Rethinking editing from the ground up: Choosing a safer, more predictable platform for therapeutic development

Many teams find themselves deeply committed to the CRISPR-Cas9 nuclease programs they initiated years ago, despite mounting evidence that shows double-strand breaks (DSBs) create unpredictable and sometimes catastrophic genomic outcomes. The common refrain? “We’re too far along to change course now."

But when recent studies show ~5% of edited cells exhibited large chromosomal losses, which decision carries more risk - switching platforms or developing your therapeutic on an unstable foundation?

Inside this white paper:

• The hidden costs of DSBs – How double-strand breaks create compounding genomic risks that can surface late in development
• Platform comparison framework – Evidence-based analysis of CRISPR-Cas9, base editing, and prime editing across safety, manufacturing, and regulatory dimensions
• Strategic decision tools – Guidance on when to switch platforms and evaluating the cost of staying versus changing course

The Pin-point™ base editing platform technology is available for clinical or diagnostic study and commercialization under a commercial license from Revvity.