efficiency of generating the correct edit (without indels) and indel frequency for PE3 and Cas9-initiated HDR in (b) HEK293T cells, (c) K562 cells, (d) U2OS cells, and (e) HeLa cells.

Judge's note: Read crop C023-a/-b and the full page 30 image. The legend states "(a) Prime editing in K562 (leukemic bone marrow), U2OS (osteosarcoma), and HeLa (cervical cancer) cells. Efficiency of generating the correct edit (without indels) and indel frequency for PE3 and Cas9-initiated HDR in (b) HEK293T cells, (c) K562 cells, (d) U2OS cells, and (e) HeLa cells." In the figure image, panel (a) shows three PE3-only bar charts (correct edit and indels) for K562, U2OS and HeLa with no Cas9-HDR conditions, while panels (b)-(e) each show the bracketed PE3/Cas9-HDR pairs. The cited range therefore includes a panel with no HDR data and omits the HeLa HDR panel (e).

Second check: another model agreed

Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label Figure 5 legend (p.39) points to the wrong panel for the sorting exception: "Editing efficiencies reflect sequencing reads that contain the intended edit and do not contain indels among all treated cells, with no sorting, except where specified in (e)", while the sorted/unsorted values are described in panel (d).
  • p. 39 Figure 5 legend
    with no sorting, except where specified in (e)

Judge's note: Read crop C029-a and the full page 39 image. The legend's panel (d) reads "Installation of a G•C-to-T•A transversion in DNMT1 of mouse primary cortical neurons using a split-intein PE3 lentivirus system (see Methods). Sorted values reflect editing or indels from GFP-positive nuclei, while unsorted values are from all nuclei." Panel (e) is "PE3 editing and indels ... at endogenous genomic loci in HEK293T, K562, U2OS, and HeLa cells", with no sorting mentioned in the legend and no sorted/unsorted conditions visible in the panel of the figure image. The exception therefore belongs to (d), not (e).

Second check: another model agreed

Report a problem with this finding
13 minor (typos and the like; most checked by the judge only)
Wording The same HBB E6V base-pair change is written in opposite senses: p.2 "such as the T•A-to-A•T mutation needed to directly correct the most common cause of sickle cell disease (HBB E6V)" and p.10 "Sickle cell disease is caused by a A•T-to-T•A transversion mutation in HBB", versus the Fig. 5a legend "Installation (via T•A-to-A•T transversion) and correction (via A•T-to-T•A transversion) of the pathogenic E6V mutation in HBB" (Extended Data Fig. 4g likewise calls the HBB installation edit "a +2 T•A-to-A•T transversion edit at HBB").
  • p. 2 Introduction, second paragraph
    such as the T•A-to-A•T mutation needed to directly correct the most common cause of sickle cell disease (HBB E6V)
  • p. 10 Results, Prime editing pathogenic mutations
    Sickle cell disease is caused by a A•T-to-T•A transversion mutation in HBB
  • p. 39 Figure 5 legend, panel (a)
    Installation (via T•A-to-A•T transversion) and correction (via A•T-to-T•A transversion) of the pathogenic E6V mutation in HBB
  • p. 24 Extended Data Figure 4 legend, panel (g)
    (g) a +2 T•A-to-A•T transversion edit at HBB

Only the authors can say what is right here.

Judge's note: Read crops C001-a (p.2), C001-b/C001-f (p.10), C001-c/C001-g (p.39 Fig. 5 legend), C001-d plus the full page image main-p024.png (Extended Data Fig. 4 legend and panel g, whose plot title reads "HBB +2 T to A"). The texts are as quoted. Installation and correction are opposite directions of one change, so the Introduction (T•A-to-A•T = correcting) and the Fig. 5a legend (T•A-to-A•T = installing) use the notation in opposite senses; the paper nowhere states which strand the first-named base pair refers to, and the protospacer/PAM-strand convention implied by the "+2" position in Extended Data Fig. 4g is never declared for the main text. Downgraded to S3 because each statement can be internally consistent under a different reference strand (coding strand in the text, protospacer strand in the figure legends); only the authors can state the convention. The p.10 sentence defers to a Supplementary Discussion, which is not among the files.

Second check: another model agreed

Report a problem with this finding
Wording "Because 85-99% of insertions, deletions, indels, and duplications in ClinVar are ≤30 bp in length (Extended Data Fig. 11)" cites a figure whose four length axes are ticked and terminate at 25 bp.
  • p. 11 Discussion and future directions, second paragraph
    Because 85-99% of insertions, deletions, indels, and duplications in ClinVar are ≤30 bp in length (Extended Data Fig. 11)
  • p. 31 Extended Data Figure 11, panels a-d (x axes)
    Insertion length (bp)

Judge's note: Read crop C009-a (p.11) and the full Extended Data Fig. 11 on main-p031.png. All four panels (a insertions, b duplications, c deletions, d indels) plot length on an x axis running 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, with the plot box closing at the 25 tick, and a right-hand cumulative frequency axis. The cited 30-bp threshold therefore cannot be read off the figure, although the legend makes clear the lengths were computed from the downloaded ClinVar variant summary, from which the authors could have taken the ≤30 bp fraction. Minor: the figure supports the length distribution but not the specific threshold quoted.

Second check: another model agreed

Report a problem with this finding
Wording The off-target retention rule is stated as "Variants that did not meet the criteria of p-value > 0.05 were excluded", which as written keeps the non-significant variants, contradicting the preceding sentence that the t-tests were "used to determine if the variants occurred at significantly higher levels compared to samples treated with pegRNAs that contained the same spacer but encoded different edits".
  • p. 16 Methods, Determination of PE3 activity at known Cas9 off-target sites
    Variants that did not meet the criteria of p-value > 0.05 were excluded.
  • p. 16 Methods, same paragraph
    to determine if the variants occurred at significantly higher levels compared to samples treated with pegRNAs that contained the same spacer but encoded different edits
  • p. 16 Off-target methods
    Variants that did not meet the criteria of p-value > 0.05 were excluded

Only the authors can say what is right here.

Judge's note: Read crops C014-a/b/c and the full page main-p016.png; the sentence is printed exactly as quoted, with the ">" sign visible on the image. Taken literally, variants with p ≤ 0.05 (the significantly elevated ones the test was set up to find) would be excluded and off-target activity computed from the non-significant reads, which is the opposite of the stated aim. Rated S3 rather than S1 because the sentence is ambiguously constructed ("the criteria of p-value" followed by the threshold) and the intended direction is not recoverable from the page; only the authors can state the rule applied.

Second check: another model agreed

Report a problem with this finding
Wording The differential-expression threshold is printed as a strict inequality in Methods (p.19) "Differentially expressed genes were called with FDR-corrected p-value < 0.05 and fold-change > 2 cutoffs" but as inclusive in the Extended Data Fig. 8 legend (p.29) "Red dots indicate genes that show ≥2-fold change in relative abundance that are statistically significant (FDR-adjusted p < 0.05)".
  • p. 19 Methods, RNA-sequencing and data analysis
    Differentially expressed genes were called with FDR-corrected p-value < 0.05 and fold-change > 2 cutoffs
  • p. 29 Extended Data Figure 8 legend, panels (c-h) and (i-k)
    Red dots indicate genes that show ≥2-fold change in relative abundance that are statistically significant

Judge's note: Read crops C017-a (p.19 Methods, RNA-sequencing and data analysis) and C017-b (p.29 Extended Data Fig. 8 legend). Both wordings are present as quoted on the page images; the legend uses the ≥ symbol twice (panels c-h and the Venn diagrams i-k) for the same limma-voom analysis the Methods describe. No statement elsewhere on these pages reconciles the strict versus inclusive form. The practical difference on continuous fold-change values is negligible, so this is a wording/definition ambiguity rather than a data error.

Second check: another model agreed

Report a problem with this finding
Typo Figure 2 legend (p.36) prints the reverse-transcriptase substitution with a lower-case residue letter: "an engineered M-MLV reverse transcriptase (D200N, L603W, T306K, W313F, T330p)".
  • p. 36 Figure 2 legend, panel (a)
    an engineered M-MLV reverse transcriptase (D200N, L603W, T306K, W313F, T330p)
  • p. 5 Results, Prime editor 2 (PE2)
    M-MLV RT D200N+L603W+T330P+T306K+W313F
  • p. 36 Figure 2 legend, panel (a)
    (D200N, L603W, T306K, W313F, T330p)
  • p. 5 Results, "Prime editor 2 (PE2)"
    Cas9 H840A–M-MLV RT D200N+L603W+T330P+T306K+W313F

Judge's note: Read crop C027-a/-c/-e and crop C027-b of p.5. The Fig. 2a legend on the page image reads "(D200N, L603W, T306K, W313F, T330p)" with a lower-case p, while the Results on p.5 read "Cas9 H840A–M-MLV RT D200N+L603W+T330P+T306K+W313F" with an upper-case P, and the other four substitutions in the same parenthesis use upper-case residue letters. Visible in the rendered page image, so not an extraction artefact. Cosmetic.

Second check: none (judge only)

Report a problem with this finding
Typo "Prime editing requires target DNA:pegRNA spacer complementary for the Cas9 domain to bind" — the noun "complementarity" is required, as used twice later in the same sentence.
  • p. 8 Results, Off-target prime editing, first sentence
    Prime editing requires target DNA:pegRNA spacer complementary for the Cas9 domain to bind

Judge's note: Read crop C005-a and the full page main-p008.png. The word is typeset as "complementary" in the first of the three parallel clauses, while the second and third read "target DNA:pegRNA PBS complementarity" and "target DNA:RT product complementarity". Not an extraction artefact: the page image shows the shorter word.

Second check: none (judge only)

Report a problem with this finding
Typo "HEK293T (ATCC CRL-3216), U2OS (ATTC HTB-96), K562 (CCL-243), and HeLa (CCL-2) cells were purchased from ATCC" — the repository acronym is printed as "ATTC" for U2OS.
  • p. 14 Methods, General mammalian cell culture conditions
    HEK293T (ATCC CRL-3216), U2OS (ATTC HTB-96), K562 (CCL-243), and HeLa (CCL-2) cells were purchased from ATCC
  • p. 14 General mammalian cell culture conditions
    U2OS (ATTC HTB-96)

Judge's note: Read crops C010-a and C010-b and the surrounding Methods on main-p014.png. The page image clearly shows "ATTC HTB-96" while the same sentence prints "ATCC CRL-3216" and "purchased from ATCC" (and later "EMEM, ATCC"), so the inconsistency is settled from internal evidence alone; no outside knowledge needed. Cosmetic misspelling with an evident fix.

Second check: none (judge only)

Report a problem with this finding
Typo "800ng prime editor-expression plasmid, 200ng PEgRNA-expression plasmid" — the guide RNA is capitalised "PEgRNA" where the paper uses "pegRNA" throughout.
  • p. 15 Methods, Nucleofection of U2OS, K562, and HeLa cells
    800ng prime editor-expression plasmid, 200ng PEgRNA-expression plasmid

Judge's note: Read crop C011-a and the full page main-p015.png. The typeset text reads "200ng PEgRNA-expression plasmid" in the "Nucleofection of U2OS, K562, and HeLa cells" Methods paragraph, whereas the same paragraph and the rest of the paper use "pegRNA" (e.g. "pegRNA or sgRNA plasmid" on p.16). Cosmetic.

Second check: none (judge only)

Report a problem with this finding
Typo Mis-set abbreviations inside the Extended Data Fig. 3 legend (p.23): "using pegRNAs containing 13-nt Rt templates", "a pBs sequences ranging from 8-17 nt" and "pegRNAs containing 11 -nt RT templates", while the neighbouring panels of the same legend use RT, PBS and "13-nt".
  • p. 23 Extended Data Figure 3 legend, panel (d)
    using pegRNAs containing 13-nt Rt templates
  • p. 23 Extended Data Figure 3 legend, panel (e)
    a pBs sequences ranging from 8-17 nt
  • p. 23 Extended Data Figure 3 legend, panel (f)
    pegRNAs containing 11 -nt RT templates
  • p. 23 Extended Data Fig. 3 (d),(e)
    13-nt Rt templates

Judge's note: Read crops C020-a/-b/-c/-d/-e/-h and the rendered page text. On the page image the (d) clause reads "13-nt Rt templates", the (e) clause reads "a pBs sequences ranging from 8-17 nt", and the (f) clause reads "11 -nt RT templates" with a space before the hyphen; the adjacent clauses (c), (e) first half and (g) use "RT templates" and "a PBS sequences". These are present in the typeset page, not an extraction artefact. Purely cosmetic. (The mis-capitalisations in the Extended Data Fig. 8/9/10 legends raised by notes 3-4 of this cluster are adjudicated separately as C022 and C024.)

Second check: none (judge only)

Report a problem with this finding
Typo Mis-capitalised construct and gene names in the Extended Data Fig. 8 and 9 legends (p.29): "comparing (c) PE2 vs. pE2-dRT with PRNP-targeting pegRNA", "(f) PE2 vs. PE2-dRT with HeXa-targeting pegRNA" and "the HEXA 1278+TATC allele in HEK293T cells with pE3 or PE3b".
  • p. 29 Extended Data Figure 8 legend, panel (c)
    comparing (c) PE2 vs. pE2-dRT with PRNP-targeting pegRNA
  • p. 29 Extended Data Figure 8 legend, panel (f)
    (f) PE2 vs. PE2-dRT with HeXa-targeting pegRNA
  • p. 29 Extended Data Figure 9 legend, panel (b)
    in HEK293T cells with pE3 or PE3b
  • p. 29 Extended Data Fig. 8 legend
    PE2 vs. pE2-dRT

Judge's note: Read crops C022-a/-c/-d/-e/-f (and C017-b, which shows the whole Fig. 8 legend paragraph). On the page image the Fig. 8 legend prints "pE2-dRT" in the (c) clause while (d), (e), (f), (h), (i), (k) print "PE2-dRT"; it prints italic "HeXa" in the (f) clause while (g) and (h) print "HEXA". The Fig. 9 legend prints "with pE3 or PE3b" while the figure title and panel (a) print "PE3". Present in the typesetting, not extraction. Cosmetic only; the meaning is clear.

Second check: none (judge only)

Report a problem with this finding
Typo Locus name mis-capitalised within one sentence of the Extended Data Fig. 10 legend (p.31): "a +1 CTT insertion at HEK3 using PE3, and a +1 CTT insertion at HeK3 using Cas9-initiated HDR".
  • p. 31 Extended Data Figure 10 legend, panel (g)
    a +1 CTT insertion at HeK3 using Cas9-initiated HDR
  • p. 31 Extended Data Figure 10 legend, panel (g)
    a +1 CTT insertion at HEK3 using PE3

Judge's note: Read crop C024-a and the full page 31 image. The sentence prints italic "HEK3" twice ("The reference HEK3 sequence...", "a +1 CTT insertion at HEK3 using PE3") and then "HeK3" in the immediately following clause. Present in the typeset page, so not an extraction artefact. Cosmetic.

Second check: none (judge only)

Report a problem with this finding
Typo Acknowledgements (p.31) article/number disagreement: "P.J.C. and A.R. acknowledge an NSF graduate fellowships."
  • p. 31 Acknowledgements
    P.J.C. and A.R. acknowledge an NSF graduate fellowships.

Judge's note: Read crop C025-a and the full page 31 image. The sentence is typeset as quoted; parallel sentences in the same paragraph read "acknowledges a Jane Coffin Childs postdoctoral fellowship", "acknowledges a Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation fellowship" and "acknowledges a Helen Hay Whitney postdoctoral fellowship". Singular article with plural noun; purely cosmetic.

Second check: none (judge only)

Report a problem with this finding
Typo Stray vertical-bar character in the Extended Data Figure 11 title (p.31): "Extended Data Figure 11∣. Distribution by length of pathogenic insertions, duplications, deletions, and indels in the ClinVar database."
  • p. 31 Extended Data Figure 11 title
    Extended Data Figure 11∣.

Judge's note: Read crop C026-a and the full page 31 image: the bold title shows "Extended Data Figure 11|." with a bar before the period. Compared with the other Extended Data titles on the page images (p.26 "Extended Data Figure 6.", p.27 "Extended Data Figure 7.", p.30 "Extended Data Figure 10."), which carry a plain period, so the character is an anomaly in this one title. Cosmetic typesetting only. (The 'a PBS sequences' grammar point mentioned in the same reviewer note belongs to the Extended Data Fig. 3 legend and is covered by C020.)

Second check: none (judge only)

Report a problem with this finding
Something wrong with this page, or a finding we missed?