Very interesting! However, I think the most relevant comparison is not to something like a base or prime editor but to PASSIGE (covered briefly in a footnote here, and it does rely on prime editing hence DNA repair, so okay I guess it's different) or more directly to CASTs (CRISPR-associated transposases) which also make scarless DSB-free gene-size insertions (https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adt5199). It seems like bridge editing maybe more useful for making mouse models, but it seems like the potential therapeutic advantages over CASTs are pretty minor. Am I missing something?
Do scars inhibit genetic function?
Very interesting! However, I think the most relevant comparison is not to something like a base or prime editor but to PASSIGE (covered briefly in a footnote here, and it does rely on prime editing hence DNA repair, so okay I guess it's different) or more directly to CASTs (CRISPR-associated transposases) which also make scarless DSB-free gene-size insertions (https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adt5199). It seems like bridge editing maybe more useful for making mouse models, but it seems like the potential therapeutic advantages over CASTs are pretty minor. Am I missing something?