NHEJ vs HDR in Plants: Mastering DNA Repair Mechanisms for Precision Genome Editing and Crop Improvement

Abstract

This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) and homology-directed repair (HDR) pathways in plant cells, crucial mechanisms for maintaining genomic integrity and enabling advanced biotechnology. Tailored for researchers and scientists, we explore the fundamental biology of these competing repair systems, their critical role in CRISPR/Cas-based genome editing, and the significant challenge of low HDR efficiency. The scope extends to current methodological applications for gene knockout and knock-in, advanced strategies for troubleshooting and optimizing repair outcomes, and a comparative validation of emerging precision tools like base and prime editing. By synthesizing foundational knowledge with the latest technological advances, this resource aims to equip professionals with the insights needed to harness plant DNA repair for groundbreaking research and crop development.

The Cellular Battlefield: Understanding Fundamental DNA Repair Pathways in Plants

In the life of a cell, deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is the fundamental blueprint for growth and reproduction, making its protection vital for maintaining genomic integrity [1]. However, DNA is constantly threatened by diverse exogenous and endogenous factors that cause lesions, with double-strand breaks (DSBs) representing the most harmful type of damage [2]. To counteract these threats, eukaryotic cells have evolved sophisticated DNA repair pathways, among which Non-Homologous End Joining (NHEJ) and Homology-Directed Repair (HDR) represent two principal strategies with distinct mechanisms and biological outcomes [1]. The proper maintenance of these repair pathways is particularly crucial for plants due to their sessile nature, which exposes them constantly to environmental stresses that cause DNA damage [2]. This review delineates the core principles of these two repair strategies within the context of plant cellular DNA repair mechanisms, providing researchers and drug development professionals with a technical foundation for advancing genome editing and therapeutic applications.

Fundamental Biological Mechanisms

Non-Homologous End Joining (NHEJ): The Rapid Responder

NHEJ functions as an error-prone DNA repair pathway that rejoins broken DNA ends without requiring a template with homologous sequences [1]. This mechanism often leads to small insertions or deletions (INDELS) at the repair site, making it ideal for gene knockout studies where disrupting gene function is the primary goal [1]. The defining characteristic of NHEJ is its template-independent nature, which allows it to operate throughout the cell cycle, though it is particularly dominant in the G1 phase [1].

The biological context of NHEJ reveals its significance as a first-line defense against DSBs. In plants, NHEJ represents the dominant response pathway to rapidly join DNA double-strand breaks, serving as a crucial survival mechanism despite its error-prone nature [3]. The pathway's efficiency comes at the cost of precision, but this trade-off ensures immediate repair of the most dangerous form of DNA damage, preventing chromosomal fragmentation and cell death [2].

Homology-Directed Repair (HDR): The Precision Engineer

In contrast to NHEJ, HDR is a precise DNA repair mechanism that utilizes homologous sequences as a template to accurately repair DSBs [1]. This template can originate from a sister chromatid, a donor homology plasmid, or a single-stranded oligodeoxynucleotide (ssODN) [1]. The defining feature of HDR is its template-dependent nature, which restricts its operation primarily to the S and G2 phases of the cell cycle when sister chromatids are available [1].

HDR's precision makes it particularly valuable for high-fidelity edits in genome editing applications. Researchers leverage HDR to introduce specific and highly accurate genetic modifications like gene knockins or precise gene edits [1]. To achieve this, they design a donor template wherein the DNA sequence intended for insertion is flanked by arms homologous to the 5' and 3' sites of the DSB [1]. This method enables more complex gene editing, such as the generation of point mutations or tagged versions of genes of interest [1].

Table 1: Core Characteristics of NHEJ and HDR

Feature	Non-Homologous End Joining (NHEJ)	Homology-Directed Repair (HDR)
Template Requirement	No homology template required	Requires homologous template (sister chromatid, donor DNA)
Precision	Error-prone; often creates INDELs	High-fidelity; precise repair
Primary Function	Rapid DSB repair; gene knockouts	Accurate repair; precise gene edits & knockins
Cell Cycle Operation	Throughout cell cycle, primarily G1	Primarily S and G2 phases
Cellular Context	Dominant pathway in plants [3]	Lower frequency in plants; enhanced in NHEJ-deficient strains [3]
Key Proteins	Ku70/Ku80, DNA-PKcs, XLF, XRCC4, DNA Ligase IV	RAD51, RAD52, BRCA2, RAD54
CRISPR Applications	Gene disruption, knockout studies	Precise gene correction, knockin mutations

Alternative Repair Pathways: MMEJ and SSA

Beyond the primary pathways of NHEJ and HDR, cells possess additional repair mechanisms that contribute to the overall DNA damage response. Microhomology-Mediated End Joining (MMEJ) relies on the annealing of two microhomologous sequences (2-20 nt) flanking the broken junction, which frequently results in deletions at the junction [4]. Single-Strand Annealing (SSA) utilizes Rad52-dependent annealing of longer homologous sequences for DSB repair [4]. These alternative pathways have gained increasing attention in genome editing research, as their suppression alongside NHEJ can further enhance precise gene knock-in efficiency [4].

The Plant Cellular Context

DNA Damage Challenges in Plants

Plants face unique challenges in DNA damage management due to their sessile nature, which prevents them from avoiding environmental stresses [2]. They are continuously exposed to various genotoxic agents, including ultraviolet (UV) light, extreme temperatures, soil salinity, and metabolic byproducts like reactive oxygen species (ROS) [2]. UV light, particularly UV-B, generates photoadducts such as cyclobutene pyrimidine dimers (CPDs) and pyrimidine (6-4) pyrimidone dimers (6-4PPs), which can block transcription and replication processes [2]. Additionally, abiotic stresses such as drought, heat, cold, and soil salinity promote ROS formation and accumulation, resulting in oxidative stress that causes various DNA lesions [2].

Plant-Specific DDR Regulation

The DNA damage response (DDR) pathway in plants is highly conserved with other eukaryotes but features plant-specific elements, most notably the SOG1 transcription factor [2]. SOG1 serves as a central DDR regulator in plants, functioning analogously to the p53 tumor suppressor protein in mammals [2]. Upon DNA damage, DDR signaling in plants activates transcriptional and epigenetic regulators that orchestrate cell cycle arrest and DNA repair mechanisms [2]. The cell cycle halts to provide time for repair before replication; successful repair reactivates the cycle, while accumulated lesions trigger apoptotic pathways [2].

Pathway Dominance in Plant Systems

In the model filamentous fungus Aspergillus niger, studies have demonstrated that NHEJ represents the primary DNA repair mechanism, with HDR occurring at significantly lower rates (1.78-7%) [3]. This biological preference for NHEJ presents challenges for precise genetic modifications in plants and fungi [3]. To overcome this limitation, researchers often utilize NHEJ-deficient strains (lacking Ku70 or Ku80 proteins), which can increase HDR occurrence to more than 80%, making targeted gene engineering more accessible [3].

Diagram 1: DNA Damage Response Pathways in Plants. This diagram illustrates the key decision points between NHEJ and HDR pathways following a double-strand break, highlighting the plant-specific DDR elements including SOG1 transcription factor activation.

Quantitative Assessment of Editing Efficiencies

Advanced Methodologies for Efficiency Measurement

Accurately measuring editing efficiency is crucial for developing and applying genome editing strategies [5]. Various methods have been developed to assess DNA editing efficiencies, each with unique strengths and limitations [5]. The T7 Endonuclease I (T7EI) assay provides quick results but is only semi-quantitative, lacking the sensitivity of more advanced quantitative techniques [5]. Methods such as Tracking of Indels by Decomposition (TIDE) and Inference of CRISPR Edits (ICE) analyze Sanger sequencing chromatograms via sequence trace decomposition algorithms to yield estimations of the frequencies of insertions, deletions, and conversions [5].

Droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) represents a different approach, measuring DNA edit frequencies using differentially labeled fluorescent probes [5]. This method provides highly precise and quantitative measurements of DNA editing efficiencies and allelic modifications, which is particularly useful in applications requiring fine discrimination between edit types [5]. A novel ddPCR-based assay has been developed that can simultaneously detect one HDR or NHEJ event out of 1,000 copies of the genome, enabling systematic monitoring of genome-editing outcomes [6].

Table 2: Methods for Assessing Genome Editing Efficiencies

Method	Principle	Quantitative Capability	Key Applications	Sensitivity	Throughput
T7EI Assay	Mismatch-sensing enzyme cleaves heteroduplex DNA	Semi-quantitative	Initial screening of editing efficiency	Moderate	High
TIDE/ICE	Decomposition of Sanger sequencing chromatograms	Quantitative	Indel frequency and distribution analysis	High	Medium
ddPCR	Differential fluorescent probe detection	Highly quantitative	Precise measurement of HDR/NHEJ frequencies	Very High	Medium
Long-read Amplicon Sequencing	Comprehensive sequencing of edited loci	Quantitative	Detailed analysis of all repair patterns	Highest	Low
Fluorescent Reporter Cells	Live-cell tracing of editing events	Quantitative	Real-time monitoring of editing efficiency	High	Medium-High

Key Findings from Quantitative Studies

Quantitative assessments have revealed surprising insights into the behavior of NHEJ and HDR pathways. Contrary to the widely held belief that NHEJ generally occurs more often than HDR, studies have found that more HDR than NHEJ can be induced under multiple conditions [6]. Furthermore, the HDR/NHEJ ratios are highly dependent on gene locus, nuclease platform, and cell type [6].

Recent research has also revealed complex interactions between different repair pathways. Studies demonstrate that NHEJ inhibition alone is not sufficient to completely suppress non-HDR repairs in CRISPR-mediated endogenous tagging [4]. Even when NHEJ is inhibited, imprecise integration still accounts for nearly half of all integration events, suggesting that other non-HDR DSB repair pathways contribute to such imprecise integration [4]. Furthermore, novel mixed-type repair (MTR) mechanisms have been observed where a single DSB is simultaneously repaired by both NHEJ and HDR [3]. In Aspergillus niger, approximately 20.3% of analyzed transformants showed donor DNA integrated by NHEJ at the 3' end and by HDR at the 5' end of the double-strand break [3].

Diagram 2: Experimental Workflow for Assessing NHEJ and HDR Efficiency. This diagram outlines the key steps in evaluating DNA repair pathway outcomes following CRISPR-mediated genome editing, from initial design to analytical methods.

Experimental Strategies and Research Toolkit

Pathway Modulation Techniques

Strategic inhibition of specific repair pathways has emerged as a powerful approach to enhance desired editing outcomes. For NHEJ suppression, commercially available enhancers like Alt-R HDR Enhancer V2 can be employed [4]. MMEJ inhibition can be achieved using ART558, a recently discovered inhibitor of POLQ, the key enzyme driving this repair process [4]. For SSA pathway inhibition, D-I03, a specific inhibitor targeting Rad52, effectively mediates the annealing of homologous single-stranded DNA sequences [4]. Treatment durations of approximately 24 hours post-electroporation are typically effective, as HDR generally occurs within this timeframe after Cas9 protein delivery [4].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for NHEJ and HDR Studies

Reagent/Material	Function	Application Context	Key Considerations
NHEJ Inhibitors (e.g., Alt-R HDR Enhancer V2)	Suppresses error-prone repair	Enhancing HDR efficiency in precise genome editing	Treatment window critical (typically 24h post-transfection)
POLQ Inhibitors (e.g., ART558)	Suppresses MMEJ pathway	Reducing large deletions & complex indels	Works synergistically with NHEJ inhibition
Rad52 Inhibitors (e.g., D-I03)	Suppresses SSA pathway	Reducing asymmetric HDR & imprecise integration	Effects depend on DNA cleavage end nature
ssODN Donor Templates	Provides repair template for HDR	Introducing precise point mutations or small inserts	Optimal length ~60-100 nt; homology arms critical
Plasmid Donor Templates	Large DNA repair template	Inserting larger sequences (e.g., fluorescent tags)	Requires homology arms (typically 90+ bp)
Pathway-Specific Reporter Assays	Quantifies specific repair outcomes	Rapid assessment of pathway activity	Provides relative efficiency but may lack endogenous context
Piliformic acid	Piliformic acid, MF:C11H18O4, MW:214.26 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals
Hydroxysulochrin	Hydroxysulochrin	Hydroxysulochrin is a chemical compound for research applications. This product is For Research Use Only. Not for human or veterinary use.	Bench Chemicals

Optimized Experimental Protocols

For researchers designing experiments to evaluate NHEJ and HDR efficiencies, the following protocols represent current best practices:

Droplet Digital PCR (ddPCR) for Simultaneous HDR/NHEJ Quantification [6]:

• Design probes and primers with predicted nuclease cut sites positioned mid-amplicon, with 75-125 base pairs flanking either side
• Position at least one primer outside the donor molecule sequence to ensure quantification of integrated edits
• Design reference probes and primers distant from the cut site to avoid loss of binding sites
• Determine optimal annealing temperature empirically with a temperature gradient
• Use dark, non-extendible oligonucleotides (3' phosphorylation) to block cross-reactivity of HDR probe with WT sequence

Long-read Amplicon Sequencing for Comprehensive Pattern Analysis [4]:

• Amplify target loci from extracted genomic DNA using high-fidelity polymerase
• Perform long-read sequencing (e.g., PacBio) for knock-in alleles
• Employ computational frameworks like knock-knock for genotyping
• Categorize each read into specific DSB repair outcomes (WT, indels, perfect HDR, imprecise integration subtypes)

Plant Transformation and Screening Protocol [3]:

• Conduct protoplast transformations using lysing enzymes (e.g., 0.4 mg/mL VinoTaste in SMC)
• Select transformants on minimal medium plates with appropriate antibiotics (e.g., 200 µg/mL hygromycin B)
• Purify transformants through three rounds of single colony isolation
• Verify integration through multiple PCR reactions amplifying from genomic regions to integration cassette

The distinct characteristics of NHEJ and HDR pathways present researchers with complementary tools for genetic engineering. The choice between these repair strategies depends fundamentally on the experimental objectives: NHEJ is preferred for gene knockout studies due to its ability to induce INDELs effectively, while HDR is suitable for precise genetic modifications and knockins where accuracy is paramount [1].

In plant systems, understanding these pathways has significant agronomic implications. Exposure to environmental stresses causing DNA damage leads to growth inhibition and yield reduction in agriculturally important species [2]. Thereby, gaining knowledge regarding the DDR pathway in crops may have a huge agronomic impact—it may be useful in breeding new cultivars more tolerant to such stresses [2].

Future research directions will likely focus on achieving more precise control over DNA repair pathway choices, potentially through temporal manipulation of pathway-specific factors or development of more specific inhibitors. The recent discovery of mixed-type repair mechanisms reveals the complexity of cellular responses to DNA damage and highlights the need for more sophisticated models of repair pathway interactions [3]. As quantitative methods continue to improve, particularly through long-read sequencing and single-cell analyses, our understanding of the fundamental principles governing NHEJ and HDR will continue to refine, enabling more precise and efficient genome engineering across diverse plant systems.

Sessile existence necessitates that plants withstand cumulative environmental genotoxic stress without the option of escape. This review delineates the critical role of DNA repair in plant survival, genome integrity, and transgenerational fidelity. We examine the unique architecture of the plant DNA Damage Response (DDR), highlighting key regulators such as the SOG1 transcription factor and the central ATM and ATR kinases. The discussion is framed within a modern research context, focusing on Non-Homologous End Joining (NHEJ) and Homology-Directed Repair (HDR) pathways. The whitepaper provides a technical guide detailing the molecular mechanisms of plant-specific adaptations, quantitative data on DNA lesion frequencies, and advanced experimental protocols for manipulating and studying DNA repair in a plant model system, offering a resource for researchers in genetics, crop science, and drug development.

Plants, due to their obligatory sessile nature, are perpetually exposed to a multitude of endogenous and exogenous DNA-damaging agents [2] [7]. Unlike animals, they cannot evade unfavorable conditions such as intense ultraviolet (UV) radiation, extreme temperatures, soil salinity, and air pollutants [2] [8]. Furthermore, their photosynthetic nature and metabolic processes, particularly in chloroplasts and mitochondria, generate significant levels of reactive oxygen species (ROS), a major source of endogenous oxidative DNA damage [9] [7]. Compounding this challenge is the fact that plants lack a reserved germline; gametes are derived from meristematic cells that have divided numerous times and been continuously exposed to these genotoxic stresses [7] [10]. Consequently, efficient DNA repair is not merely a cellular housekeeping function but a critical determinant for survival, acclimation, and accurate transmission of genetic information to the progeny [11] [7].

Recent studies have reinforced that systemic growth arrest under stress is not merely a metabolic trade-off but a programmed strategy to protect the genome. Meristematic cells that continue dividing under drought or genotoxic stress accumulate catastrophic DNA damage and frequently undergo cell death, jeopardizing the entire organism and its reproductive potential [11]. This whitepaper explores the plant-specific challenges and sophisticated adaptations in DNA repair mechanisms, providing a technical foundation for research aimed at enhancing genome stability in crop species.

Plant-Specific Genotoxic Challenges

The genomic integrity of plant cells is besieged by a diverse array of threats, which can be broadly categorized as follows.

Endogenous Threats

• Metabolic Byproducts: Respiration and photosynthesis are significant sources of ROS, including singlet oxygen (¹Oâ‚‚), superoxide radicals (O₂⁻), and hydrogen peroxide (Hâ‚‚Oâ‚‚) [9] [7]. These ROS molecules readily oxidize DNA bases, leading to lesions such as 8-oxoguanine (8-oxoG), which is highly mutagenic [9].
• Replication Errors: The inherent error rate of DNA polymerases and spontaneous base hydrolysis generate mismatches and apurinic/apyrimidinic (AP) sites, estimated to be as high as ~3.75 × 10⁵ per genome per cell in maize root tips [8].

Exogenous Threats

• Ultraviolet (UV) Radiation: A ubiquitous threat from sunlight, UV-B radiation induces the formation of cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers (CPDs) and pyrimidine (6-4) pyrimidone dimers (6-4PPs), which block transcription and replication [2] [7].
• Chemical Agents: Plants are exposed to soil and air pollutants, as well as radiomimetic chemicals like zeocin and bleomycin that induce double-strand breaks (DSBs), the most lethal form of DNA damage [2] [11].
• Abiotic Stresses: Environmental pressures such as drought, heat, cold, and salinity indirectly cause DNA damage by promoting ROS accumulation and replication stress [2] [11].

Table 1: Major DNA Lesions and Their Impact on Plant Cells

Lesion Type	Primary Inducing Agent(s)	Cellular Consequence	Primary Repair Pathway(s)
Cyclobutane Pyrimidine Dimer (CPD)	UV-B Light	Replication/Transcription Blockage	Photoreactivation, NER
8-Oxoguanine (8-oxoG)	ROS (Oxidative Stress)	G→T Transversion Mutations	BER
Abasic (AP) Site	Spontaneous hydrolysis, BER intermediates	Replication Blockage, Strand Breaks	BER
Single-Strand Break (SSB)	Direct ROS attack, BER intermediates	Can collapse into DSBs during replication	BER, SSBR
Double-Strand Break (DSB)	Ionizing radiation, radiomimetics, replication fork collapse	Chromosomal rearrangements, cell death	NHEJ, HR, MMEJ

The Plant DNA Damage Response (DDR) Signaling Network

The plant DDR is a highly conserved yet specialized signaling cascade that orchestrates the detection of DNA damage, activation of repair pathways, and implementation of cell cycle checkpoints.

Core Signaling Pathway

The central regulators are the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase-like kinases (PIKKs), ATM and ATR. ATM is primarily activated by double-strand breaks (DSBs), while ATR responds to replication stress and single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) [8]. These kinases phosphorylate a multitude of downstream targets, most notably the plant-specific transcription factor SUPPRESSOR OF GAMMA RESPONSE 1 (SOG1) [2] [8]. SOG1 has been described as a functional analog of the mammalian p53 protein and acts as the master regulator of the transcriptional DDR, controlling the expression of hundreds of genes involved in cell cycle arrest, DNA repair, and programmed cell death [2] [8].

The following diagram maps the core plant DDR signaling pathway from damage sensing to physiological outcomes.

Growth Arrest as a DNA Protection Strategy

A key adaptation in plants is the systemic arrest of growth upon stress perception. This was historically viewed as a resource reallocation mechanism, but recent genetic evidence reframes it as a direct genome protection strategy. Research in Arabidopsis demonstrated that mutants disrupting the DELLA-SMR1 module (a key inhibitor of cell division) continue growing under drought stress but maintain antioxidant defense [11]. However, their meristematic cells accumulate severe DNA damage and enter cell death. This shows that stress-induced cell cycle arrest is a proactive defense to prevent mutagenesis in stem cells, thereby ensuring the fidelity of genetic information passed to gametes and progeny [11].

DNA Repair Pathways: Mechanisms and Methodologies

Plants employ a full repertoire of DNA repair pathways. The choice between them is influenced by the type of lesion, cell cycle stage, and developmental context.

Double-Strand Break (DSB) Repair Pathways

DSBs are the most cytotoxic lesions, and their repair is paramount for cell survival. The two primary pathways are NHEJ and HDR.

Table 2: Key Double-Strand Break Repair Pathways in Plants

Pathway	Mechanism	Key Plant Factors	Fidelity	Primary Context
Non-Homologous End Joining (NHEJ)	Ligation of broken ends with little or no homology	KU70/KU80, DNA-PKcs, XRCC4, LIG4	Error-prone	Active throughout cell cycle
Homology-Directed Repair (HDR)	Uses homologous template (sister chromatid) for precise repair	RAD51, BRCA1, BRCA2, SOG1	High-fidelity	S and G2 phases
Microhomology-Mediated End Joining (MMEJ)	Uses microhomologous sequences (5-25 bp) for end joining	PARP1, POLQ, FEN1	Mutagenic (causes deletions)	Backup pathway

Homology-Directed Repair (HDR) and Genome Editing Applications

HDR is essential for precise genome engineering, enabling targeted gene insertions or replacements. Its low efficiency in plants is a major bottleneck. Recent research has focused on optimizing the Donor Repair Template (DRT) to enhance HDR frequency.

• DRT Strandedness and Orientation: In potato protoplasts, single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) DRTs in the "target" orientation (coinciding with the sgRNA-recognized strand) outperformed double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) and "non-target" oriented ssDNA donors [12].
• Homology Arm (HA) Length: Contrary to studies in animal systems, HDR efficiency in potato was largely independent of HA length within the tested range (30-97 nucleotides). Notably, ssDNA donors with HAs as short as 30 nt achieved high rates of targeted insertion, though predominantly through the MMEJ pathway rather than precise HDR [12].

The following workflow visualizes a typical experiment for optimizing HDR using ribonucleoprotein (RNP) complexes in plant protoplasts.

Protocol: Assessing HDR Efficiency in Plant Protoplasts

This protocol, adapted from [12], details the steps for transfecting CRISPR/Cas9 RNP complexes and a fluorescent DRT into plant protoplasts to quantify HDR-mediated integration.

1. RNP Complex Assembly:

• Synthesize target-specific sgRNA via in vitro transcription.
• Complex purified Streptococcus pyogenes Cas9 (SpCas9) protein with sgRNA at a molar ratio of 1:2 in nuclease-free buffer.
• Incubate at 25°C for 15 minutes to form active RNP complexes.

2. Donor Repair Template (DRT) Design:

• For ssDNA DRT: Order an ultramer with homologous arms (e.g., 30-100 nt) flanking the desired insertion (e.g., a 6-nucleotide restriction site for easy screening).
• For dsDNA DRT: Perform PCR amplification to generate a fragment with homologous arms.

3. Protoplast Transfection:

• Isolate protoplasts from plant tissue (e.g., leaf mesophyll) via enzymatic digestion.
• Transfect 2 × 10⁵ protoplasts with 10 µg of pre-assembled RNP and 2 µg of ssDNA DRT (or 5 µg of dsDNA DRT) using PEG-mediated transformation.
• Incubate transfected protoplasts in the dark at 22-25°C for 48-72 hours to allow for DNA repair and transient expression.

4. Analysis of Editing Outcomes:

• Genomic DNA Extraction: Harvest protoplasts and extract total genomic DNA.
• PCR Amplification: Amplify the target locus from the purified genomic DNA.
• Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS): Prepare amplicon libraries and sequence on a high-throughput platform (e.g., Illumina MiSeq).
• Data Quantification: Process NGS reads through a bioinformatic pipeline (e.g., CRISPResso2) to quantify the percentage of reads with precise HDR events versus indels from NHEJ/MMEJ.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Reagents for Plant DNA Repair and Genome Editing Research

Reagent / Tool	Function / Purpose	Example Application
CRISPR/Cas9 RNP Complex	Induces targeted double-strand breaks (DSBs) at a defined genomic locus.	Studying DSB repair pathway choice; targeted mutagenesis [12].
Single-Stranded DNA (ssDNA) Donor	Serves as a repair template for HDR. Optimal for short insertions with 30-100 nt homology arms.	Precise knock-in of short sequences (e.g., point mutations, epitope tags) [12].
Double-Stranded DNA (dsDNA) Donor	Serves as a repair template for HDR. Typically requires longer homology arms (>200 bp).	Insertion of larger DNA fragments (e.g., promoter-reporter genes) [13].
Zeocin / Bleomycin	Radiomimetic chemical that induces DNA double-strand breaks.	Experimental induction of genotoxic stress to study DDR activation [2] [11].
Methyl Methanesulfonate (MMS)	Alkylating agent that creates base damage (e.g., N7-meG, N3-meA).	Studying the base excision repair (BER) pathway and genotoxic stress responses [2] [7].
Hydroxyurea (HU)	Ribonucleotide reductase inhibitor; causes replication fork stalling.	Inducing replication stress to study ATR/SOG1 signaling and replication fork recovery [2].
SOG1-Specific Antibodies	Immunodetection of SOG1 protein and its post-translational modifications (e.g., phosphorylation).	Validating activation of the DDR signaling pathway via Western blot or ChIP [8].
pCYCB1;2:GUS Reporter	Histochemical reporter for mitotic activity.	Visualizing and quantifying cell division arrest in meristems in response to DNA damage [11].
Butyrolactone V	Butyrolactone V|Anti-inflammatory Research Compound	Butyrolactone V is a novel anti-inflammatory compound for IBD research. This product is For Research Use Only and not for human consumption.
Aszonapyrone A	Aszonapyrone A, MF:C28H40O5, MW:456.6 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

Plants have evolved a sophisticated and multi-layered network of DNA damage response and repair mechanisms as a direct consequence of their sessile lifestyle. The unique features of this network—such as the central role of SOG1, the strategic use of growth arrest to protect meristematic integrity, and the flexible engagement of NHEJ, HDR, and MMEJ pathways—represent critical adaptations for survival and reproduction [8] [11]. Understanding these mechanisms is no longer a purely academic pursuit. It provides the fundamental knowledge required to develop innovative solutions for crop improvement. By leveraging and manipulating these native repair pathways, particularly through advanced genome editing tools, researchers can accelerate the development of crop varieties with enhanced resilience to environmental stresses, thereby contributing to global food security in a changing climate [13] [14]. Future research will continue to decipher the complex regulatory crosstalk between DNA repair, development, and environmental sensing in plants.

In plant cellular systems, the integrity of the genome is continuously threatened by endogenous metabolic processes and exogenous environmental stresses, including ultraviolet radiation and reactive oxygen species [15]. DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) represent one of the most cytotoxic lesions, and their accurate repair is essential for normal growth, development, and crop yield [16] [15]. Plant cells have evolved multiple, partially overlapping DSB repair pathways that can be broadly categorized into two groups: homology-directed repair (HDR), which requires a homologous template for accurate repair, and end-joining pathways, which directly ligate broken DNA ends [16] [17]. The choice between these pathways is influenced by cell cycle stage, the nature of the DNA break, and the available protein machinery [17]. This technical guide provides an in-depth analysis of the core protein components, mechanisms, and experimental methodologies for non-homologous end joining (NHEJ), homology-directed repair (HDR), and alternative pathways including microhomology-mediated end joining (MMEJ) and single-strand annealing (SSA) within the context of plant DNA repair research.

Non-Homologous End Joining (NHEJ)

Core Mechanism and Protein Machinery

Non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) is often described as the cell's "first responder" to DSBs, operating throughout all cell cycle phases without requiring a homologous template [17] [18]. This pathway facilitates the direct ligation of broken DNA ends, making it fast but potentially error-prone due to the occasional incorporation of small insertions or deletions (indels) at the repair junction [17]. In plant systems, NHEJ serves as a crucial mechanism for maintaining genomic integrity, particularly in postmitotic cells where sister chromatids are not available as repair templates.

The NHEJ pathway employs a sophisticated protein machinery that coordinates break recognition, end processing, and ligation:

• Ku70-Ku80 Heterodimer: Initiates NHEJ by recognizing and binding to broken DNA ends, forming a ring-like structure that slides onto DNA termini. This complex protects ends from excessive resection and serves as a recruitment platform for subsequent NHEJ factors [17] [18].
• DNA-PKcs: The DNA-dependent protein kinase catalytic subunit is recruited by the Ku complex, where it phosphorylates downstream targets and helps align the broken DNA ends [17].
• Artemis: An endonuclease that processes damaged DNA ends by trimming overhanging nucleotides and resolving secondary structures [18].
• Pol μ and Pol λ: Specialized DNA polymerases that fill in small gaps during end processing [17].
• XRCC4 and DNA Ligase IV: Form a complex that performs the final ligation step, sealing the DNA backbone [17] [18].

Table 1: Core Protein Components of the NHEJ Pathway

Protein Component	Key Function	Plant Orthologs/Characteristics
Ku70-Ku80 Heterodimer	Break recognition and end protection	Conserved in plants; Arabidopsis mutants show increased homologous recombination under stress [15]
DNA-PKcs	End alignment and signaling	Functional analogs present in plants [15]
Artemis	End processing and trimming	Identified in plant genomes [18]
Pol μ/Pol λ	Gap filling synthesis	Pol λ expression increases under oxidative stress in plants [15]
XRCC4-DNA Ligase IV	Ligation of broken ends	Conserved pathway component in plants [18]

NHEJ in Plant Systems

Plants deficient in NHEJ components, such as ku80 mutants, exhibit increased homologous recombination frequency when exposed to stress conditions, highlighting the pathway's importance as a primary DSB repair mechanism [15]. The balance between NHEJ and HDR is particularly critical in plants due to their sessile nature and continuous exposure to environmental genotoxic agents.

Homology-Directed Repair (HDR)

Core Mechanism and Protein Machinery

Homology-directed repair (HDR) represents the primary error-free pathway for DSB repair, utilizing homologous sequences—typically sister chromatids—as templates for accurate repair [17]. This pathway is predominantly active during the S and G2 phases of the cell cycle when homologous templates are available [17]. HDR involves an intricate, multi-step mechanism requiring coordinated action of numerous protein complexes:

• MRN Complex (MRE11-RAD50-NBS1): Initiates HDR by recognizing DSBs and conducting initial end resection [17] [15].
• CtIP: Cooperates with the MRN complex in promoting initial DNA end resection [17].
• Exo1 and Dna2/BLM Helicase Complex: Perform extensive end resection to generate long 3' single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) overhangs [17].
• Replication Protein A (RPA): Binds to and protects ssDNA overhangs, preventing secondary structure formation [17].
• RAD51: The central recombinase that displaces RPA and forms nucleoprotein filaments on ssDNA, facilitating the homology search and strand invasion steps [17] [18].
• BRCA1 and BRCA2: Tumor suppressor proteins that regulate RAD51 activity and promote strand invasion [18].
• DNA Polymerases: Synthesize new DNA using the homologous template [17].
• DNA Ligase: Seals the newly synthesized DNA to complete repair [17].

The HDR process proceeds through several distinct stages: (1) end resection to create 3' ssDNA overhangs; (2) strand invasion, where RAD51-coated ssDNA invades the homologous template; (3) DNA synthesis using the homologous sequence as a template; and (4) resolution of the resulting DNA structures [17].

Table 2: Core Protein Components of the HDR Pathway

Protein Component	Key Function	Plant Orthologs/Characteristics
MRN Complex	Break sensing and initial end resection	Conserved in plants; mutants are sterile [15]
RPA	ssDNA protection and stabilization	Widely conserved in eukaryotes including plants
RAD51	Strand invasion and homology search	Essential for meiosis in plants [16]
BRCA1/BRCA2	RAD51 regulation and loading	Functional analogs present in plant systems
DNA Polymerases	DNA synthesis using homologous template	Plant-specific isoforms identified

HDR in Plant Systems and Applications in Genome Editing

In plants, HDR is particularly crucial for meiotic recombination and maintaining genetic stability in meristematic cells, which give rise to gametes [15]. The SMC5/6 complex has been identified as playing a pivotal role in plant HDR, facilitating sister chromatid cohesion and holding broken DNA ends together to enable accurate repair of DSBs [16]. Recent research in Arabidopsis has demonstrated that the SMC5/6 complex also functions in meiotic DNA damage repair, emphasizing its importance in plant reproductive development [16].

For precision genome editing applications in plants, HDR is the preferred pathway for introducing specific genetic modifications. However, its relatively low efficiency compared to NHEJ presents a significant challenge. Strategies to enhance HDR efficiency in plants include synchronizing cells in HDR-permissive cell cycle stages and modulating the activity of key repair proteins to favor HDR over competing end-joining pathways [17].

Alternative Repair Pathways: MMEJ and SSA

Microhomology-Mediated End Joining (MMEJ)

Microhomology-mediated end joining (MMEJ), also known as polymerase theta-mediated end joining (TMEJ), represents an error-prone DSB repair pathway that utilizes short homologous sequences (5-25 base pairs) flanking the break site for repair [4] [16] [18]. MMEJ typically results in deletions of the intervening sequences, making it inherently mutagenic [17] [18]. Despite its error-prone nature, MMEJ serves important functions in resolving persistent DSBs, particularly when canonical repair pathways are compromised [18].

The MMEJ pathway employs a distinct set of protein factors:

• Polθ (POLQ): The central mediator of MMEJ in metazoans and plants, possessing both helicase and polymerase domains that facilitate end synapsis and DNA synthesis [19] [18].
• PARP1: Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase that may compete with Ku for DNA end binding, facilitating MMEJ when NHEJ is suppressed [17] [18].
• MRN Complex and CtIP: Initiate end resection similar to HDR [18].
• RPA: Protects resected ssDNA tails [18].
• DNA Ligase I/III: Performs the final ligation step in conjunction with XRCC1 [18].

The molecular mechanism of MMEJ involves: (1) end resection to expose microhomologous regions; (2) annealing of complementary microhomologous sequences; (3) removal of non-homologous 3' flaps; (4) gap filling by DNA polymerases; and (5) ligation to seal the DNA backbone [18]. The characteristic signature of MMEJ is the presence of microhomology sequences at repair junctions, which distinguishes it from other end-joining pathways.

Single-Strand Annealing (SSA)

Single-strand annealing (SSA) is another error-prone DSB repair pathway that operates when a break occurs between two direct repeat sequences [4] [17]. SSA requires more extensive end resection than MMEJ, exposing long homologous sequences (typically >20 nucleotides) that can anneal to each other [17]. This pathway invariably results in deletions of the intervening sequence and one of the direct repeats, making it highly mutagenic [17].

Key protein components of SSA include:

• RAD52: Facilitates annealing of complementary DNA strands, serving as the central factor in SSA [4] [17].
• MRN Complex and Exo1/Dna2: Conduct extensive end resection to expose homologous repeats [17].
• ERCC1-XPF: Endonuclease that cleaves 3' overhangs after strand annealing [17].
• DNA Ligase: Seals the remaining nicks to complete repair [17].

MMEJ and SSA in Plant Systems

Both MMEJ and SSA pathways are operative in plant cells and contribute to DSB repair, particularly under conditions where canonical pathways are compromised [16]. MMEJ has been extensively characterized in Arabidopsis thaliana and other plant species, where it contributes to the repair of transposon-induced breaks and the maintenance of genomic stability [18]. Recent evidence suggests that these alternative pathways play significant roles in plant genome evolution and adaptation, providing mechanisms for generating genetic diversity despite their error-prone nature.

Table 3: Characteristics of Alternative DSB Repair Pathways

Feature	MMEJ	SSA
Homology Requirement	2-20 bp microhomologies [18]	>20 bp direct repeats [17]
Key Effector Proteins	Polθ, PARP1 [19] [18]	RAD52, ERCC1-XPF [4] [17]
End Resection	Moderate [18]	Extensive [17]
Repair Outcome	Deletions flanked by microhomology [18]	Deletion of one repeat and intervening sequence [17]
Conservation in Plants	Yes, well-characterized [18]	Yes, functional pathway exists [16]

Pathway Interplay and Regulatory Mechanisms

Competitive and Cooperative Interactions

DNA repair pathways do not operate in isolation but rather engage in complex competitive and cooperative interactions that determine DSB repair outcomes [4] [17]. The balance between these pathways is influenced by multiple factors, including cell cycle stage, chromatin context, and the nature of the DNA break itself [17]. A critical determinant in pathway choice is the extent of DNA end resection: limited resection favors NHEJ, while extensive resection promotes HDR, MMEJ, or SSA [17].

Key regulatory mechanisms include:

• Cell Cycle Control: HDR is primarily restricted to S and G2 phases due to cyclin-dependent kinase activity and the availability of sister chromatid templates, while NHEJ operates throughout the cell cycle [17].
• 53BP1 vs. BRCA1 Competition: 53BP1 promotes NHEJ by protecting DNA ends from resection, while BRCA1 facilitates end resection and promotes HDR [17].
• Kinase Signaling: ATM and ATR kinases initiate extensive signaling cascades that modulate repair pathway choice through phosphorylation of downstream targets [15].

Recent studies have revealed that simultaneous inhibition of multiple repair pathways can dramatically shift the balance toward precise editing. For example, combined inhibition of NHEJ and MMEJ through targeting DNA-PKcs and Polθ, respectively, can increase HDR efficiency to over 90% in some experimental systems [19].

Unique Aspects of Plant Pathway Regulation

Plants have evolved unique regulatory mechanisms for DNA repair pathway choice, including:

• SMC5/6 Complex: Plays a broader role in plant DSB repair beyond its conserved functions, participating in cell cycle checkpoints, developmental regulation, and immune responses [16].
• SNI1: A subunit of the SMC5/6 complex in Arabidopsis that binds to E2F transcription factors and represses their activity, directly linking DNA damage response with cell cycle progression [16].
• Environmental Integration: Plant repair pathways are finely tuned to respond to environmental stresses, with pathway choice influenced by factors such as UV exposure, temperature fluctuations, and oxidative stress [15].

Experimental Analysis and Methodologies

Assessing Repair Pathway Outcomes

Advanced sequencing-based methodologies have been developed to comprehensively characterize DSB repair outcomes and quantify the contributions of different pathways:

• Long-Read Amplicon Sequencing: Using platforms such as PacBio, this approach enables comprehensive analysis of repair outcomes at DSB sites, revealing diverse patterns including perfect HDR, imprecise repair, and various indel patterns [4].
• Knock-Knock Computational Framework: A classification system that categorizes sequencing reads into specific repair outcomes, including WT reconstitution, indels, perfect HDR, and subtypes of imprecise integration [4].
• Pathway-Specific Inhibitors: Chemical inhibitors targeting key pathway components allow selective disruption of specific repair mechanisms to assess their contributions:
  • NHEJ Inhibition: Alt-R HDR Enhancer V2 (targets DNA-PKcs) [4]
  • MMEJ Inhibition: ART558 (inhibits POLQ) [4] [19]
  • SSA Inhibition: D-I03 (targets RAD52) [4]

Experimental Workflow for Pathway Analysis

The following diagram illustrates a representative experimental workflow for analyzing DNA repair pathway outcomes using long-read amplicon sequencing and pathway inhibition:

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents for Studying DNA Repair Pathways

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Function/Application
Pathway Inhibitors	Alt-R HDR Enhancer V2 (NHEJi) [4], ART558 (POLQ inhibitor) [4] [19], D-I03 (RAD52 inhibitor) [4]	Selective chemical inhibition of specific repair pathways to assess their contributions
CRISPR Components	Cas9 RNP complexes [4] [19], Cpf1 (Cas12a) RNP complexes [4], Single-stranded DNA donors [19]	Induction of targeted DSBs and provision of repair templates for HDR
Cell Lines	H9 human embryonic stem cells [19], RPE1 cells [4], Plant protoplast systems [15]	Model systems for evaluating repair outcomes in different genetic contexts
Sequencing Tools	PacBio long-read sequencing [4], Knock-knock classification framework [4]	High-resolution analysis and categorization of repair outcomes
Detection Assays	Flow cytometry for fluorescent tags [4], Next-generation sequencing libraries [19]	Quantification of editing efficiency and precision
Himandridine	Himandridine, CAS:15521-76-3, MF:C30H37NO7, MW:523.6 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
Stachybotrysin B	Stachybotrysin B, MF:C25H34O6, MW:430.5 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

The protein machinery governing NHEJ, HDR, MMEJ, and SSA pathways in plant systems represents a sophisticated network of competitive and cooperative mechanisms that maintain genomic integrity while allowing for adaptive genetic diversity. Understanding the precise functions and interactions of these pathways provides crucial insights for fundamental plant biology and applied biotechnology applications, particularly in precision genome editing for crop improvement. Future research directions include developing more specific inhibitors and activators of these pathways, engineering plant-specific repair modulation systems, and exploiting natural variation in DNA repair mechanisms to enhance breeding and gene editing outcomes in agriculturally important species.

In living organisms, DNA is constantly subjected to a variety of insults that compromise its integrity. For plants, whose sessile and autotrophic nature necessitates constant exposure to environmental stressors, maintaining genomic stability is particularly challenging [20]. Plants are innately exposed to a wide range of DNA-damaging agents from both biotic and abiotic sources, including ultraviolet (UV) rays and metabolic by-products [20]. Unlike animals, plants lack a reserved germline, meaning new plant derivation occurs from the meristem. Consequently, the accumulation of mutations in the meristem will result in a wide range of genetic abnormalities affecting plant growth, development, and ultimately, crop yield [20]. To counteract these threats, plants have evolved sophisticated DNA damage repair (DDR) pathways that share several components with the DDR machinery of other organisms while also possessing some unique characteristics [20]. While non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) and homology-directed repair (HDR) effectively resolve double-strand breaks (DSBs), this review focuses on three critical repair pathways that address other forms of DNA damage: Base Excision Repair (BER), Nucleotide Excision Repair (NER), and Mismatch Repair (MMR).

Base Excision Repair (BER): Correcting Non-Bulky Lesions

The BER Mechanism: A Stepwise Process

The Base Excision Repair (BER) pathway is a critical genome defense mechanism that deals with a broad range of non-voluminous DNA lesions induced by endogenous or exogenous genotoxic agents [21]. BER is a complex process initiated by the excision of a damaged base, proceeding through a sequence of reactions that generate various DNA intermediates, and culminating with restoration of the original DNA structure [21]. This pathway primarily addresses damages caused by oxidation, alkylation, or deamination [21].

The BER mechanism occurs in several well-defined steps, as illustrated in the diagram below:

Figure 1: The Base Excision Repair (BER) Pathway. This diagram illustrates the sequential steps of BER, from initial damage recognition to final ligation.

The process begins with the excision of a modified or incorrect base by a DNA glycosylase that cleaves the N-glycosidic bond, releasing the target base and creating an apurinic/apyrimidinic (AP) site while leaving the sugar-phosphate backbone intact [21]. Subsequent AP site processing can be achieved either by an AP lyase activity (usually associated with a subset of DNA glycosylases) or by AP endonucleases [21]. DNA glycosylases are classified as monofunctional or bifunctional based on their catalytic activities. Monofunctional DNA glycosylases only remove the target base, generating an AP site, whereas bifunctional glycosylases possess an associated AP lyase activity that catalyzes 3' incision to the AP site by β-elimination [21].

The unconventional ends generated by AP lyases and AP endonucleases need processing to conventional 3'-OH and 5'-P termini to allow DNA polymerization and ligation [21]. Once the blocked termini have been processed, gap filling may proceed either by insertion of one nucleotide (short-patch or "single-nucleotide BER") or 2-13 nucleotides (long-patch BER) [21].

Plant-Specific BER Characteristics

Plants share many BER factors with other organisms but also possess some unique features and combinations [21]. BER in plants plays a dual role:它不仅保留了基因组完整性，还通过在一个植物特异性途径中用胞嘧啶替换天然修饰的碱基5-甲基胞嘧啶，在主动DNA去甲基化中发挥了额外的重要功能 [21].

Table 1: Key BER Enzymes Across Organisms [21]

BER Enzyme	E. coli	S. cerevisiae	H. sapiens	Arabidopsis
Uracil DNA glycosylases	Ung	Ung1p	UNG	AtUNG
AAG	-	-	MPG	AthAAG
H2TH superfamily	MutM	-	NEIL1/2/3	AtFPG
HhH-GPD superfamily	Nth	Ntg1p/Ntg2p	NTHL1/OGG1	AtNTH1/AtNTH2/AtOGG1
MutY	MutY	-	MYH	AtMUTY
DML family	-	-	-	ROS1/DME/DML2/DML3
AP endonucleases	Xth/Nfo	Apn1p/Apn2p	APE1/APE2	ARP/AtAPE1L/AtAPE2
3' DNA phosphatases	-	Tpp1p	PNKP	ZDP
DNA polymerases	Pol I	Pol γ/Pol α/Pol δ/Pol ε	Pol γ/Pol α/Pol δ/Pol ε/Pol β	AtPolIA/AtPolIB/AtPol θ/AtPol λ

Notable differences in plant BER include the absence of Pol β [21], the presence of multiple gene copies for factors like PCNA and FEN1 [21], and the existence of BER proteins restricted to plants, such as those in the DML family (ROS1, DME, DML2, DML3) which are involved in active DNA demethylation [21].

Nucleotide Excision Repair (NER): Addressing Bulky Lesions

The NER Mechanism and Its Significance

Nucleotide Excision Repair (NER) is a versatile pathway responsible for removing a wide variety of bulky, helix-distorting DNA lesions. In plants, NER is particularly crucial for repairing damage caused by ultraviolet (UV) radiation, a constant threat due to their photosynthetic nature [20]. UV exposure leads to the formation of toxic cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers (CPDs) and 6-4 photoproducts in DNA, which are primary substrates for the NER pathway [20].

The NER process can be divided into two subpathways: global genome NER (GG-NER), which scans the entire genome for distortions, and transcription-coupled NER (TC-NER), which specifically targets lesions that block RNA polymerase II progression. While the core mechanisms of NER are conserved across eukaryotes, plants have developed specific adaptations to handle their unique environmental challenges.

Damage Recognition and Excision in Plants

The NER mechanism involves multiple coordinated steps, as shown in the diagram below:

Figure 2: The Nucleotide Excision Repair (NER) Pathway. This diagram illustrates the sequential steps for repairing bulky, helix-distorting DNA lesions.

While plant orthologs of key NER factors have been identified, the complete picture of NER in plants remains less characterized compared to other model systems. Plants exposed to excess DNA damage display significant reduction in productivity and crop yield, underscoring the agricultural importance of efficient NER function [20]. The core components of the DNA damage response pathway in plants appear similarly organized to other eukaryotes, with orthologous genes existing for master DNA damage response genes such as ataxia telangiectasia mutated (ATM), ATM and Rad3 related (ATR), and the MRE11-RAD50-NBS1 (MRN) complex [20].

Mismatch Repair (MMR): Correcting Replication Errors

The MMR Mechanism and Fidelity Maintenance

Mismatch Repair (MMR) is essential for correcting base-base mismatches and insertion/deletion loops (IDLs) that arise primarily during DNA replication [20]. This pathway enhances replication fidelity by 100 to 1000-fold, making it crucial for maintaining genomic stability across generations. In plants, which lack a reserved germline and derive new growth from meristematic tissues, MMR is particularly important for preventing the accumulation of mutations that would be perpetuated throughout the plant and passed to subsequent generations [20].

The MMR process begins with recognition of base-base mismatches or insertion/deletion loops by specialized protein complexes. In eukaryotes, the MutSα (MSH2-MSH6) complex primarily recognizes base-base mismatches and small insertion/deletion loops, while MutSβ (MSH2-MSH3) handles larger insertion/deletion loops. Following recognition, MutLα (MLH1-PMS1) is recruited and activated, initiating the excision and resynthesis steps that ultimately correct the error.

Plant MMR Characteristics and Agricultural Significance

Plant MMR systems share fundamental components with other eukaryotes but exhibit some unique features reflective of their biological needs. The MMR pathway in plants must function effectively across various tissue types and developmental stages, with particular importance in meristematic cells where mutations could have widespread consequences.

Deficiencies in MMR lead to increased mutation rates, microsatellite instability, and developmental abnormalities—phenotypes that have been observed in Arabidopsis mutants defective in MMR genes [20]. These findings highlight the critical role of MMR in plant growth and development, with direct implications for crop breeding and genetic conservation.

Comparative Analysis of DNA Repair Pathways in Plants

The three repair pathways—BER, NER, and MMR—each specialize in addressing specific types of DNA damage, with distinct mechanisms, enzymatic components, and biological roles as summarized in the table below.

Table 2: Comparative Overview of DNA Repair Pathways in Plants [21] [20]

Feature	Base Excision Repair (BER)	Nucleotide Excision Repair (NER)	Mismatch Repair (MMR)
Primary Damage Types	Oxidized, alkylated, or deaminated bases; single-strand breaks; AP sites	Bulky adducts; UV-induced CPDs and 6-4PPs; helix-distorting lesions	Base-base mismatches; small and large insertion/deletion loops
Damage Recognition	DNA glycosylases (monofunctional/bifunctional)	XPC/RAD23 (GG-NER); CSA/CSB (TC-NER)	MutSα (MSH2-MSH6); MutSβ (MSH2-MSH3)
Key Plant Enzymes	AtOGG1, AtNTH1, AtNTH2, ARP, AtAPE1L, AtAPE2, ZDP	Putative XPC, XPA, XPD, XPF, XPG orthologs	MSH2, MSH6, MSH3, MLH1, PMS1
Damage Excision	Base removal → AP site → backbone cleavage	Dual incision → 24-32 nt oligonucleotide excision	Excision of nascent strand containing mismatch
Repair Patch Size	Short-patch (1 nt) or long-patch (2-13 nt)	Long-patch (∼30 nt)	Long-patch (hundreds of nucleotides)
Primary Biological Role	Repair of non-bulky lesions; active DNA demethylation	Removal of helix-distorting lesions; UV damage repair	Replication fidelity; correction of polymerase errors
Plant-Specific Features	DML family for active demethylation; absence of Pol β; multiple PCNA/FEN1 copies	Adaptations for high UV exposure; specialized photolyases	Enhanced role in meristem maintenance; germline-less biology

Experimental Approaches for Studying DNA Repair in Plants

Research Reagent Solutions for DNA Repair Studies

Advanced molecular tools have revolutionized our ability to study DNA repair mechanisms in plants. The table below outlines key research reagents and their applications in plant DNA repair research.

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for Plant DNA Repair Studies [21] [22] [23]

Research Tool	Function/Application	Examples in Plant Research
CRISPR/Cas9 Systems	Targeted DNA double-strand breaks to study repair pathway engagement; gene editing	ZFNs for NHEJ-mediated gene replacement; CRISPR/Cas for HDR studies [24] [22]
DNA Repair Inhibitors	Chemical inhibition of specific repair pathways to study their functions	Aphidicolin (replication stress); inhibitors of ATM/ATR pathways [20]
Reporter Assays	Fluorescent or selectable marker systems to quantify repair efficiency	GFP-based reporters for DSB repair; hygromycin/kanamycin selection [24] [23]
Mutant Collections	Genetic resources with defects in specific DNA repair pathways	Arabidopsis T-DNA lines for BER, NER, MMR genes [21] [20]
Cell-Free Extracts	In vitro reconstitution of DNA repair pathways	Arabidopsis cell extracts for BER pathway reconstitution [21]
Molecular Beacons	Detection of specific DNA lesions and repair intermediates	Antibodies against CPDs, 8-oxoG for lesion quantification [20]

Methodologies for Assessing Pathway Efficiency

Several established methodologies enable researchers to quantify the efficiency of different DNA repair pathways in plant systems:

Comet Assay (Single Cell Gel Electrophoresis): This versatile technique allows detection of DNA damage and repair capacity at the single-cell level. The alkaline comet assay is particularly useful for detecting strand breaks and alkali-labile sites, while the neutral version is better suited for detecting double-strand breaks. For BER-specific assessment, treatment with lesion-specific glycosylases or endonucleases (e.g., Fpg for oxidized bases) can convert base damage into strand breaks detectable by the assay [20].

Gene-Specific Repair Assays: These assays employ quantitative PCR (qPCR) or droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) to measure lesion removal and repair in specific genomic regions. Since lesions block polymerase progression, the amount of amplification quantitatively reflects the number of persisting lesions. This approach is particularly valuable for comparing repair rates in different genomic contexts (e.g., transcribed vs. non-transcribed regions) and for assessing transcription-coupled repair [20].

Mass Spectrometry-Based Lesion Quantification: Advanced mass spectrometry techniques enable precise quantification of specific DNA lesions (e.g., 8-oxo-dG for oxidative damage, thymine dimers for UV damage) in genomic DNA. This provides a direct measurement of damage levels and repair kinetics without potential artifacts introduced by indirect detection methods [20].

The study of DNA repair pathways in plants—BER, NER, and MMR—has revealed both conserved mechanisms and unique adaptations that reflect the distinctive biological challenges of plant life. As sessile organisms, plants have evolved sophisticated systems to maintain genomic integrity despite constant exposure to environmental genotoxins. Understanding these pathways not only advances fundamental knowledge but also holds promise for agricultural applications, including the development of crops with enhanced stress resistance and genetic stability.

Future research will likely focus on elucidating the regulatory networks that coordinate these repair pathways, their interactions with developmental programs, and their integration with other cellular processes such as DNA replication and transcription. The continued development of advanced genomic tools, including more precise genome editing technologies and high-resolution imaging techniques, will further accelerate our understanding of how plants preserve their genomic integrity across generations. As climate change intensifies environmental stresses, harnessing the power of plant DNA repair systems may become increasingly important for ensuring global food security.

From Scissors to Surgery: Applying CRISPR/Cas and HDR for Precision Plant Breeding

The Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR) and CRISPR-associated protein 9 (Cas9) system functions as a highly precise and programmable molecular scissor in modern genome engineering. Originally discovered as an adaptive immune system in bacteria and archaea, this mechanism protects prokaryotes from viral infections by acquiring spacers from invading phage DNA and using them to guide the cleavage of subsequent homologous infections [25] [26]. The groundbreaking adaptation of this system for use in eukaryotic cells has revolutionized genetic research, enabling targeted double-strand breaks (DSBs) at specific genomic loci across a wide range of organisms, including plants [25] [27]. The significance of CRISPR/Cas technology was recognized with the 2020 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, awarded to Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer Doudna for its development [26].

In plant biology, the CRISPR/Cas system has emerged as an indispensable tool for both basic research and crop improvement. Its application extends from simple gene knockouts to precise nucleotide substitutions and gene insertions, facilitating the study of gene function and the development of crops with enhanced nutritional value, yield, and stress tolerance [25] [27]. The core principle underlying these applications is the system's ability to induce targeted DSBs, which act as a trigger for the cell's endogenous DNA repair machinery. The subsequent repair of these breaks through various pathways determines the final genetic outcome, making the interplay between the CRISPR-induced cut and the plant's cellular repair mechanisms a critical area of research [4] [27].

Molecular Mechanism of CRISPR/Cas Action

Core Components of the System

The CRISPR/Cas9 system as a genome-editing tool consists of two fundamental components: the Cas9 nuclease and a guide RNA (gRNA) [25] [28].

• Cas9 Nuclease: This is a multi-domain enzyme that acts as the molecular scissor. The most commonly used variant is derived from Streptococcus pyogenes (SpCas9). Structurally, Cas9 comprises a recognition (REC) lobe and a nuclease (NUC) lobe [25]. The NUC lobe contains two distinct nuclease domains: the HNH domain, which cleaves the DNA strand complementary to the gRNA, and the RuvC domain, which cleaves the non-complementary strand [25] [28] [29]. Together, they generate a double-strand break (DSB) approximately 3 base pairs upstream of a specific sequence motif known as the Protospacer Adjacent Motif (PAM) [25] [28].

• Guide RNA (gRNA): This is a synthetic RNA chimera that programs the specificity of the Cas9 nuclease. It is formed by fusing two natural RNA components: the CRISPR RNA (crRNA), which contains a ~20 nucleotide sequence complementary to the target DNA, and the trans-activating crRNA (tracrRNA), which serves as a binding scaffold for the Cas9 protein [25] [28]. The gRNA directs Cas9 to the target genomic locus through Watson-Crick base pairing between its spacer sequence and the target DNA.

• Protospacer Adjacent Motif (PAM): This is a short (typically 2-6 base pair), conserved DNA sequence located immediately downstream of the target site. It is essential for initiating Cas9 binding and cleavage [28] [26]. For SpCas9, the PAM sequence is 5'-NGG-3', where 'N' is any nucleotide [25] [28]. The PAM requirement is a key determinant of targetable sites within a genome.

Mechanism of Targeted DNA Cleavage

The process of CRISPR/Cas9-mediated DNA cleavage can be delineated into three sequential steps: recognition, cleavage, and repair [25].

• Recognition: The Cas9 nuclease, in complex with the gRNA, scans the DNA for a PAM sequence. Upon identifying a PAM, the Cas9 protein partially unwinds the DNA duplex, allowing the ~20 nucleotide spacer region of the gRNA to base-pair with the target DNA strand (the protospacer) [25] [28].
• Cleavage: If the gRNA-DNA pairing is sufficient and complementary, Cas9 undergoes a conformational change that activates its nuclease domains. The HNH domain cleaves the target strand, and the RuvC domain cleaves the non-target strand, resulting in a double-strand break (DSB) with blunt ends [25] [29].
• Repair: The induced DSB is recognized by the cell's intrinsic DNA damage response machinery, which initiates repair primarily through one of two major pathways: Non-Homologous End Joining (NHEJ) or Homology-Directed Repair (HDR) [25] [30]. The competition and interplay between these pathways ultimately define the genetic outcome of the editing event.

The following diagram illustrates the core mechanism of CRISPR/Cas9 function:

DNA Repair Pathways in Plant Cells

The DSB generated by CRISPR/Cas9 is merely the initial trigger; the final genetic alteration is determined by the cell's DNA repair pathways. In plants, the predominant and most efficient pathway is Non-Homologous End Joining (NHEJ), while Homology-Directed Repair (HDR) is rare and inefficient but offers precision [30] [27]. Recent research highlights the complex interplay of multiple repair pathways, including Microhomology-Mediated End Joining (MMEJ) and Single-Strand Annealing (SSA), which also contribute to the repair outcomes in CRISPR-mediated editing, particularly in knock-in experiments [4].

Non-Homologous End Joining (NHEJ)

NHEJ is an error-prone repair mechanism that ligates the broken DNA ends without requiring a homologous template [25] [30]. It is active throughout the cell cycle and is the dominant DSB repair pathway in plant cells [30] [27].

• Mechanism: The Ku70/Ku80 heterodimer binds to the DSB ends, recruiting other NHEJ factors that process the ends and ligate them back together. This processing often results in small random insertions or deletions (indels) at the junction [30].
• Outcome in Genome Editing: NHEJ is ideal for generating gene knockouts. Indels that occur within a protein-coding exon can cause frameshift mutations, leading to premature stop codons and functional gene disruption [30] [1]. Although traditionally considered random, recent studies indicate that NHEJ repair outcomes in plants can be predictable based on the local DNA sequence context, allowing researchers to anticipate the most likely mutations [27].

Homology-Directed Repair (HDR)

HDR is a precise, template-dependent repair pathway that can be harnessed for precise gene insertion, correction, or replacement [25] [30].

• Mechanism: HDR requires a homologous DNA template—typically a sister chromatid during the S and G2 phases of the cell cycle. In genome editing, an exogenous donor DNA template with homology arms flanking the desired modification is supplied. The cellular machinery uses this template to accurately repair the DSB, copying the sequence information [30].
• Outcome in Genome Editing: HDR is used for precise edits such as point mutations, gene knock-ins, or the insertion of fluorescent protein tags [30] [4]. However, its efficiency in plants is extremely low due to the competition from the highly active NHEJ pathway and the fact that HDR is restricted to specific cell cycle phases [27].

Alternative Repair Pathways: MMEJ and SSA

Beyond the classical NHEJ and HDR pathways, alternative pathways play a significant role in DSB repair and can lead to imprecise outcomes in genome editing.

• Microhomology-Mediated End Joining (MMEJ): This pathway relies on short (2-20 bp) microhomologous sequences flanking the DSB. The ends are resected until these microhomologous regions anneal, resulting in the deletion of the intervening sequence [4]. Its key effector is the POLQ polymerase. Inhibiting POLQ has been shown to reduce large deletions and increase HDR frequency in some contexts [4].
• Single-Strand Annealing (SSA): SSA is activated when a DSB occurs between two direct repeat sequences. The repeats are exposed by end resection and anneal via the Rad52 protein, leading to the deletion of the sequence between the repeats [4]. SSA suppression has been shown to reduce asymmetric HDR and other imprecise donor integration events in knock-in experiments [4].

The following flowchart summarizes the key DNA repair pathways and their outcomes following a CRISPR-induced DSB:

Quantitative Data on Repair Pathway Efficiencies

The efficiency and outcomes of DNA repair pathways following CRISPR/Cas editing have been quantitatively analyzed in recent studies. The table below summarizes key quantitative findings related to the inhibition of specific repair pathways and its effect on editing outcomes in plant and human cell models.

Table 1: Quantitative Effects of DNA Repair Pathway Modulation on CRISPR Editing Outcomes

Pathway Targeted	Inhibitor/Strategy	Experimental System	Effect on Knock-in Efficiency/Outcome	Key Quantitative Findings	Source
NHEJ	Alt-R HDR Enhancer V2	Human RPE1 cells	Increased perfect HDR frequency	~3-fold increase in knock-in efficiency (e.g., from 5.2% to 16.8% at one locus)	[4]
MMEJ	ART558 (POLQ inhibitor)	Human RPE1 cells	Increased perfect HDR, reduced large deletions	Significantly increased perfect HDR frequency; reduced large (≥50 nt) deletions and complex indels	[4]
SSA	D-I03 (Rad52 inhibitor)	Human RPE1 cells	Reduced imprecise donor integration	Reduced asymmetric HDR and other imprecise integration patterns; no substantial effect on overall knock-in efficiency in initial flow cytometry	[4]
NHEJ (Context)	N/A	Rice	Predictable NHEJ outcomes	Single nucleotide insertion at target sites was predictable using tools like inDelphi, FORECasT, and SPROUT	[27]
HDR (Baseline)	N/A	Higher Plants	Inefficient HDR	HDR remains extremely low efficiency, limiting routine application for precise editing in crops	[27]

Experimental Protocols for Pathway Analysis

To study these DNA repair pathways in the context of plant CRISPR research, specific experimental methodologies are employed. The following protocol provides a framework for analyzing repair outcomes and modulating pathway activity.

Protocol: Analyzing DSB Repair Outcomes via Long-Read Amplicon Sequencing

This protocol, adapted from a 2025 study, details the steps for comprehensively characterizing the spectrum of mutations and repair events at a CRISPR-targeted locus [4].

• Design and Synthesis of gRNA and Donor Template: Design gRNAs to target the gene of interest. For knock-in experiments, design a donor DNA template containing the desired insert flanked by homology arms (e.g., 90 bp for RPE1 cells).
• Formation of RNP Complexes: In vitro, complex purified recombinant Cas nuclease (e.g., Cas9 or Cpf1) with in vitro transcribed gRNA to form ribonucleoprotein (RNP) complexes.
• Delivery and Electroporation: Deliver the RNP complexes and donor DNA into plant or human cells via electroporation or other transformation methods (e.g., Agrobacterium-mediated transformation for plants).
• Pathway Inhibition (Optional): Immediately after delivery, treat cells with specific pathway inhibitors for a set duration (e.g., 24 hours) [4]:
  • NHEJ Inhibition: Use Alt-R HDR Enhancer V2.
  • MMEJ Inhibition: Use ART558 (POLQ inhibitor).
  • SSA Inhibition: Use D-I03 (Rad52 inhibitor).
• Genomic DNA Extraction and Amplification: After a suitable repair period (e.g., 4 days), extract genomic DNA from transfected cells. Amplify the target locus from the genomic DNA using PCR with primers flanking the edit site.
• Long-Read Amplicon Sequencing and Genotyping: Subject the PCR amplicons to long-read sequencing (e.g., PacBio). Classify the resulting sequencing reads using a computational framework like knock-knock to categorize each read into specific repair outcomes (e.g., WT, indels, perfect HDR, asymmetric HDR, other imprecise integrations) [4].

Strategies to Modulate Repair Pathway Activity

Based on the quantitative data, researchers can employ the following strategies to bias the repair toward a desired outcome:

• To Enhance HDR for Precise Editing:

  • Inhibit NHEJ: Use chemical inhibitors like Alt-R HDR Enhancer V2 to suppress the dominant error-prone pathway [4].
  • Inhibit Alternative Pathways: Co-inhibition of MMEJ (via POLQ inhibitors) and SSA (via Rad52 inhibitors) can further reduce imprecise repair and enhance the proportion of perfect HDR events [4].
  • Cell Cycle Synchronization: Synchronize cells to the S/G2 phases, where HDR is active, though this is challenging in whole plants [30].
  • Optimize Donor Template: Use single-stranded oligodeoxynucleotides (ssODNs) as donors or tether donor templates to the CRISPR machinery (e.g., via cgRNA or CRISPEY systems), though their success in plants has been limited [30] [27].

• To Promote Knockouts via NHEJ:

  • The natural dominance of NHEJ in plants makes this the default, highly efficient pathway for generating gene knockouts. No special enhancement is typically required [30] [27].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents for CRISPR DNA Repair Research

Table 2: Key Research Reagents for Studying CRISPR-Induced DNA Repair

Reagent / Tool	Function / Description	Application in Research
SpCas9 Nuclease	The standard Cas9 endonuclease from S. pyogenes that creates DSBs 3-4 bp upstream of an NGG PAM.	The primary molecular scissor for inducing targeted DSBs.	[25] [28]
Guide RNA (gRNA)	A chimeric RNA molecule that combines crRNA (for targeting) and tracrRNA (for Cas9 binding).	Confers target specificity to the Cas9 nuclease.	[25] [28]
NHEJ Inhibitors	Chemical agents such as Alt-R HDR Enhancer V2 that suppress the NHEJ pathway.	Used to reduce error-prone repair and improve the relative frequency of HDR.	[4]
POLQ Inhibitors (e.g., ART558)	Small molecules that inhibit the key MMEJ polymerase, POLQ.	Suppresses MMEJ-mediated large deletions, can improve HDR efficiency.	[4]
Rad52 Inhibitors (e.g., D-I03)	Chemical inhibitors of the Rad52 protein, central to the SSA pathway.	Reduces SSA-mediated imprecise integration events like asymmetric HDR.	[4]
Homologous Donor Template	Exogenous DNA (plasmid, ssODN) containing the desired edit flanked by homology arms.	Serves as the repair template for HDR-mediated precise gene editing.	[30] [4]
Long-Read Sequencer (e.g., PacBio)	Sequencing platform that generates long, high-fidelity (Hi-Fi) reads.	Essential for accurately characterizing complex repair outcomes, including indels and knock-ins.	[4]
Knock-Knock Framework	A computational genotyping framework for classifying CRISPR editing outcomes from sequencing data.	Enables quantitative analysis of the distribution of repair pathways (WT, indels, perfect HDR, imprecise HDR).	[4]
epi-Aszonalenin A	epi-Aszonalenin A, MF:C25H25N3O3, MW:415.5 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
Odoriflavene	Odoriflavene, MF:C17H16O5, MW:300.30 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

The CRISPR/Cas system, functioning as programmable molecular scissors, has provided an unprecedented ability to manipulate plant genomes. However, the final edit is not solely the product of these scissors but is crucially determined by the cell's endogenous DNA repair machinery. The competition between the highly efficient but error-prone NHEJ pathway and the precise but inefficient HDR pathway presents the central challenge for plant genome engineers [30] [27]. Recent research illuminating the roles of MMEJ and SSA adds further complexity, revealing multiple sources of imprecise repair that can confound knock-in experiments [4].

The future of precise genome editing in plants lies in developing sophisticated strategies to modulate this repair landscape. The combined inhibition of NHEJ, MMEJ, and SSA pathways represents a promising frontier for enhancing the efficiency of perfect HDR [4]. Furthermore, the discovery that NHEJ outcomes in plants can be predictable offers an alternative route to achieving desired genetic sequences without relying on inefficient HDR [27]. As our understanding of plant cellular DNA repair mechanisms deepens, so too will our capacity to precisely sculpt plant genomes, accelerating both fundamental research and the development of next-generation crops.

Leveraging NHEJ for Efficient Gene Knockouts in Functional Genomics

In the context of plant cellular DNA repair mechanisms, the non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) pathway serves as the primary and most efficient system for repairing double-strand breaks (DSBs) throughout the cell cycle [12] [31]. This dominance positions NHEJ as the foundational mechanism for achieving efficient gene knockouts in plant functional genomics. Unlike homology-directed repair (HDR), which is limited to specific cell cycle phases and occurs at low frequencies (typically 10⁻³ to 10⁻⁶ in higher plants), NHEJ operates constitutively and mediates rapid ligation of broken DNA ends without requiring a homologous template [31]. This repair process is inherently error-prone, often resulting in small insertions or deletions (indels) that disrupt gene function—making it ideally suited for knockout strategies in functional genomic studies [32]. The predictable nature of NHEJ-mediated repair, combined with the precision of CRISPR-Cas systems to induce targeted DSBs, has established a powerful framework for systematic gene inactivation across diverse plant species.

DNA Repair Pathway Mechanisms and Interactions

In plant cells, DSBs triggered by CRISPR-Cas systems are resolved through competing DNA repair pathways, with NHEJ representing the predominant mechanism. Understanding these pathway interactions is crucial for designing effective knockout strategies.

Core NHEJ Mechanism

The canonical NHEJ pathway initiates when the Ku70/Ku80 heterodimer binds to exposed DNA ends at the break site, recruiting DNA-PKcs and other core factors including XRCC4 and Ligase IV [33]. This complex directly ligates the broken ends, frequently generating small indels at the repair junction. The error-prone nature of this process stems from nucleolytic processing of DNA ends before ligation and the flexibility of the ligation machinery to join mismatched ends [4]. In plant systems, this intrinsic characteristic is harnessed to produce frameshift mutations that effectively disrupt target gene function.

Alternative Repair Pathways

Beyond NHEJ, plant cells employ several alternative DSB repair mechanisms that can influence knockout efficiency:

• Microhomology-Mediated End Joining (MMEJ): This pathway utilizes short homologous sequences (2-20 bp) flanking the break site for end alignment, typically resulting in deletions whose size is determined by the distance between microhomologies [12]. MMEJ can be suppressed by inhibiting its central effector POLQ [4].
• Single-Strand Annealing (SSA): SSA requires longer homologous sequences and is Rad52-dependent, frequently resulting in deletions of intervening sequences between homologous regions [4].
• Homology-Directed Repair (HDR): The precise but low-efficiency pathway that uses homologous templates for error-free repair, primarily active during S and G2 cell cycle phases [12].

Table 1: DNA Double-Strand Break Repair Pathways in Plants

Pathway	Key Factors	Template Requirement	Repair Outcome	Relative Efficiency in Plants
NHEJ	Ku70/Ku80, DNA-PKcs, XRCC4, Ligase IV	None	Error-prone (indels)	High (dominant pathway)
MMEJ	POLQ, PARP1	Microhomology (2-20 bp)	Deletions	Moderate
SSA	Rad52	Long homology	Sequence deletions	Low to moderate
HDR	RAD51, RAD52, RAD54	Homologous donor	Precise repair	Very low (10⁻³ to 10⁻⁶)

Pathway Interplay and Competition

The repair outcome at any DSB depends on complex interplay between these pathways. NHEJ predominantly competes with HDR throughout the cell cycle, with NHEJ inhibition shown to increase HDR frequency approximately 3-fold in some systems [4]. Recent evidence also reveals that even with NHEJ inhibition, imprecise integration still accounts for nearly half of all repair events, indicating significant contributions from MMEJ and SSA pathways [4]. Emerging research also identifies RNA-mediated repair mechanisms where nascent transcripts facilitate repair through RNA:DNA hybrids and RNA-templated synthesis, adding further complexity to the DSB repair landscape [33].

Figure 1: DNA Repair Pathway Competition at CRISPR-Cas9-Induced Double-Strand Breaks. Following DSB formation, multiple repair pathways compete to resolve the break, with NHEJ representing the dominant mechanism in plant cells.

Experimental Design for NHEJ-Mediated Knockouts

Target Selection and sgRNA Design

Effective gene knockouts begin with strategic target selection and optimized sgRNA design. For protein-coding genes, targeting early exons maximizes the probability of generating frameshifts that disrupt the entire coding sequence [32]. The sgRNA should be designed to target conserved regions across all homologs in polyploid species—a critical consideration for crops like wheat, potato, or canola [12] [32]. Multiple web-based tools are available for sgRNA design and off-target prediction, with crop-specific platforms like CRISPR-Cereal and WheatCRISPR offering specialized solutions for agricultural species [32].

Table 2: sgRNA Design Specifications for Effective NHEJ-Mediated Knockouts

Parameter	Specification	Rationale	Validation Method
Target Location	Early coding exons	Maximizes probability of complete gene disruption	cDNA sequence analysis
PAM Requirement	5'-NGG-3' (SpCas9)	Cas9 nuclease recognition motif	Sequence verification
sgRNA Length	20 nucleotides	Optimal guide length for specificity & efficiency	Off-target prediction tools
On-target Score	>60 (tool-specific)	Predicts high cleavage efficiency	Multiple algorithm consensus
Off-target Screening	≤3 mismatches	Minimizes unintended genomic edits	Whole-genome alignment
Polyploid Targeting	Conserved across homologs	Ensures all gene copies are targeted	Multiple sequence alignment

Delivery Methods and Expression Systems

Efficient delivery of CRISPR components is essential for successful knockout generation. For transient expression in plant protoplasts, ribonucleoprotein (RNP) complexes comprising purified Cas9 protein and in vitro-transcribed sgRNA have demonstrated high efficiency while minimizing off-target effects [12]. For stable transformation, the choice of promoters driving Cas9 expression significantly impacts editing efficiency. Constitutive promoters like CaMV 35S are widely used, though tissue-specific or inducible promoters offer advantages for spatial-temporal control of editing activity [32].

Step-by-Step Experimental Protocol

Protoplast Transfection and RNP Delivery

This protocol adapts established methods from potato and cereal crop systems for efficient NHEJ-mediated knockout generation [12] [32]:

• sgRNA Preparation:

  • Design sgRNA targets using crop-specific tools (e.g., CRISPR-Cereal, WheatCRISPR) [32]
  • Synthesize sgRNA using T7 in vitro transcription system
  • Purify using RNA cleanup kits, quantify by spectrophotometry

• RNP Complex Assembly:

  • Combine 10 µg purified Cas9 protein with 5 µg sgRNA in nuclease-free buffer
  • Incubate at 25°C for 15 minutes to form functional RNP complexes

• Protoplast Transfection:

  • Isolate protoplasts from target tissue (e.g., leaf mesophyll, callus) using enzyme digestion
  • Resuspend 10⁵ protoplasts in 200 µL MMG solution
  • Mix with RNP complexes and add equal volume PEG solution (40% PEG-4000)
  • Incubate 15-30 minutes at room temperature, then dilute with W5 solution

• Recovery and Analysis:

  • Culture transfected protoplasts in appropriate medium for 48-72 hours
  • Extract genomic DNA for initial mutation screening by PCR and restriction enzyme digest

Stable Plant Transformation

For heritable knockouts in cereal crops, Agrobacterium-mediated or biolistic transformation produces stable edited lines [32]:

• Vector Construction:

  • Clone sgRNA expression cassette into binary vector under U6 or U3 promoter
  • Assemble Cas9 expression cassette under appropriate promoter (35S, Ubiquitin)
  • Verify construct by sequencing and transform into Agrobacterium strain

• Plant Transformation:

  • Sterilize and pre-culture explants (embryos, callus) on appropriate medium
  • Co-cultivate with Agrobacterium for 2-3 days
  • Transfer to selection medium with antibiotics for 4-6 weeks
  • Regenerate shoots on regeneration medium, root, and acclimate plants

• Genotype Analysis:

  • Extract genomic DNA from T0 plants and amplify target region
  • Analyze edits by restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) assay
  • Confirm by Sanger sequencing and track indels through decomposition tools

Figure 2: Experimental Workflow for NHEJ-Mediated Gene Knockouts in Plants. The process encompasses target selection, CRISPR component preparation, delivery to plant cells, and comprehensive analysis of editing outcomes.

Quantitative Analysis of NHEJ Efficiency

The efficiency of NHEJ-mediated knockout varies significantly across plant species, target loci, and delivery methods. Systematic quantification provides benchmarks for experimental planning.

Table 3: NHEJ-Mediated Mutation Efficiencies Across Plant Systems

Plant Species	Target Locus	Delivery Method	Mutation Efficiency	Key Findings
Potato (Tetraploid)	Soluble starch synthase 1 (SS1)	RNP/protoplast	56.7-74.2% (allele-specific)	Efficiency varied with sgRNA and target site conservation [12]
Tobacco	Acetolactate synthase (ALS)	ZFN/protoplast	Up to 4% (stable lines)	Early demonstration of endogenous gene targeting [31]
Maize	IPK1	ZFN/stable transformation	Successful knockout	Herbicide-resistant phenotype obtained [31]
Rice	Multiple loci	CRISPR/Agrobacterium	Variable by construct	Species-efficient editing in monocots [32]
Arabidopsis	Various genes	CRISPR/stable transformation	High efficiency	Model for dicot gene editing [31]

Research Reagent Solutions Toolkit

Table 4: Essential Reagents for NHEJ-Mediated Knockout Experiments

Reagent/Category	Specific Examples	Function/Application	Considerations
CRISPR Nucleases	SpCas9, LbCas12a (Cpf1)	DSB induction at target sites	PAM requirement varies by nuclease [32]
Nuclease Inhibitors	Alt-R HDR Enhancer V2 (NHEJi), ART558 (POLQi)	Modulate repair pathway choice	Can enhance HDR when suppressing NHEJ [4]
Delivery Tools	PEG-mediated transfection, Agrobacterium strains, Biolistics	Introduction of editing components	Method depends on plant species and explant type [32]
Validation Reagents	Surveyor, T7E1, RFLP enzymes	Detection of induced mutations	Various sensitivity levels and detection thresholds
Plant Culture Media	Protoplast isolation enzymes, Callus induction media	Tissue culture and regeneration	Species-specific formulations required
Analysis Tools	CRISPR-Cereal, CHOPCHOP, Cas-Designer	In silico design and analysis	Crop-specific tools improve targeting accuracy [32]
1-Ketoaethiopinone	1-Ketoaethiopinone, MF:C20H22O3, MW:310.4 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals

The strategic leveraging of NHEJ continues to empower plant functional genomics through efficient, targeted gene knockouts. As the dominant DNA repair pathway in plants, NHEJ's error-prone nature is effectively harnessed to generate functional null alleles across diverse species. Current research is extending these capabilities through several innovative approaches: the development of NHEJ-mediated large-fragment deletion systems using paired sgRNAs, the engineering of Cas9 variants with reduced off-target effects, and the integration of base editing technologies that operate independently of DSB formation [13]. The ongoing refinement of delivery methods, particularly RNP complexes for transient expression, further enhances the specificity and efficiency of knockout generation while minimizing persistent nuclease activity. These advances collectively strengthen NHEJ-based approaches as cornerstone methodologies for functional gene characterization and trait improvement in plant genomics research.

Homology-Directed Repair (HDR) represents the pinnacle of precision in plant genome editing, enabling researchers to execute predefined genetic modifications including gene knock-ins, allelic replacements, and specific nucleotide substitutions. Unlike error-prone non-homologous end joining (NHEJ), which dominates plant DNA repair and introduces random insertions or deletions (indels), HDR utilizes a donor repair template (DRT) to facilitate precise alterations at target genomic loci [22] [34]. This capability is particularly valuable for plant biotechnology, as it allows for the direct introduction of beneficial alleles from landraces or wild relatives into elite cultivars without linkage drag, a process that traditionally requires decades through conventional breeding [22]. The potential applications range from functional gene analysis through protein tagging to the development of crops with enhanced nutritional value, yield, and resilience [13].

Despite its transformative potential, HDR-mediated precision editing faces significant biological challenges in plants. HDR is naturally restricted to the late S and G2 phases of the cell cycle, whereas NHEJ operates throughout all phases, creating a competitive imbalance that favors imprecise repair [22] [12]. Furthermore, the presence of a plant cell wall presents a substantial barrier to the efficient delivery of editing components and donor templates into the cell nucleus [22]. Consequently, HDR efficiency in plant somatic cells remains notoriously low, with illegitimate recombination events typically outnumbering homologous recombination by factors of 10^5 to 10^7 [22]. This technical review explores the mechanisms, optimization strategies, and experimental protocols that plant researchers are employing to overcome these barriers and harness HDR for precise genome modification.

DNA Repair Mechanisms: The Cellular Context of HDR

In plant cells, CRISPR-Cas9-induced double-strand breaks (DSBs) are primarily repaired through two competing pathways: the dominant error-prone NHEJ pathway and the precise HDR pathway. The HDR pathway itself encompasses several sub-pathways, including synthesis-dependent strand annealing (SDSA) and double-strand break repair (DSBR), which can be co-opted for precise genome editing when an exogenous donor template with homology arms is provided [22]. The SDSA pathway is particularly relevant for gene targeting in plants, as it primarily results in non-crossover products, making it the preferred mechanism for incorporating edits from an exogenous donor without additional rearrangements [22].

The following diagram illustrates the competitive landscape between NHEJ and HDR following a CRISPR-Cas9-induced double-strand break, and outlines the key strategies researchers employ to enhance HDR outcomes:

Figure 1. Competitive DNA Repair Pathways and HDR Enhancement Strategies. Following a CRISPR-Cas9-induced double-strand break, cells predominantly repair the lesion through the error-prone NHEJ pathway. HDR occurs less frequently but results in precise edits. Researchers employ multiple strategies to shift this balance toward HDR [22] [34] [35].

Strategic Optimization of HDR Efficiency

Donor Template Engineering

The design and structure of the donor repair template significantly influence HDR efficiency. Recent comparative studies in plant systems have revealed several critical design parameters:

Table 1. Impact of Donor Template Structure on HDR Efficiency

Design Parameter	Options	Key Findings	Optimal Recommendation
Strandedness	ssDNA vs. dsDNA	ssDNA donors consistently outperform dsDNA in potato protoplasts, achieving HDR efficiencies up to 1.12% [12].	Single-stranded DNA (ssDNA)
Orientation (ssDNA)	Target vs. Non-target	Target orientation (complementary to sgRNA-recognized strand) shows superior performance at 3 out of 4 tested loci [12].	Target orientation
Homology Arm Length	Short (30-100 nt) vs. Long (>200 nt)	HDR efficiency appears independent of arm length in the 30-97 nt range in potato; even 30 nt arms facilitate targeted insertion in ~25% of reads (though primarily via MMEJ) [12].	30-100 nt for ssDNA
Donor Type	Circular vs. Double-cut	Double-cut donors with flanking sgRNA sites increase HDR efficiency by 2- to 5-fold in human cells by synchronizing donor linearization with genomic DSB [36].	Double-cut design

Cell Cycle Manipulation and DNA Repair Pathway Modulation

Since HDR is naturally restricted to the S and G2 phases of the cell cycle, synchronizing cells at these stages can significantly enhance HDR efficiency. Research across various systems has demonstrated that the combined use of cell cycle regulators can double HDR efficiency. For instance, in induced pluripotent stem cells, combining CCND1 (a cyclin that functions in G1/S transition) with nocodazole (a G2/M phase synchronizer) increased HDR efficiency to up to 30% [36].

Pathway modulation represents another strategic approach. While NHEJ inhibition seems a logical approach to enhance HDR, studies in potato protoplasts found that small molecules known to inhibit NHEJ in animal systems did not improve HDR efficiency [12]. This suggests that plant-specific strategies may be necessary, potentially focusing on enhancing HDR factors rather than suppressing competing pathways.

Advanced Delivery Strategies

Efficient co-delivery of all editing components is crucial for successful HDR. The use of ribonucleoprotein (RNP) complexes, where Cas9 protein is pre-complexed with sgRNA, has shown promise in potato protoplast systems [12]. Emerging approaches focus on co-localizing the Cas9 complex with the donor template. For example, fusing Cas9 to DNA repair proteins like Rep can tether the donor DNA in vivo, boosting HDR-mediated genome editing efficiency by enhancing local donor concentration at the target site [13].

Experimental Protocols for Plant HDR

Protoplast-Based HDR Workflow

The following diagram outlines a generalized experimental workflow for conducting HDR-mediated editing in plant protoplasts, incorporating optimal parameters from recent studies:

Figure 2. Experimental Workflow for HDR in Plant Protoplasts. This protocol outlines key steps for implementing HDR-mediated editing, from initial target selection to molecular confirmation of edits [12] [5] [36].

Key Reagents and Molecular Tools

Table 2. Essential Research Reagents for HDR Experiments

Reagent / Tool	Function	Specifications & Notes
CRISPR-Cas9 System	Induces targeted DSBs	High-purity Cas9 protein for RNP formation; consider high-fidelity variants to reduce off-target effects [14].
sgRNA	Guides Cas9 to target locus	Validate efficiency via T7EI or TIDE; target conserved regions across all alleles in polyploid species [12] [5].
ssDNA Donor Template	Provides repair template	Synthesized as ultramer; design with 30-100 nt homology arms in target orientation; may include silent mutations to prevent re-cutting [12].
Cell Cycle Modulators	Enhance HDR efficiency	Compounds like nocodazole (G2/M synchronizer) and CCND1 (G1/S regulator) can double HDR efficiency in some systems [36].
NHEJ Inhibitors	Suppress competing pathway	Chemicals such as Scr7; note limited efficacy in some plant systems [12].
Analytical Tools	Assess editing outcomes	NGS for comprehensive analysis; ddPCR for precise quantification of HDR rates; TIDE for indel characterization [5].

Discussion and Future Perspectives

While significant progress has been made in HDR-mediated precision editing in plants, several challenges remain. The intrinsic low efficiency of HDR compared to NHEJ continues to limit applications, particularly in difficult-to-transform species. Future research directions should focus on plant-specific innovations, including:

• Developing plant-optimized HDR enhancers that specifically modulate the DNA repair landscape in plant cells without compromising genomic stability.
• Engineering Cas9 variants with reduced off-target effects and improved compatibility with plant cellular environments [14].
• Advancing delivery technologies that ensure efficient co-localization of all editing components, such as Cas9-Rep fusions that tether donor DNA in vivo [13].
• Exploring novel approaches like prime editing for small changes without DSBs, and recombinase-mediated systems for large DNA fragment integration [13] [35].

As these technologies mature, HDR-mediated precision editing will increasingly enable plant researchers to conduct sophisticated genomic engineering, from functional analysis of gene networks to the development of next-generation crops with precisely engineered traits. The strategic integration of optimized donor design, cell cycle manipulation, and advanced delivery methods will be crucial for realizing the full potential of precision genome editing in plant research and biotechnology.

Homology-Directed Repair (HDR) has emerged as a powerful mechanism for precise genome editing in crop improvement, enabling the introduction of agronomically valuable traits through targeted gene modifications. This technical review synthesizes recent advances in CRISPR-Cas-mediated HDR applications, highlighting successful case studies where precise edits have been achieved in various crop species. We examine the mechanistic basis of HDR in contrast to non-homologous end joining (NHEJ), detail experimental protocols for enhancing HDR efficiency, and present quantitative analyses of editing outcomes. Within the broader context of plant cellular DNA repair mechanisms, this review provides researchers with comprehensive methodologies, pathway visualizations, and reagent solutions to facilitate the implementation of HDR-based approaches for crop trait enhancement.

In eukaryotic cells, including plants, double-strand breaks (DSBs) in DNA are primarily repaired through two competing pathways: the error-prone non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) and the high-fidelity homology-directed repair (HDR) [1]. The CRISPR-Cas9 system has revolutionized genetic research by enabling precise induction of DSBs at specific genomic locations, yet the resulting edits are determined by the cell's endogenous repair mechanisms rather than the CRISPR machinery itself [1]. Understanding the interplay between these repair pathways is fundamental to developing effective strategies for crop improvement.

NHEJ represents the dominant DSB repair pathway in higher plants, operating throughout the cell cycle and frequently resulting in small insertions or deletions (indels) that disrupt gene function [1] [31]. This pathway rejoins broken DNA ends without requiring a homologous template, making it ideal for gene knockout studies but unsuitable for precise genetic modifications [1].

HDR utilizes homologous sequences from sister chromatids or exogenous donor templates to accurately repair DSBs, enabling precise genome modifications such as gene knockins, point mutations, or sequence replacements [1]. Unlike NHEJ, HDR is primarily active in the late S and G2 phases of the cell cycle and occurs at significantly lower frequencies in plants, typically ranging from 10⁻³ to 10⁻⁶ in native conditions [22] [31]. This low efficiency presents a major barrier to widespread application of precision genome editing in crop species.

HDR Mechanism and Comparative Pathway Analysis

Molecular Basis of HDR in Plants

The HDR pathway initiates when a DSB is recognized by cellular repair machinery. In plants, the MRE11-RAD50-NBS1 (MRN) complex plays a crucial role in early DSB detection and activation of master regulators ATM and ATR [20]. Following resection of DNA ends to create 3' single-stranded overhangs, RAD51 catalyzes strand invasion using a homologous donor template [31]. The synthesis-dependent strand annealing (SDSA) model represents the predominant HDR mechanism in plants, enabling precise copying of genetic information from the donor template to the break site while minimizing crossover events [22].

Table 1: Key Components of Plant DNA Repair Pathways

Component	Function in DNA Repair	Effect of Manipulation
Ku70/Ku80	NHEJ: Initiates DSB recognition and repair	Knockout increases HDR frequency by reducing NHEJ competition [31]
RAD51	HDR: Catalyzes strand invasion	Overexpression enhances HDR efficiency in plant cells [31]
RAD52	SSA/HR: Mediates annealing of homologous sequences	Inhibition reduces asymmetric HDR; overexpression may boost HR [4] [31]
POLQ	MMEJ: Key enzyme in microhomology-mediated repair	Inhibition reduces large deletions and increases perfect HDR [4]
Lig4	NHEJ: Final ligation step in NHEJ pathway	Knockout mutations enhance HR efficiency in plants [31]

Competing DNA Repair Pathways

Beyond the classical HDR and NHEJ pathways, alternative repair mechanisms significantly impact editing outcomes. Microhomology-mediated end joining (MMEJ) utilizes 2-20 base pair microhomologous sequences flanking the DSB, frequently resulting in deletions [4]. Single-strand annealing (SSA) requires longer homologous sequences and is Rad52-dependent, leading to sequence deletions between homologous regions [4]. Recent evidence indicates that even with NHEJ inhibition, these alternative pathways contribute to imprecise repair, with SSA suppression particularly effective at reducing asymmetric HDR events where only one side of the donor DNA integrates precisely [4].

The following diagram illustrates the interplay between these repair pathways following CRISPR-Cas-induced DSBs:

Case Studies: HDR-Mediated Trait Improvement in Crops

Herbicide Resistance Through ALS Gene Editing

One of the most successful applications of HDR in crops involves engineering herbicide resistance through precise modifications of the acetolactate synthase (ALS) gene. This approach demonstrates the potential of HDR-mediated precision editing to introduce beneficial alleles without linkage drag.

Table 2: Case Studies of HDR Application in Crop Trait Improvement

Crop Species	Target Gene	Trait Improved	Editing Strategy	HDR Efficiency	Reference
Tobacco	ALS (SuRA & SuRB)	Herbicide resistance	ZFN-mediated HDR	0.2% to 4%	[31]
Maize	IPK	Herbicide resistance; Altered inositol phosphate	ZFN-mediated GT	Successful transgenic recovery	[31]
Rice	ALS	Herbicide resistance	CRISPR-Cas9 HDR	Not quantified	[22]
Various	Endogenous genes	Protein tagging & functional analysis	Endogenous tagging via HDR	5.2% to 22.1% (with enhancer)	[4]

Metabolic Engineering and Nutritional Improvement

HDR-based approaches have enabled precise manipulation of metabolic pathways to enhance nutritional quality. In maize, ZFN-mediated gene targeting successfully modified the IPK gene, resulting in transgenic plants with altered inositol phosphate profiles in seeds [31]. This demonstration of HDR-mediated metabolic engineering opens possibilities for optimizing the nutritional content of staple crops, potentially addressing micronutrient deficiencies through precision breeding.

Recent advances in large DNA fragment editing further expand the scope of HDR applications, enabling targeted manipulation of structural variations that underlie important agronomic traits [13]. These technologies facilitate precise deletions, insertions, replacements, inversions, and duplications of genomic regions, offering unprecedented control over plant genomes for crop improvement.

Experimental Protocols for Enhancing HDR Efficiency

Donor Template Design and Delivery Strategies

Optimizing donor template design represents a critical factor in successful HDR experiments. Several strategies have proven effective for enhancing HDR frequency in plants:

• Homology arm length: Utilizing homology arms of 90 base pairs has demonstrated success in endogenous gene tagging experiments, though longer arms (up to 1 kb) may improve efficiency for some applications [4].
• Donor modifications: Incorporating phosphorothioate linkages or biotin labels at the 5' or 3' ends of donor templates protects against exonuclease activity and can improve GT efficiency [31].
• Donor structure: Single-stranded DNA oligos have shown effectiveness for small edits, while double-stranded templates with central heterologies are preferred for larger insertions [37].
• Delivery systems: Gemini virus-based replicons significantly increase donor template copy number, while carbon nanotubes and "mini-chromatin" approaches (donor DNA complexed with histones) improve nuclear delivery and HDR efficiency [31].

Manipulation of DNA Repair Pathways

Strategic intervention in cellular repair pathways can shift the balance from NHEJ to HDR:

• NHEJ suppression: Knockout mutations in Ku70, Ku80, or Lig4 genes reduce competition from the dominant NHEJ pathway [31]. Chemical inhibition using compounds such as Alt-R HDR Enhancer achieves similar effects, reportedly increasing HDR efficiency by up to two-fold in challenging cells [38].
• HDR activation: Overexpression of RAD51, RAD52, and RAD54 enhances the core HDR machinery [31]. Fusion of Cas9 with RAD52 or VirD2 has demonstrated improved HDR rates by recruiting endogenous repair factors to DSB sites [31].
• Alternative pathway inhibition: Suppression of POLQ (MMEJ pathway) and Rad52 (SSA pathway) reduces imprecise repair outcomes, with SSA inhibition particularly effective at decreasing asymmetric HDR events [4].

The following workflow illustrates a comprehensive experimental approach for maximizing HDR efficiency in plant systems:

Environmental and Temporal Optimization

Environmental factors and timing strategies significantly impact HDR outcomes:

• Cell cycle synchronization: Since HDR is primarily active in late S and G2 phases, inducible CRISPR-Cas systems that trigger editing during these phases can dramatically improve HDR efficiency [22] [31].
• Temperature modulation: Studies indicate that lower temperatures (20-25°C) can increase the frequency of homologous recombination in plants, possibly by slowing cell division and extending HDR-favorable cell cycle phases [31].
• Hormonal treatments: Application of auxin and other plant hormones has shown potential to alter HR frequency, though optimized protocols are still under development [31].

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Reagents for HDR-Based Plant Genome Editing

Reagent Category	Specific Products/Examples	Function & Application
CRISPR Nucleases	SpCas9, Cas12a (Cpf1), High-fidelity variants	DSB induction at target loci; Cas9-Nickase for reduced off-target effects [37]
Donor Templates	Single-stranded oligodeoxynucleotides (ssODNs), Double-stranded DNA with homology arms	Provides repair template for precise editing; Can be modified with phosphorothioate for stability [1] [31]
HDR Enhancers	Alt-R HDR Enhancer Protein, RAD51 stimulators	Increases HDR frequency by modulating repair pathway choice [38] [31]
NHEJ Inhibitors	Ku70/Ku80 suppressors, Lig4 knockout lines, Chemical NHEJ inhibitors	Reduces competing NHEJ pathway; Increases HDR efficiency [4] [31]
Delivery Tools	Gemini virus replicons, Carbon nanotubes, Biolistic particles	Enhances donor template delivery to nucleus; Increases template availability [31]
Pathway Inhibitors	ART558 (POLQ inhibitor), D-I03 (Rad52 inhibitor)	Suppresses alternative repair pathways (MMEJ, SSA) to reduce imprecise integration [4]

HDR-mediated precision genome editing represents a transformative approach for crop improvement, enabling the direct introduction of beneficial alleles without linkage drag from conventional breeding. While significant challenges remain in achieving high-efficiency HDR across diverse crop species, recent advances in pathway manipulation, donor design, and delivery methods are steadily overcoming these limitations.

The future of HDR in plant genome engineering will likely involve more sophisticated systems for temporal and spatial control of editing, enhanced Cas variants with improved specificity, and combinatorial approaches that simultaneously modulate multiple repair pathways. As these technologies mature, HDR-based editing is poised to become a routine and powerful tool for developing crop varieties with enhanced yield, nutritional quality, and resilience to environmental challenges.

The integration of HDR methodologies with emerging technologies like prime editing and base editing will further expand the toolbox available to plant geneticists, ultimately accelerating the development of improved crop varieties to address global food security challenges in a changing climate.

Tilting the Scales: Strategies to Overcome Low HDR Efficiency in Plant Cells

In the realm of plant genome engineering, a fundamental battle unfolds between two distinct DNA double-strand break (DSB) repair pathways: the error-prone non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) and the precise homology-directed repair (HDR). For researchers aiming to introduce precise genetic modifications—such as gene corrections, specific insertions, or allele replacements—the inherent dominance of NHEJ presents a significant bottleneck [34]. This imbalance is particularly pronounced in plants, which have evolved robust DNA repair mechanisms favoring rapid, template-independent DSB repair to maintain genomic stability in the face of constant environmental genotoxic stress [2] [7]. Understanding the biological basis for this preference is not merely an academic exercise but a critical prerequisite for developing strategies to enhance precise editing outcomes in crop species.

The sessile nature of plants exposes them to a constant barrage of DNA-damaging agents, including ultraviolet (UV) radiation, extreme temperatures, soil salinity, and reactive oxygen species (ROS) [2]. Consequently, plants have evolved a DNA damage response network that prioritizes speedy repair to ensure survival. The NHEJ pathway aligns perfectly with this requirement, operating throughout the cell cycle and quickly ligating broken DNA ends without requiring a repair template [30]. In contrast, HDR is restricted primarily to the S and G2 phases, relies on the presence of homologous template DNA, and involves a more complex enzymatic cascade [31]. This review dissects the mechanistic and regulatory basis for NHEJ dominance in plants and synthesizes current strategies to overcome this barrier for precise genome engineering applications.

DNA Repair Pathways: Mechanisms and Key Players

The DNA Repair Landscape in Plants

Eukaryotic cells, including those of plants, possess multiple, competing pathways to repair DSBs. The choice between these pathways is governed by the cell cycle stage, the nature of the break, and the relative abundance and activity of repair factors [7]. The four primary DSB repair pathways are:

• Non-Homologous End Joining (NHEJ): A fast, error-prone pathway that directly ligates broken DNA ends.
• Microhomology-Mediated End Joining (MMEJ): An alternative, error-prone pathway that uses microhomologous sequences (5-25 bp) flanking the break for repair, resulting in deletions.
• Single-Strand Annealing (SSA): A pathway that repairs DSBs between two direct repeats by annealing the homologous sequences, leading to the deletion of the intervening sequence.
• Homology-Directed Repair (HDR): A high-fidelity pathway that uses a sister chromatid or an exogenously supplied donor template with homologous sequences to accurately repair the break.

The following diagram illustrates the competitive interplay between these pathways in repairing a CRISPR/Cas9-induced double-strand break.

Non-Homologous End Joining (NHEJ): The Dominant Pathway

NHEJ is the most active DSB repair pathway in higher plants [31]. Its key characteristic is the ability to ligate DSB ends without a homologous template, which makes it fast but also inherently error-prone. The process involves the following steps:

• Recognition and Binding: The Ku70/Ku80 heterodimer recognizes and binds to the broken DNA ends, protecting them from resection.
• End Processing: The DNA-dependent protein kinase catalytic subunit (DNA-PKcs) is recruited, and various nucleases and polymerases may process the ends to make them ligatable. This processing often results in small insertions or deletions (indels).
• Ligation: The DNA ligase IV complex (Lig4-XRCC4), facilitated by XLF, performs the final ligation step [7] [30].

The high activity of NHEJ throughout the cell cycle and its swift kinetics mean it efficiently outcompetes the more precise HDR pathway for the repair of CRISPR/Cas9-induced breaks. This results in a high frequency of indels at the target site, which is ideal for gene knockouts but problematic for precise edits [30].

Homology-Directed Repair (HDR): The Precise but Inefficient Pathway

HDR is a precise repair mechanism that can be harnessed for accurate genome editing by providing an exogenous donor template. Its natural occurrence is largely restricted to the S and G2 phases of the cell cycle when a sister chromatid is available as a template [12] [31]. The core steps of HDR are:

• End Resection: The 5' ends at the DSB are resected to generate 3' single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) overhangs. This critical step is antagonized by NHEJ factors.
• Strand Invasion: The 3' ssDNA overhang is coated by RAD51, which facilitates the invasion of a homologous DNA template (e.g., a donor DNA with homology arms).
• Synthesis and Resolution: DNA synthesis occurs using the donor template, copying the desired sequence. The resulting DNA intermediate is then resolved, leading to the precise incorporation of the new sequence [34].

The strict cell cycle dependence and the multi-step, energy-intensive nature of HDR make it inherently less frequent than NHEJ in somatic plant cells.

Quantitative Comparison of NHEJ and HDR Efficiencies

The disparity in efficiency between NHEJ and HDR is not merely qualitative but can be quantified through sequencing and phenotypic assays. The table below summarizes key efficiency data and characteristics that highlight the central hurdle in plant precise gene editing.

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of NHEJ and HDR Efficiencies and Characteristics in Plants

Parameter	NHEJ	HDR	Experimental Context
Inherent Frequency	(10^{-3}) to (10^{-6}) for perfect repair (native rate) [31]	RPE1 human cells: NHEJ inhibition increased perfect HDR but it remained <50% of alleles [4]
Reported HDR Efficiency	1.12% of sequencing reads (using optimized ssDNA donor) [12]	Potato protoplasts, SS1 locus
Impact of NHEJ Inhibition	3-fold increase in knock-in efficiency (5.2% to 16.8%) [4]	Cpf1-mediated knock-in at HNRNPA1 locus in RPE1 cells
Cell Cycle Dependence	Active throughout all phases [30]	Restricted to S and G2 phases [12] [31]	Fundamental biological constraint
Template Requirement	Not required	Essential (dsDNA or ssDNA with homology arms)	Fundamental biological characteristic
Primary Outcome	Indels (insertions/deletions)	Precise sequence insertion/correction	Standard outcome of repair mechanism

Experimental Approaches for Studying DNA Repair in Plants

Investigating DNA repair pathways requires robust assays to quantify and characterize editing outcomes. The following workflow outlines a standard protocol using next-generation sequencing (NGS) to analyze the repair outcomes of CRISPR/Cas9-induced breaks in plant protoplasts.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Reagents for DNA Repair Studies

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents for Investigating and Modulating NHEJ/HDR Balance

Reagent / Tool	Function / Purpose	Specific Examples
CRISPR RNP Complex	Induces a site-specific DSB to initiate repair.	Recombinant Cas9 or Cpf1 (Cas12a) protein complexed with in vitro-transcribed sgRNA [4] [12].
Donor Repair Template (DRT)	Provides homology for HDR. Structure (ssDNA vs. dsDNA, arm length) greatly influences efficiency.	ssDNA oligos with 30-100 nt homology arms; dsDNA plasmids with longer arms (>200 bp) [12].
NHEJ Inhibitors	Chemically suppresses the dominant NHEJ pathway to favor HDR.	Alt-R HDR Enhancer V2 [4].
MMEJ/SSA Inhibitors	Suppresses alternative repair pathways to reduce imprecise integration and improve HDR accuracy.	ART558 (POLQ/MMEJ inhibitor); D-I03 (Rad52/SSA inhibitor) [4].
Pathway-Specific Reporters	Transgenic systems to visually quantify the frequency of specific repair outcomes.	SSA reporter; asymmetric HDR reporter [4].

The dominance of the NHEJ pathway over HDR in plants is a deeply ingrained characteristic of their DNA damage response system, shaped by evolutionary pressures to ensure survival in a genotoxic environment. This presents a formidable, but not insurmountable, barrier to precise genome editing. The quantitative data and mechanistic insights synthesized here underscore that achieving high-efficiency HDR requires a multi-faceted approach that goes beyond simple NHEJ inhibition. Successful strategies must also account for the confounding effects of alternative pathways like MMEJ and SSA, optimize donor template structure and delivery, and consider cell cycle dynamics. As our understanding of plant DNA repair mechanisms continues to mature, so too will our ability to strategically re-engineer this balance, unlocking the full potential of precision breeding for crop improvement.

In the realm of plant cellular DNA repair mechanisms, the precise modification of genomes through Homology-Directed Repair (HDR) represents a significant challenge due to the dominance of competing repair pathways. When CRISPR-Cas9 induces double-strand breaks (DSBs), plant cells primarily utilize error-prone repair mechanisms, particularly non-homologous end joining (NHEJ), which operates throughout the cell cycle and frequently results in insertions or deletions (indels) [39] [40]. This pathway competition severely constrains HDR efficiency, which is naturally restricted to the S and G2 phases of the cell cycle and requires a homologous DNA template [41]. Beyond NHEJ, another significant competitor emerges: single-strand annealing (SSA), an error-prone pathway that requires extensive end resection and can lead to substantial genomic deletions [42].

The strategic suppression of these competing pathways offers a promising route to enhance HDR efficiency in plant systems. NHEJ and SSA suppression represents a sophisticated approach to shift the repair balance toward precise HDR outcomes. While NHEJ serves as the cell's first responder to DSBs, initiated by the Ku70-Ku80 heterodimer recognizing broken ends [41], SSA requires longer homologous sequences (typically >20 nucleotides) and is mediated by RAD52, leading to the deletion of intervening sequences between homologous regions [4] [42]. Understanding the interplay between these pathways—NHEJ, SSA, and HDR—provides the foundation for developing targeted inhibition strategies to achieve precise genetic modifications in plant genomes.

DNA Repair Pathway Mechanics and Interactions

Pathway Competition and Crosstalk

The repair of CRISPR-Cas9-induced double-strand breaks involves a complex network of competing pathways, each with distinct mechanisms and outcomes. Canonical non-homologous end joining (c-NHEJ) initiates rapidly after DSB formation, with Ku70-Ku80 heterodimers binding to DNA ends and recruiting DNA-PKcs, Artemis, and ligase IV/XRCC4/XLF to rejoin breaks with minimal processing [39] [41]. This pathway often results in small insertions or deletions but prevents significant genetic loss. In contrast, single-strand annealing (SSA) requires extensive 5' to 3' end resection to expose homologous regions (typically >20 nt) flanking the break, followed by RAD52-mediated annealing and removal of intervening sequences, inevitably causing substantial deletions [42]. Homology-directed repair (HDR) similarly requires end resection but utilizes the resected 3' overhangs for RAD51-mediated strand invasion into a homologous template, enabling precise, error-free repair [41].

Pathway competition is fundamentally influenced by the balance between end protection and end resection. NHEJ factors like 53BP1 and the Shieldin complex protect DNA ends from resection, favoring NHEJ, while BRCA1 and CtIP promote resection, directing repair toward HDR or SSA [41] [42]. The decision between SSA and HDR after resection depends on local sequence homology and cellular context. SSA becomes increasingly likely when long homologous repeats flank the DSB, while HDR requires a suitable homologous donor template, often the sister chromatid [42]. This intricate crosstalk means that inhibiting one pathway can significantly alter the flux through others, creating both challenges and opportunities for modulating repair outcomes.

Figure 1: DNA Repair Pathway Competition and Inhibition Sites. CRISPR-Cas9-induced double-strand breaks are repaired by competing pathways. NHEJ operates with minimal end processing, while end resection directs repair toward HDR or SSA. Strategic inhibition of NHEJ and SSA pathways can shift the balance toward precise HDR.

Strategic Inhibition of Competing Pathways

NHEJ Suppression Strategies

Inhibiting the NHEJ pathway has emerged as a primary strategy for enhancing HDR efficiency by removing the dominant competitor for DSB repair. DNA-PKcs inhibitors represent one of the most effective pharmacological approaches for NHEJ suppression. These compounds target the catalytic subunit of DNA-dependent protein kinase, a crucial component of the NHEJ machinery [41]. When DNA-PKcs is inhibited, the kinase activity necessary for proper NHEJ function is disrupted, thereby reducing error-prone repair and increasing the availability of DSBs for HDR-mediated correction.

However, recent evidence reveals significant complexities in NHEJ inhibition strategies. The use of DNA-PKcs inhibitors, such as AZD7648, while boosting HDR rates, can inadvertently promote substantial genomic aberrations, including kilobase- and megabase-scale deletions, chromosomal arm losses, and a dramatic increase in off-target chromosomal translocations [43]. These findings highlight the critical importance of balanced pathway modulation rather than complete NHEJ ablation. Alternative approaches include targeting downstream NHEJ components such as DNA ligase IV or employing RNA interference to transiently knock down key factors like Ku70, Ku80, or 53BP1 [41]. The timing of inhibitor application proves crucial—transient treatment during the first 24 hours post-transfection appears optimal for HDR enhancement while minimizing cytotoxic effects [4].

SSA Suppression Approaches

While NHEJ inhibition has received considerable attention, suppressing the SSA pathway represents a more recently explored strategy for improving precise editing outcomes. RAD52 serves as the central mediator of SSA, catalyzing the annealing of complementary single-stranded DNA overhangs after extensive end resection [4] [42]. The small molecule inhibitor D-I03 specifically targets RAD52, disrupting its annealing activity and thereby reducing SSA-mediated repair [4]. This approach proves particularly valuable when long homologous flanks surround the DSB site, as these sequences strongly promote SSA activity.

Research demonstrates that SSA suppression yields distinct benefits compared to NHEJ inhibition. While NHEJ inhibition primarily reduces small indels, SSA suppression specifically decreases large deletions (>50 nt) and complex genomic rearrangements [4]. Furthermore, SSA pathway inhibition significantly reduces asymmetric HDR events—imperfect integration where only one side of the donor DNA integrates precisely while the other end suffers mutagenic repair [4]. This improvement in editing precision highlights the importance of addressing multiple competing pathways simultaneously rather than focusing solely on NHEJ inhibition.

Combined Pathway Suppression

The most effective strategy for enhancing HDR efficiency involves coordinated suppression of both NHEJ and SSA pathways. This combined approach addresses the compensatory relationships between repair pathways, where inhibition of one mechanism may inadvertently increase activity through alternative error-prone routes [42]. Research shows that while NHEJ inhibition alone increases HDR frequency, it can simultaneously promote mutagenic SSA, thereby limiting overall precision gains [42]. By concurrently suppressing both pathways, researchers can achieve more substantial improvements in precise editing outcomes.

The timing and duration of combined inhibition require careful optimization. Simultaneous application of DNA-PKcs and RAD52 inhibitors during the critical 24-hour window following CRISPR delivery appears most effective [4]. This transient treatment allows sufficient time for HDR to occur while minimizing chronic genomic instability and cellular toxicity. For plant systems, the application method may require adaptation, such as pre-treatment of protoplasts or employing nanoparticle-mediated delivery for whole tissue systems.

Table 1: Key Inhibitors for NHEJ and SSA Pathways

Target Pathway	Inhibitor Name	Molecular Target	Effect on Editing	Considerations
NHEJ	Alt-R HDR Enhancer V2	DNA-PKcs	Increases HDR ~3-fold; reduces small indels	Can increase large deletions and translocations [43] [4]
NHEJ	KU-0060648	DNA-PKcs	Enhances HDR efficiency	Potential for increased genomic instability [43]
SSA	D-I03	RAD52	Reduces asymmetric HDR and large deletions	Effect is cleavage pattern-dependent [4]
MMEJ	ART558	POLθ (Polymerase Theta)	Reduces large deletions and complex indels	Less impact on HDR frequency compared to NHEJ inhibition [4]

Experimental Implementation and Workflows

Optimized Protocol for Plant Systems

Implementing effective pathway suppression requires a meticulously optimized experimental workflow. The following protocol has been adapted for plant cellular systems based on successful mammalian cell studies [4]:

Day 1: Preparation of CRISPR Components and Donor Template

• Design and synthesize gRNAs with high on-target specificity, considering PAM proximity for optimal HDR efficiency [40].
• Prepare a donor template with appropriate homology arm lengths: 30-60 nt for oligonucleotide donors, 200-300 nt for larger inserts [40].
• For plant protoplast isolation, begin enzymatic digestion of plant tissue to obtain single cells.

Day 2: Delivery and Pathway Inhibition

• Deliver CRISPR-Cas9 ribonucleoprotein (RNP) complexes and donor templates to plant protoplasts using PEG-mediated transfection or electroporation.
• Immediately apply pathway inhibitors: DNA-PKcs inhibitor (e.g., Alt-R HDR Enhancer V2) and RAD52 inhibitor (D-I03) at predetermined optimal concentrations.
• Incubate protoplasts with inhibitors for 24 hours under standard growth conditions.

Day 3-14: Recovery and Selection

• Remove inhibition cocktail and allow cells to recover in fresh medium.
• For stable integration, apply appropriate selection agents once cell division resumes.
• Monitor editing efficiency through temporary expression markers or early PCR screening.

Day 15-30: Analysis and Validation

• Harvest edited plant material for genotyping.
• Employ long-read amplicon sequencing (PacBio) to comprehensively assess editing outcomes, including perfect HDR, imprecise integration, and structural variations [4].
• Validate precise edits through restriction fragment analysis, Sanger sequencing, and functional assays.

Figure 2: Experimental Workflow for Pathway Inhibition in Plant Systems. The optimized timeline shows key stages for implementing NHEJ and SSA suppression to enhance HDR efficiency in plant cells, from component preparation to final validation.

Quantitative Assessment of Editing Outcomes

Rigorous quantification of editing outcomes is essential for evaluating the efficacy of pathway suppression strategies. Advanced sequencing methods have revealed that traditional short-read approaches often overestimate HDR efficiency by failing to detect large deletions and complex rearrangements [43]. Comprehensive assessment requires a multi-faceted approach:

Long-read amplicon sequencing (PacBio) enables complete characterization of editing outcomes at the target locus, identifying perfect HDR, imprecise integration, and structural variations [4]. This method is particularly valuable for detecting large deletions that span PCR primer binding sites.

DSB-Spectrum reporter systems provide simultaneous quantification of multiple repair pathways in a single assay [42]. These innovative tools distinguish between error-free c-NHEJ, mutagenic repair, SSA, and HDR through differential fluorescent signals, enabling rapid assessment of pathway modulation effects.

Knock-knock computational framework classifies sequencing reads into specific repair categories, allowing precise quantification of each outcome type [4]. This analysis reveals not only successful HDR events but also the spectrum of competing repair events that persist despite inhibition.

Table 2: Quantitative Effects of Pathway Inhibition on Editing Outcomes

Inhibition Strategy	HDR Efficiency	Small Indels (<50 bp)	Large Deletions (≥50 bp)	Asymmetric HDR	Genomic Rearrangements
None (Control)	Baseline (5-10%)	High (~60%)	Moderate (~15%)	Frequent	Moderate
NHEJ Inhibition Only	3-fold increase [4]	Significant reduction	Variable (may increase) [43]	Moderate reduction	Can increase translocations [43]
SSA Inhibition Only	Minimal change	Minimal change	Significant reduction	Significant reduction [4]	Reduced
NHEJ + SSA Inhibition	3-5 fold increase	Significant reduction	Significant reduction	Significant reduction [4]	Moderate reduction

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Key Research Reagents for Pathway Inhibition Studies

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Function/Application	Considerations for Plant Systems
NHEJ Inhibitors	Alt-R HDR Enhancer V2, KU-0060648	DNA-PKcs inhibition to reduce error-prone repair	Concentration optimization required for plant cells; potential cytotoxicity at high doses [43] [4]
SSA Inhibitors	D-I03	RAD52 inhibition to reduce large deletions	Limited data in plant systems; effectiveness may vary by species [4]
MMEJ Inhibitors	ART558	POLθ inhibition to reduce microhomology-mediated repair	May have synergistic effects with NHEJ inhibition [4]
HDR Reporters	DSB-Spectrum variants [42]	Simultaneous quantification of multiple repair pathways	May require adaptation for plant-specific promoters and fluorescent proteins
Analysis Tools	Knock-knock classification framework [4]	Categorization of sequencing reads into repair outcomes	Compatible with standard sequencing data from plant genomes
Cas9 Variants	HiFi Cas9, eSpCas9 [43] [44]	Reduced off-target activity while maintaining on-target efficiency	PAM requirements may limit targetable sites in plant genomes

Discussion and Future Perspectives

The strategic inhibition of competing DNA repair pathways represents a promising approach for enhancing HDR efficiency in plant genome editing. However, this strategy requires careful optimization to balance the benefits of increased precision against potential risks of genomic instability. Recent findings demonstrating that NHEJ inhibition can exacerbate structural variations highlight the need for more nuanced approaches to pathway modulation [43]. Rather than complete pathway ablation, fine-tuned temporal control that temporarily redirects repair flux without completely disabling essential DNA repair mechanisms may yield optimal outcomes.

Future directions in plant DNA repair manipulation should explore cell cycle synchronization methods to enhance HDR during its natural peak in S/G2 phases [41], development of plant-optimized inhibitor formulations with reduced cytotoxicity, and creation of plant-specific reporter systems for rapid optimization of inhibition strategies. Additionally, the emergence of novel editing platforms such as base editing and prime editing offers alternative pathways to precision that bypass some competition challenges, though they remain limited in their cargo size capacity compared to HDR [41].

The successful implementation of NHEJ and SSA suppression strategies in plant systems will ultimately expand the possibilities for precise genome engineering in crops, enabling both fundamental research into gene function and the development of improved agricultural varieties with precisely inserted beneficial traits. As our understanding of plant DNA repair mechanisms continues to evolve, so too will our ability to manipulate these pathways for more efficient and precise genetic modification.

Cell Cycle Synchronization and Optimized Donor Template Design for Enhanced HDR

In the realm of plant cellular DNA repair mechanisms, the competition between the precise Homology-Directed Repair (HDR) and the error-prone Non-Homologous End Joining (NHEJ) presents a significant challenge for researchers aiming to achieve precise genomic modifications. The CRISPR-Cas9 system, a revolutionary genome-editing tool, functions primarily by introducing double-strand breaks (DSBs) at specific genomic loci. However, the subsequent editing outcome is determined by the cell's endogenous DNA repair machinery [30] [1]. In most plant cells, NHEJ is the dominant and active pathway throughout the cell cycle, often leading to small insertions or deletions (INDELs) that disrupt gene function. In contrast, HDR is a high-fidelity pathway that utilizes a homologous donor template to enable precise edits, such as gene knock-ins or specific base corrections [41]. Unfortunately, HDR is not only less efficient than NHEJ but is also restricted to the S and G2 phases of the cell cycle, where sister chromatids are available as natural templates [30] [41]. This article provides an in-depth technical guide on leveraging cell cycle synchronization and advanced donor template design to bias the DNA repair balance toward HDR, thereby enhancing the precision and efficiency of genome editing in plant research.

DNA Repair Pathways in Plant Cells: The HDR vs. NHEJ Competition

A foundational understanding of the competing DNA repair pathways is essential for developing strategies to enhance HDR. When a CRISPR-Cas9-induced DSB occurs, a race begins between several repair mechanisms.

Non-Homologous End Joining (NHEJ) is often described as the cell's "first responder." It is a fast, template-independent pathway that functions throughout the cell cycle. The Ku70-Ku80 heterodimer recognizes and binds to the broken DNA ends, recruiting other factors like DNA-PKcs and XRCC4-DNA ligase IV to ligate the ends back together [41]. This speed comes at the cost of precision, as NHEJ often results in small insertions or deletions (INDELs) perfect for gene knockouts but undesirable for precise editing [30] [1].

Homology-Directed Repair (HDR), in contrast, is a precise, template-dependent mechanism. Its key limitation in the context of CRISPR editing is that it is naturally restricted to the S and G2 phases of the cell cycle [41]. The repair process involves end resection by the MRN complex to create 3' single-stranded DNA overhangs. Replication Protein A (RPA) stabilizes these ssDNA tails, after which RAD51 replaces RPA to form a nucleoprotein filament that invades a homologous donor template—either a sister chromatid or an exogenously supplied donor [41]. This strand invasion allows for the precise copying of genetic information from the donor template into the break site.

Other alternative pathways, such as Microhomology-Mediated End Joining (MMEJ), also contribute to DSB repair. MMEJ utilizes short microhomologous sequences (2-20 nucleotides) flanking the break for repair, typically resulting in deletions of the intervening sequence [41]. Recent research has explored designing guide RNAs that favor MMEJ, which can, in some cases, improve the outcomes of targeted insertions by leveraging this alternative pathway [45].

The following diagram illustrates the critical decision points and competition between these major pathways following a CRISPR-Cas9-induced double-strand break.

Cell Cycle Synchronization for Enhanced HDR

Since HDR is inherently restricted to the S and G2 phases, a direct strategy to boost its efficiency is to synchronize the cell population at these specific stages, thereby increasing the number of cells competent for HDR at the time of CRISPR delivery.

Pharmacological Inhibitors for Synchronization

The most common method for cell cycle synchronization involves using chemical compounds that reversibly halt cell cycle progression.

Table 1: Pharmacological Agents for Cell Cycle Synchronization

Compound	Target Phase	Mechanism of Action	Typical Concentration	Key Consideration
Aphidicolin	S phase	Reversibly inhibits DNA polymerase α, stalling DNA replication [41]	1-5 µg/mL	Effective for S-phase arrest; requires optimization of exposure time.
Nocodazole	M phase	Inhibits microtubule polymerization, preventing mitotic spindle formation [41]	50-100 ng/mL	Synchronizes cells at M phase; released cells progress into G1 and then S phase.
Mimosine	Late G1 phase	Inhibits the initiation of DNA replication origins [41]	200-400 µM	Provides a reversible block at the G1/S boundary.
Thymidine	S phase	Causes dCTP depletion, stalling DNA synthesis [41]	2-5 mM	A reversible, double-block protocol (e.g., 12-18 hrs release, then second 12-18 hrs block) can yield high synchronization.

Experimental Protocol: Cell Synchronization Prior to Transfection

The following workflow details a standard protocol for synchronizing plant cells in culture prior to CRISPR-Cas9 transfection.

• Seed Cells: Culture plant protoplasts or cell suspension cultures to approximately 50-60% confluence in standard growth media.
• Apply Block: Add the chosen pharmacological agent (e.g., Aphidicolin at 2 µg/mL) directly to the culture medium. Incubate the cells for a duration of 12-18 hours to achieve efficient block.
• Release: Carefully remove the drug-containing medium. Wash the cells gently with fresh, pre-warmed medium at least twice to ensure complete removal of the inhibitor.
• Transfect: Resuspend the cells in fresh, drug-free medium and proceed with the delivery of CRISPR-Cas9 components (e.g., via PEG-mediated transfection for protoplasts or particle bombardment) immediately or at a pre-optimized time point post-release (typically 2-6 hours) when a large fraction of cells are entering S phase.
• Recovery: After transfection, allow the cells to recover in standard growth conditions for the desired period before conducting downstream analysis.

Optimized Donor Template Design and Delivery

The design and delivery of the donor template are equally critical for successful HDR. Recent advances have moved beyond simple plasmid-based donors to sophisticated, chemically modified templates that significantly boost HDR frequency.

Donor Template Types and Modifications

Table 2: Donor Template Options and Key Optimizations

Template Type	Description	Advantages	Recent Optimizations
ssODN (Single-Stranded Oligodeoxynucleotide)	Short, single-stranded DNA oligonucleotides (typically 80-200 nt) with homology arms flanking the desired edit [30] [45].	High delivery efficiency; ideal for point mutations and small insertions.	Using 5'-biotin modification increased single-copy HDR integration up to 8-fold; 5'-C3 spacer modification produced up to a 20-fold rise in correctly edited embryos in a mouse study [46].
dsDNA (Double-Stranded DNA)	Longer, double-stranded DNA fragments (e.g., PCR products or plasmids) with homology arms (can be >1 kb).	Suitable for large insertions (e.g., fluorescent protein tags, conditional alleles).	Denaturation of long 5'-monophosphorylated dsDNA templates before injection enhanced precise editing and reduced unwanted template concatemerization [46].
Viral Vectors (e.g., AAV)	Recombinant adeno-associated viruses carrying the donor sequence.	Highly efficient delivery; provides a persistent template source.	More common in mammalian studies; use in plants is limited by delivery challenges but is an area of active exploration.

Strategic Enhancements for Donor Templates

• 5' End Modifications: Covalently modifying the 5' ends of donor DNA has emerged as a powerful strategy. As highlighted in Table 2, adding 5'-biotin or a 5'-C3 spacer can dramatically improve the rate of single-copy HDR integration. It is hypothesized that these modifications protect the donor from exonuclease degradation and may help tether the donor to the Cas9 complex, increasing its local concentration at the DSB site [46].
• Protein Cofactors: Supplementing the editing reagents with proteins that facilitate HDR can provide a significant boost. For example, co-electroporation of RAD52 protein—a key factor in the single-strand annealing pathway that also promotes strand invasion—increased HDR efficiency nearly 4-fold for ssDNA integration in one study, albeit with a noted increase in template multiplication [46].
• Guide RNA Design: The choice of guide RNA can influence the repair pathway bias. Designing gRNAs that create DSBs with microhomology in the flanking regions can favor the MMEJ pathway, which can be harnessed for more predictable edits compared to classic NHEJ. One study in primary cells found that using MMEJ-biased gRNAs significantly improved HDR knock-in efficiency compared to a standard gRNA [45].

The interplay between donor design, chemical modification, and cellular context is summarized in the following workflow.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents for HDR Enhancement

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for HDR Experiments

Reagent / Solution	Function	Example & Notes
Cell Cycle Synchronizers	Arrests cells at specific cell cycle phases to enrich for HDR-competent populations.	Aphidicolin, Nocodazole, Thymidine (see Table 1 for details).
NHEJ Pathway Inhibitors	Transiently suppresses the competing NHEJ pathway to favor HDR.	Small molecule inhibitors targeting DNA-PKcs (e.g., NU7441) or 53BP1 (e.g., i53 peptide) [45] [41].
HDR-Enhancing Proteins	Directly promotes the strand invasion step central to HDR.	Recombinant RAD52 protein [46].
Chemically Modified Donors	Protects the donor template and enhances its recruitment to the DSB site.	5'-biotinylated or 5'-C3-spacer-modified ssODNs/dsDNA [46].
HDR-Detection ddPCR Assay	Simultaneously and quantitatively detects HDR and NHEJ outcomes at endogenous loci.	Utilizes FAM (reference), HEX (NHEJ), and FAM (HDR) hydrolysis probes in a droplet digital PCR system for absolute quantification [47].

The pursuit of precise genome editing in plants hinges on our ability to manipulate the cell's innate DNA repair machinery. The synergistic application of cell cycle synchronization and optimized donor template design represents a powerful and necessary approach to overcome the inherent inefficiency of HDR. By enriching the population of HDR-competent cells in S/G2 phase and providing a stable, high-fidelity donor template through strategic modifications like 5'-biotinylation or the use of ssDNA, researchers can significantly shift the repair balance away from error-prone NHEJ and toward the desired precise HDR outcome. As the field advances, combining these methods with other strategies—such as the inhibition of NHEJ factors and the use of HDR-promoting proteins like RAD52—will be crucial for achieving high-efficiency gene knock-ins and corrections, thereby accelerating crop improvement and functional genomics research in plants.

Advanced Delivery Methods for CRISPR Reagents and Repair Templates

The efficacy of CRISPR-based genome editing in plants is fundamentally governed by two critical and interconnected factors: the efficiency of delivering editing reagents into the plant cell and the subsequent engagement of specific cellular DNA repair mechanisms. While the CRISPR-Cas system provides the scissors for precise genetic surgery, the delivery method determines the tool's availability, and the cell's innate repair pathways ultimately define the editing outcome. In plant cells, double-strand breaks (DSBs) induced by Cas nucleases are primarily repaired by competing pathways: the error-prone non-homologous end joining (NHEJ), the high-fidelity homology-directed repair (HDR), and microhomology-mediated end joining (MMEJ) [17]. The rigid plant cell wall presents a formidable barrier to reagent delivery, making the choice of delivery method paramount. Furthermore, HDR remains relatively inefficient in plants due to its restriction to the S and G2 phases of the cell cycle and competition from more dominant repair pathways like NHEJ [12] [34] [17]. This review provides an in-depth technical guide to advanced delivery methods for CRISPR reagents and repair templates, framing their utility and optimization within the context of plant cellular DNA repair mechanisms. We explore how strategic delivery can influence the balance between NHEJ, HDR, and MMEJ to achieve desired genomic modifications, supported by current experimental data, detailed protocols, and analytical tools for the research scientist.

DNA Repair Pathways in Plant Cells

The outcome of CRISPR-Cas9-mediated genome editing is not determined by the nuclease alone but by the cell's response to the resulting DSB. Understanding the competing DNA repair pathways is therefore essential for predicting and controlling editing results.

• Non-Homologous End Joining (NHEJ): NHEJ is the cell's primary "first responder" to DSBs and operates throughout the cell cycle [17]. It involves the rapid recognition of broken DNA ends by the Ku70-Ku80 heterodimer, which protects ends from resection and recruits additional factors like DNA-PKcs, Artemis, and finally, the XRCC4-DNA ligase IV complex for ligation [17]. As this process requires no template and minimal end-processing, it is fast but error-prone, often resulting in small insertions or deletions (indels) that are exploited for gene knockouts. The persistent re-cleavage of Cas9 at a target site until the PAM or seed sequence is disrupted further favors these mutagenic outcomes [17].

• Homology-Directed Repair (HDR): HDR is a high-fidelity pathway that utilizes a homologous donor template, such as a sister chromatid or an exogenously supplied donor repair template (DRT), for precise repair [12] [17]. The process begins with the MRN complex (MRE11–RAD50–NBS1) and CtIP initiating 5' to 3' end resection to create 3' single-stranded DNA overhangs. Replication Protein A (RPA) stabilizes these ssDNA tails, after which RAD51 displaces RPA to form a nucleoprotein filament that performs strand invasion into the homologous donor sequence. DNA polymerase then extends the invading strand, and the process can be resolved via pathways like synthesis-dependent strand annealing (SDSA) to yield precise, non-crossover products [17]. A major limitation for HDR-based editing is that this pathway is primarily active in the S and G2 phases of the cell cycle.

• Microhomology-Mediated End Joining (MMEJ): MMEJ is an alternative, error-prone repair pathway that leverages short microhomologies (µH), typically 2-20 nucleotides, flanking the DSB [48] [17]. After limited end resection exposes these microhomologous regions, they anneal, and the intervening DNA sequence is deleted. The process is often mediated by DNA polymerase theta (Pol θ) and PARP1 [17]. While MMEJ can complicate HDR strategies by introducing unintended deletions, its predictability based on local sequence context also makes it a valuable tool for achieving specific, targeted deletions or for MMEJ-mediated knock-in strategies, as discussed in later sections [48].

The following diagram illustrates the critical decision points and key factors influencing the competition between these major DNA repair pathways following a CRISPR-induced double-strand break.

Advanced Delivery Methods for CRISPR Reagents

Efficient intracellular delivery of CRISPR components is a major bottleneck in plant genome editing. The following table summarizes the primary delivery methods, their applications, and key performance metrics.

Table 1: Comparison of Advanced CRISPR Delivery Methods in Plants

Delivery Method	CRISPR Cargo Format	Key Features & Applications	Efficiency & Performance Data	Key Advantages	Key Limitations
Droplet Cell Pincher (DCP) Microfluidics [49]	RNP, mRNA, pDNA	Combines droplet microfluidics with cell mechanoporation; effective for protoplasts.	- ~98% mRNA delivery- ~91% pDNA delivery- 6.5x higher knockout & 3.8x higher knock-in vs. electroporation [49]	High efficiency for multiple cargo types; reduced cell damage vs. electroporation.	Specialized equipment required; primarily ex vivo for protoplasts.
Agrobacterium-mediated Delivery [50]	pDNA (T-DNA)	Stable integration or transient expression; widely used for plant transformation.	Efficiency varies by species/cultivar; enables stable transformation and heritable edits. [50]	Well-established protocol; suitable for a wide range of plants.	Limited host range; tissue culture required; potential for transgene integration.
Particle Bombardment [50]	pDNA, RNP	Physical delivery using gold/tungsten microparticles; DNA-free editing possible with RNP.	Effective for genotype-independent transformation; can generate DNA-free edited plants. [50]	Bypasses host specificity; versatile for various explants.	Can cause complex multi-copy insertions; requires specialized equipment.
Viral Vectors (e.g., VLVs, TRV) [50]	RNA, gRNA	Systemic movement within plant; high efficiency in somatic and germline cells.	Efficient somatic editing; shown to increase heritability of edits. [50]	High infection and cargo expression efficiency; mobile.	Cargo size constraints (especially for AAV); potential biosafety concerns.
Protoplast Transfection [12] [50]	RNP, pDNA	Direct delivery into wall-less plant cells; ideal for DNA-free editing and HDR screening.	HDR efficiency up to 1.12% of sequencing reads in potato protoplasts with optimized ssDNA DRT. [12]	High transfection efficiency; excellent for rapid screening and DNA-free editing.	Protoplast regeneration can be difficult and genotype-dependent.

Experimental Protocol: RNP Delivery via Microfluidic DCP for High-Efficiency Knock-in

The Droplet Cell Pincher (DCP) platform represents a significant advance in physical delivery, particularly for challenging cargo like RNP complexes. The following workflow details its application for knock-in editing [49]:

• RNP Complex Preparation: In vitro, pre-assemble the Cas9 protein with sgRNA at a molar ratio of 1:3 to 1:5 in a suitable buffer. Incubate at 25-37°C for 10-20 minutes to form active RNP complexes.
• Cell Preparation: Isolate and suspend the target plant protoplasts in an osmoticum-balanced buffer at a high density (e.g., 2 x 10⁷ cells/mL). Maintain viability by working on ice.
• Droplet Generation and Encapsulation:
  • Mix the protoplast suspension with the pre-assembled RNP complexes and a homology-directed repair template (e.g., ssDNA or dsDNA).
  • Load the mixture into a syringe pump and infuse it into the DCP microfluidic device along with an immiscible oil phase.
  • A flow-focusing geometry within the device generates uniform aqueous droplets, each encapsulating cells, RNPs, and repair templates.
• High-Speed Mechanoporation:
  • An additional oil sheath flow is injected to accelerate the droplets.
  • The accelerated droplets are forced through a single, narrow microscale constriction.
  • This rapid passage creates transient discontinuities in both the cell and nuclear membranes, enabling the convective entry of RNP complexes and repair templates directly into the nucleus.
• Collection and Recovery:
  • Collect the processed droplets from the device outlet.
  • Break the emulsion to release the transfected protoplasts, which are then washed and resuspended in culture medium.
• Regeneration and Analysis:
  • Culture the protoplasts under conditions that promote cell wall regeneration and subsequent plantlet development.
  • Analyze the regenerated plants or cell pools for targeted integration using PCR, sequencing, or functional assays.

The DCP process, which facilitates direct nuclear delivery through mechanoporation, is visualized below.

Optimizing Donor Repair Templates for Enhanced HDR and MMEJ

The structure and design of the donor repair template (DRT) are critical factors influencing the efficiency of precise genome editing. Recent empirical studies in plants provide quantitative guidance for DRT design.

The Impact of DRT Structure on HDR Efficiency

A systematic study in potato protoplasts, using RNP transfection and NGS analysis, yielded key insights into DRT design [12]:

• Strandedness and Orientation: Single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) DRTs in the "target" orientation (coinciding with the sgRNA-recognized strand) outperformed double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) donors and ssDNA in the "non-target" orientation, achieving an HDR efficiency of 1.12% of sequencing reads [12].
• Homology Arm Length: For ssDNA donors, HDR efficiency appeared independent of homology arm (HA) length within the tested range of 30 to 97 nucleotides. This suggests that even short HAs can be sufficient for HDR in plant systems, simplifying template synthesis [12].
• Engagement of Alternative Pathways: Notably, ssDNA donors with HAs as short as 30 nt led to targeted insertions in up to 24.89% of reads on average. However, the majority of these events were mediated not by HDR, but by the alternative, imprecise MMEJ pathway [12].

Table 2: Impact of Donor Repair Template Structure on Editing Outcomes in Potato Protoplasts [12]

DRT Structural Factor	Tested Parameters	Key Finding	Implication for Experimental Design
Strandedness & Orientation	ssDNA (target vs. non-target), dsDNA	ssDNA in target orientation achieved highest HDR efficiency (1.12%).	Prefer ssDNA donors designed on the sgRNA-recognized strand.
Homology Arm (HA) Length	30 nt, 60 nt, 97 nt	HDR efficiency was independent of HA length in this range.	Shorter HAs (e.g., 30-60 nt) are sufficient and cost-effective for ssDNA templates.
Repair Pathway Engagement	ssDNA with 30 nt HAs	Targeted insertion in ~25% of reads, predominantly via MMEJ.	Short HA ssDNA donors are highly efficient for knock-in, but careful analysis is needed to distinguish HDR from MMEJ.

Harnessing MMEJ with Deep-Learning-Assisted Template Design

Given the prominence of MMEJ, strategies are being developed to harness its predictability for precise integration. A powerful approach involves the use of µH tandem repeat repair arms, designed with the aid of deep learning models like inDelphi [48].

• Principle: The genomic sequence flanking the DSB is analyzed in silico to predict natural MMEJ outcomes. The DRT is then designed with tandem repeats of a short µH sequence (e.g., 3-6 bp) matching the genomic sequence immediately adjacent to the cut site.
• Design Workflow:
  • Input: The genomic target sequence, including the gRNA target site and PAM, is provided to the prediction algorithm.
  • Prediction: The model (e.g., inDelphi) predicts the dominant MMEJ-mediated deletion outcomes for the locus.
  • Template Engineering: The DRT is synthesized with 3-5 tandem repeats of the identified µH sequence at its terminal (repair arms). This design encourages the cell's MMEJ machinery to use the artificial µH repeats on the donor, facilitating precise, frame-retentive integration of the cargo while minimizing deletions in the genome and the transgene [48].
• Experimental Validation: In HEK293T cells, this strategy using 5x 3-bp µH tandem repeats at the AAVS1 locus resulted in 5.2% on-target integration, with sequencing confirming that repair outcomes at the genome-transgene boundaries closely matched the model's predictions (r = 0.81-0.97) [48]. This principle is directly applicable to plant systems, where MMEJ is a conserved repair mechanism [48].

This section catalogues key reagents, tools, and resources essential for implementing the advanced delivery and editing strategies discussed.

Table 3: Essential Reagents and Resources for Advanced Plant Genome Editing

Category / Item	Specification / Example	Primary Function / Use Case
Delivery & Cargo
RNP Complexes [49] [51]	Pre-complexed Cas9 protein and sgRNA	Direct nuclease delivery; reduces off-targets and enables DNA-free editing.
ssDNA Donor Template [12]	Ultramer oligonucleotides (e.g., 30-200 nt)	HDR donor for precise edits; optimal in "target" orientation.
µH Tandem Repeat Donor [48]	dsDNA donor with 3-5 repeats of 3-6 bp µH	Promotes predictable, frame-retentive MMEJ-mediated integration.
Tool & Algorithms
inDelphi / Pythia [48]	Deep learning model & design tool	Predicts MMEJ outcomes and designs optimal µH tandem repeat repair arms.
Vector Systems
Plant CRISPR plasmids [52]	e.g., pBUN411, pHEE401, pRGEB32	All-in-one vectors for Agrobacterium-mediated plant transformation.
Experimental Systems
Protoplasts [12] [50]	Isolated from leaf mesophyll	Versatile system for rapid RNP/DRT transfection and editing screening.
Chemical Modulators
NHEJ Inhibitors [17]	e.g., SCR7 (DNA Ligase IV inhibitor)	Shifts repair balance toward HDR/MMEJ (efficacy varies in plants).
HDR Enhancers [17]	e.g., RS-1 (RAD51 stimulator)	Potentially increases HDR frequency (efficacy varies in plants).

The frontier of plant genome editing is being reshaped by synergistic advances in two domains: the physical delivery of CRISPR reagents and the strategic manipulation of cellular DNA repair. While HDR remains the gold standard for precision, its low efficiency in plants has spurred the development of sophisticated alternatives, such as MMEJ-mediated knock-in using deep-learning-designed templates [48]. Concurrently, delivery methods like microfluidic DCP [49] and optimized RNP transfection into protoplasts [12] are achieving unprecedented efficiencies, even for precise integration. The future of the field lies in combining these approaches—using advanced delivery to introduce optimally structured repair templates that actively steer the cell's innate repair machinery toward the desired outcome. This integrated strategy, which views delivery and repair not as separate challenges but as interconnected levers for control, will be paramount for unlocking the full potential of precision genome editing in a wider variety of crop species.

Beyond Classic HDR: Validating and Comparing New-Generation Precision Editing Tools

In plant biology research, the precise manipulation of genomes using CRISPR-based technologies relies on the cell's innate DNA repair mechanisms to modify genes at targeted locations. When a CRISPR-Cas9 system induces a double-strand break (DSB) in the plant genome, two primary competing repair pathways are activated: the error-prone Non-Homologous End Joining (NHEJ) and the precise Homology-Directed Repair (HDR) [1] [34]. NHEJ directly ligates broken DNA ends, often introducing small insertions or deletions (indels) that can disrupt gene function, making it ideal for gene knockout studies. In contrast, HDR uses a homologous DNA template to accurately repair the break, enabling precise gene knockins, point mutations, or gene corrections [1] [53]. The systematic quantification of these editing outcomes is crucial for evaluating the efficiency and precision of genome editing experiments in plants, where low HDR efficiency remains a significant challenge [54] [55].

The balance between HDR and NHEJ is not random but is influenced by multiple factors, including the specific gene locus being targeted, the type of nuclease platform used (e.g., Cas9, Cas9 nickases, TALENs), and the cell type being edited [6]. Contrary to the widespread belief that NHEJ generally predominates, studies have revealed that certain conditions can result in more HDR than NHEJ, highlighting the importance of accurate measurement for mechanistic studies and technology improvement [6]. This technical guide outlines robust methodologies for the simultaneous quantification of HDR and NHEJ outcomes in plant systems, with a focus on digital PCR and sequencing-based approaches.

Methodological Approaches for Quantifying Genome Editing Outcomes

Droplet Digital PCR (ddPCR) for Absolute Quantification

Droplet Digital PCR (ddPCR) has emerged as a powerful technique for the absolute quantification of HDR and NHEJ events at endogenous gene loci with high sensitivity [47] [6] [56]. This method partitions a PCR reaction into thousands of nanoliter-sized droplets, allowing for the detection of rare editing events present at frequencies as low as 0.1% to 0.5% in a heterogeneous cell population [6] [56]. The core principle involves using allele-specific hydrolysis probes to distinguish between wild-type, HDR-edited, and NHEJ-disrupted alleles in a single, multiplexed reaction [47].

A standard ddPCR assay for simultaneous HDR and NHEJ detection utilizes four different probes within a single amplicon (75-125 bp flanking either side of the cut site) [47] [6]:

• Reference Probe (FAM-labeled): Binds to a region distant from the cut site and serves as a positive control for total genome copy number.
• NHEJ Probe (HEX/VIC-labeled): Binds at the nuclease cut site with a wild-type sequence; loss of signal indicates indels typical of NHEJ repair (FAM+, HEX-).
• HDR Probe (FAM-labeled): Binds specifically to the sequence incorporating the precise HDR edit, resulting in an increased FAM signal (FAM++, HEX+).
• Dark Probe (non-fluorescent): A competitive inhibitor that blocks cross-reactivity of the HDR probe with the wild-type sequence, improving specificity [47].

The following diagram illustrates the typical workflow for a ddPCR experiment designed to quantify genome editing outcomes:

Figure 1: Workflow for Droplet Digital PCR (ddPCR) Quantification of HDR and NHEJ Events

Sequencing-Based Methods for Comprehensive Characterization

While ddPCR provides exceptional sensitivity for quantifying known edits, sequencing-based methods offer a more comprehensive, unbiased profile of genome editing outcomes, capturing the full spectrum of induced mutations [55].

Targeted Amplicon Sequencing (AmpSeq), often considered the "gold standard," involves high-throughput sequencing of PCR amplicons spanning the nuclease target site. This method provides nucleotide-level resolution of all HDR and NHEJ events, including complex rearrangements, and can detect edits at frequencies below 0.1% [55]. However, it requires specialized bioinformatics capabilities and involves higher costs and longer turnaround times compared to other methods [55].

Sanger Sequencing with Deconvolution Tools provides a more accessible alternative for many laboratories. The editing outcomes are analyzed using computational tools such as:

• ICE (Inference of CRISPR Edits)
• TIDE (Tracking of Indels by DEcomposition)
• DECODR (Deconvolution of Complex DNA Repair)

These tools decompose the complex Sanger sequencing chromatograms from edited populations into quantitative estimates of the predominant indels and their frequencies, though with lower sensitivity than AmpSeq or ddPCR, especially for edits occurring at frequencies below 5-10% [55].

Comparison of Quantification Techniques

The choice of quantification method depends on the specific research goals, required sensitivity, throughput, and available resources. The table below summarizes the key characteristics of major genome editing quantification techniques:

Table 1: Comparison of Methods for Quantifying HDR and NHEJ Genome Editing Outcomes

Method	Detection Principle	Sensitivity	Throughput	Key Advantages	Key Limitations
Droplet Digital PCR (ddPCR)	Probe-based detection in partitioned droplets	0.1% - 0.5% [6] [56]	Medium	Absolute quantification without standards; high sensitivity for rare alleles; cost-effective for large screens [47] [56]	Limited to known edits; requires specific probe design; amplicon size restrictions
Targeted Amplicon Sequencing (AmpSeq)	High-throughput sequencing of target locus	<0.1% [55]	Low to Medium	Unbiased detection of all edit types; nucleotide-level resolution; considered gold standard [55]	Higher cost; bioinformatics expertise needed; longer turnaround
Sanger Sequencing + Deconvolution (ICE/TIDE)	Sequencing chromatogram decomposition	~5-10% [55]	High	Low cost; widely accessible; rapid results [55]	Lower sensitivity; limited accuracy with complex mutation profiles
T7 Endonuclease 1 (T7E1) Assay	Enzyme cleavage of mismatched heteroduplexes	~1-5% [55]	High	Simple protocol; no specialized equipment	Qualitative to semi-quantitative; does not distinguish HDR from NHEJ
PCR-RFLP	Restriction fragment length polymorphism	~1-5% [55]	High	Inexpensive; simple data interpretation	Requires introduced or destroyed restriction site; not suitable for all targets

Experimental Protocols for Systematic Quantification in Plant Systems

ddPCR Assay Design and Workflow for Plant Genome Editing

The following protocol provides a detailed methodology for implementing ddPCR to quantify HDR and NHEJ outcomes in plant genome editing experiments, adapted from established methods [47] [6] [55]:

Reagents and Equipment:

• QX200 Droplet Digital PCR System (Bio-Rad) or QIAcuity One nanoplate dPCR System (QIAGEN) [55] [57]
• ddPCR Supermix for Probes (No dUTP)
• Droplet Generation Oil for Probes
• Genome-specific primers and probes (see design specifications below)
• Restriction enzyme (e.g., HaeIII or EcoRI) to improve amplification efficiency of complex genomes [57]
• Genomic DNA from edited plant tissues

Probe and Primer Design Specifications:

• Amplicon Size: 75-125 bp flanking each side of the predicted nuclease cut site [47] [6]
• Primer Melting Temperature: 55 ± 1°C
• Reference/NHEJ Probe Tm: 60°C/57 ± 1°C
• HDR Probe Tm: 55°C
• Probe Positioning: NHEJ probe directly at cut site; HDR probe overlapping edited sequence; reference probe distant from cut site [47]
• Specificity Controls: Incorporate a dark, non-extendible oligonucleotide (3' phosphorylation) to block HDR probe binding to WT sequences when edit and cut sites don't overlap [47] [6]

Detailed Workflow:

• Genomic DNA Preparation: Extract high-quality genomic DNA from CRISPR-edited plant tissues using standard methods (e.g., CTAB protocol). Determine DNA concentration using fluorometry for accurate copy number quantification [55].
• Restriction Digestion (Optional): Digest 100-150 ng genomic DNA with 2-4 units of restriction enzyme (e.g., HaeIII) that does not cut within the amplicon to improve DNA accessibility and precision, particularly for targets with high GC content or complex genomic contexts [57].
• ddPCR Reaction Setup: Prepare 20μL reactions containing:
  • 10μL ddPCR Supermix for Probes
  • 1μL each primer (18μM final concentration)
  • 0.5-1μL each probe (5μM final concentration)
  • 1μL restriction enzyme (if used)
  • 100-150 ng digested genomic DNA
  • Nuclease-free water to 20μL [47] [6]
• Droplet Generation: Transfer 20μL reaction mix to DG8 cartridges with 70μL Droplet Generation Oil. Generate droplets using the QX200 Droplet Generator (~20,000 droplets per sample) [47].
• PCR Amplification: Transfer droplets to a 96-well PCR plate and amplify using the following cycling conditions:
  • 95°C for 10 minutes (enzyme activation)
  • 40 cycles of: 94°C for 30 seconds, 55-60°C (optimized for assay) for 60 seconds
  • 98°C for 10 minutes (enzyme deactivation)
  • 4°C hold [47] [6]
• Droplet Reading and Analysis: Read the plate using the QX200 Droplet Reader. Analyze results with QuantaSoft software to determine the absolute copy numbers of HDR, NHEJ, and WT alleles using Poisson statistics [47].

Addressing Technical Challenges in Plant Systems

Quantifying genome editing outcomes in plants presents unique technical challenges that require specific considerations:

Polyploidy and Gene Copy Number Variations: Many crop plants are polyploid, containing multiple copies (homeologs) of each gene. Design primers and probes to target conserved regions across homeologs, or develop separate assays for each variant [55]. The high gene copy numbers in some plant species (e.g., thousands of copies in certain ciliates) require optimization of restriction enzymes to ensure accurate quantification - HaeIII has demonstrated higher precision than EcoRI in such contexts [57].

Transient vs. Stable Transformation Assessment: Transient expression of CRISPR components in plant protoplasts or leaves produces highly heterogeneous populations with editing efficiencies ranging from <0.1% to >30% [55]. The sensitivity of ddPCR makes it particularly suitable for quantifying these low-frequency events before proceeding to stable transformation.

Control Experiments: Always include:

• Positive Controls: Synthetic double-stranded DNA fragments (gBlocks) containing known HDR edits or NHEJ indels [47] [6]
• Negative Controls: Wild-type plant DNA without nuclease treatment
• No-Template Controls: Water instead of DNA to monitor contamination

Research Reagent Solutions for DNA Repair Quantification

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents for HDR/NHEJ Quantification Experiments

Reagent/Category	Specific Examples	Function/Application
Digital PCR Systems	QX200 Droplet Digital PCR (Bio-Rad); QIAcuity One (QIAGEN) [55] [57]	Partitioning and absolute quantification of target sequences
PCR Master Mix	ddPCR Supermix for Probes (No dUTP) [47]	Optimized reaction buffer for probe-based digital PCR
Nuclease Inhibitors	Alt-R HDR Enhancer V2 (NHEJi); ART558 (POLQ/MMEJi); D-I03 (Rad52/SSAi) [4]	Modulate DNA repair pathway balance to favor HDR over NHEJ
Restriction Enzymes	HaeIII, EcoRI, HindIII-HF, CviQI [47] [57]	Improve DNA accessibility for amplification; HaeIII shows superior precision for high-copy targets [57]
Synthetic DNA Controls	gBlocks Gene Fragments (IDT) [47] [6]	Positive controls for assay validation with defined HDR or NHEJ sequences
Cell Culture Reagents	Human Stem Cell Nucleofector Kit (for iPSCs); Protoplast Isolation Solutions (for plants)	Delivery of editing components to difficult-to-transfect cell types
Analysis Software	QuantaSoft (Bio-Rad); ICE (Synthego); TIDE	Data analysis and deconvolution of editing outcomes

Advanced Applications and Pathway Interactions in Plant Systems

Beyond HDR and NHEJ: Additional DNA Repair Pathways

Recent research has revealed that alternative DNA repair pathways beyond the classical HDR/NHEJ dichotomy significantly impact genome editing outcomes in plants. These include:

• Microhomology-Mediated End Joining (MMEJ): Utilizes 2-20 base pair microhomologous sequences for repair, resulting in characteristic deletions [4]. Inhibition of its central effector POLQ using ART558 reduces large deletions (≥50 nt) and complex indels, thereby increasing perfect HDR frequency [4].

• Single-Strand Annealing (SSA): A Rad52-dependent pathway that anneals longer homologous sequences, frequently resulting in asymmetric HDR and other imprecise integration patterns [4]. SSA suppression using Rad52 inhibitors (D-I03) specifically reduces asymmetric HDR events without affecting MMEJ [4].

The complex interplay between these pathways in CRISPR-mediated knock-in is illustrated in the following diagram:

Figure 2: DNA Repair Pathways in CRISPR Genome Editing and Their Modulation

Strategic Pathway Modulation for Enhanced Precision Editing

The inhibition of specific DNA repair pathways presents a promising strategy for improving precise gene editing efficiency in plants. Combined suppression of NHEJ and SSA pathways has been shown to significantly enhance perfect HDR frequency while reducing both small indels and asymmetric imprecise integration events [4]. This multi-pathway inhibition approach represents a more sophisticated strategy than NHEJ suppression alone, particularly for challenging applications such as fluorescent protein tagging in plant systems where precise integration is critical.

When applying these strategies to plant systems, consider:

• Treatment Timing: Inhibitor treatment is most effective when applied immediately after editing component delivery and maintained for 24 hours, corresponding to the peak activity of HDR processes [4].
• Cell Type Considerations: Repair pathway dominance varies across plant cell types and tissues, requiring empirical optimization for each experimental system [6].
• Donor Template Design: For HDR-based edits, ensure the donor template disrupts the gRNA binding site or PAM sequence to prevent re-cleavage of successfully edited alleles [53].

The systematic quantification of HDR and NHEJ outcomes using digital PCR and sequencing technologies provides plant researchers with powerful tools to advance genome editing applications. The sensitivity of ddPCR enables detection of rare editing events in transient assays and polyploid systems, while sequencing methods offer comprehensive characterization of editing profiles. As plant genome engineering continues to evolve toward more precise applications—from functional gene analysis to crop improvement—the accurate measurement of DNA repair outcomes will remain fundamental to success. The emerging understanding of complex pathway interactions between NHEJ, HDR, MMEJ, and SSA further provides novel strategic opportunities to enhance precision editing through targeted pathway modulation.

The study of plant cellular DNA repair mechanisms has long been framed by the competition between two primary pathways: error-prone non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) and high-fidelity homology-directed repair (HDR). While CRISPR-Cas9-mediated HDR enables precise gene modifications, its therapeutic application faces substantial limitations, including low efficiency—particularly in postmitotic cells—and reliance on double-strand breaks (DSBs) that can lead to unintended mutations [34]. These constraints are especially pronounced in plant systems where HDR efficiency remains a fundamental barrier to precision breeding. The emergence of base editing and prime editing technologies represents a paradigm shift in precision genome engineering, offering versatile alternatives that operate through distinct mechanisms independent of DSBs and donor DNA templates [58] [59]. By leveraging cellular repair pathways beyond HDR, these technologies enable precise nucleotide conversions, small insertions, and deletions with reduced off-target effects, expanding the molecular toolbox available for both basic plant research and crop improvement.

Base Editing: Principles and Mechanisms

Base editing technology represents a significant advancement beyond conventional CRISPR-Cas systems by enabling direct chemical conversion of one DNA base pair to another without inducing DSBs. The fundamental architecture of base editors consists of a catalytically impaired Cas nuclease (typically a nickase variant) fused to a nucleobase deaminase enzyme [60] [61]. This fusion protein operates within a restricted "editing window" of approximately 4-5 nucleotides in the spacer region, with its targeting scope further constrained by protospacer adjacent motif (PAM) requirements [58].

Cytosine Base Editors (CBEs)

Cytosine base editors catalyze the conversion of cytosine to thymine (C-to-T) through a multi-step mechanism. The editor complex binds to target DNA, where the cytidine deaminase enzyme acts on single-stranded DNA within the R-loop formed by Cas9 binding, deaminating cytosine (C) to form uracil (U) [61]. Cellular DNA replication or repair machinery then recognizes U as thymine (T), resulting in a C•G to T•A base pair conversion. To prevent uracil excision by base excision repair pathways, CBEs typically incorporate uracil DNA glycosylase inhibitor (UGI) proteins, which enhance editing efficiency by blocking corrective repair mechanisms [61].

Adenine Base Editors (ABEs)

Adenine base editors facilitate the conversion of adenine to guanine (A-to-G) through a similar mechanism. The engineered tRNA adenosine deaminase (TadA) deaminates adenine (A) to form inosine (I) [61]. During DNA replication or repair, inosine is preferentially read as guanine (G) by polymerases, resulting in an A•T to G•C base pair conversion. The development of ABEs required extensive protein engineering since natural adenine deaminases operate on RNA rather than DNA substrates [60].

Table 1: Evolution of Base Editing Systems

Editor Type	Key Components	Base Conversion	Editing Window	Primary Applications
CBE	nCas9 + cytidine deaminase + UGI	C→T, G→A	~4-5 nucleotides	Gene knockouts, corrective editing for C•G to T•A mutations
ABE	nCas9 + engineered TadA	A→G, T→C	~4-5 nucleotides	Corrective editing for A•T to G•C mutations
GBE	nCas9 + deaminase + glycosylase	C→G, C→A	Varies	Transversion mutations, broader editing scope

Advanced Base Editing Systems

Recent advancements have expanded the capabilities of base editing beyond transition mutations (purine-to-purine or pyrimidine-to-pyrimidine changes) to include transversion mutations (purine-to-pyrimidine or vice versa). These glycosylase base editors (GBEs) utilize DNA glycosylases to generate abasic sites that can be processed through error-prone base excision repair or translesion synthesis pathways, resulting in broader editing outcomes [60]. For example, C-to-G base transversion editors were developed by replacing UGI with uracil-N-glycosylase (UNG) in CBEs, enabling the correction of approximately 10% of human pathogenic SNVs that require C-to-G corrections [60]. Similarly, A-to-C/T base editors have been created by incorporating N-methylpurine DNA glycosylase (MPG), which recognizes and cleaves hypoxanthine (the deaminated product of adenine), to address approximately 25% of pathogenic SNVs requiring adenine transversions [60].

Prime Editing: Expanding the Editing Scope

Prime editing represents a more versatile approach to precision genome engineering that overcomes several key limitations of both HDR and base editing. The technology utilizes a prime editor protein consisting of a Cas9 nickase (H840A) fused to an engineered reverse transcriptase (RT), programmed with a specialized prime editing guide RNA (pegRNA) [58] [59]. This system functions as a "search-and-replace" genomic tool that can directly write new genetic information into a target DNA site without requiring DSBs or donor DNA templates.

Mechanism of Prime Editing

The prime editing process involves multiple sequential steps. First, the PE complex binds to the target DNA sequence specified by the pegRNA spacer. The Cas9 nickase then cleaves the non-target DNA strand, exposing a 3'-hydroxyl group that serves as a primer for reverse transcription [58] [59]. The RT enzyme extends this primed end using the RT template (RTT) sequence encoded within the pegRNA, synthesizing a new DNA flap containing the desired edit. Cellular repair mechanisms subsequently resolve this branched intermediate by incorporating the edited strand into the genome [62]. This sophisticated mechanism enables prime editors to perform all 12 possible base-to-base conversions, plus targeted insertions and deletions, significantly expanding the scope of programmable genome editing [58].

Diagram 1: Prime editing mechanism. The process involves target binding, DNA nicking, reverse transcription using the pegRNA template, and final flap resolution to incorporate the edit.

Evolution of Prime Editing Systems

The development of prime editing has progressed through several generations of increasing sophistication and efficiency. The initial PE1 system established the proof-of-concept but demonstrated limited editing efficiency of approximately 10-20% in HEK293T cells [58]. PE2 incorporated an engineered reverse transcriptase with enhanced processivity and stability, improving editing efficiency to 20-40% [58] [59]. PE3 further augmented this system by introducing an additional nicking guide RNA (ngRNA) that targets the non-edited strand, encouraging cellular repair machinery to use the edited strand as a template and increasing efficiency to 30-50% [58].

More recent innovations include PE4 and PE5, which incorporate dominant-negative MLH1 (MLH1dn) to inhibit mismatch repair pathways, achieving efficiencies of 50-80% [58]. The latest PE6 systems utilize compact RT variants and engineered pegRNAs (epegRNAs) with stabilizing RNA motifs to protect against degradation, reaching remarkable efficiencies of 70-90% while reducing cargo size for improved delivery [58] [62]. These successive generations demonstrate how structural optimization and mechanistic understanding have progressively enhanced the capabilities of prime editing technology.

Table 2: Evolution of Prime Editing Systems

Editor Version	Key Improvements	Editing Efficiency	Notable Features
PE1	Foundational system	~10-20%	Proof-of-concept, basic nCas9-RT fusion
PE2	Engineered RT	~20-40%	Enhanced processivity and stability
PE3	Additional nicking sgRNA	~30-50%	Encourages repair using edited strand
PE4/PE5	MLH1dn to inhibit MMR	~50-80%	Reduces repair-mediated rejection of edits
PE6	Compact RT variants, epegRNAs	~70-90%	Smaller cargo size, enhanced stability

Plant-Specific Prime Editing Applications

In plant systems, prime editing has demonstrated significant potential for crop improvement. Recent studies have utilized dual pegRNA strategies and optimized editing systems to achieve precise modifications in diverse crop species including rice, wheat, and maize [13]. These applications highlight the particular value of prime editing for introducing agronomically important point mutations and small DNA modifications that mirror natural genetic variation, bypassing the regulatory and technical challenges associated with transgenic approaches. The technology's ability to make precise changes without DSBs is especially advantageous in plant systems where HDR efficiency is notoriously low and NHEJ dominates DNA repair [14] [13].

Comparative Analysis of Editing Technologies

Each genome editing technology offers distinct advantages and limitations that determine its suitability for specific applications in plant research and breeding. Understanding these trade-offs is essential for selecting the appropriate tool for a given experimental goal.

Efficiency and Precision Comparison

HDR-mediated precise editing typically achieves efficiencies below 10% in most plant systems, with performance highly dependent on cell cycle stage and largely restricted to dividing cells [34]. Base editing systems generally offer higher efficiencies (often 20-60%) for specific transition mutations but are constrained by their narrow editing windows and limited range of possible conversions [60] [61]. Prime editing provides intermediate efficiencies (30-70% for optimized systems) but offers substantially broader editing capabilities, including all base substitutions and small insertions/deletions [58] [59].

Regarding precision, HDR can in theory achieve perfect specificity but in practice often produces mixed outcomes due to competing NHEJ repair. Base editors exhibit notable challenges with bystander edits—unintended modifications of adjacent bases within the editing window—and potential for off-target deaminase activity [58] [60]. Prime editing demonstrates superior precision with minimal indel formation and reduced off-target effects, though its complexity can lead to pegRNA scaffold incorporation in some cases [59] [62].

Practical Implementation Considerations

From a practical standpoint, HDR requires delivery of both editing components and donor DNA templates, creating significant delivery challenges, especially for in vivo applications. Base editing simplifies this by requiring only the editor and guide RNA, but its applicability remains restricted to specific mutation types [60] [61]. Prime editing offers versatile editing capabilities with relatively simple component requirements (PE protein + pegRNA), though the large size of the editor construct presents delivery challenges, particularly for viral vector systems [59] [62].

Table 3: Technology Comparison for Plant Genome Editing

Parameter	HDR	Base Editing	Prime Editing
Editing Scope	Unlimited in theory	4/12 base changes (transitions)	All 12 base changes, insertions, deletions
Efficiency in Plants	Very low (<10%)	Moderate to high (20-60%)	Moderate to high (30-70% with optimization)
DSB Formation	Required	Avoided	Avoided
Donor Template	Required	Not required	Incorporated in pegRNA
Key Limitations	Low efficiency, cell cycle dependence	Bystander edits, restricted editing scope	Complex design, delivery challenges
Optimal Use Cases	Large insertions, when other methods fail	Specific transition mutations	Point mutations, small indels, when precision is critical

Experimental Protocols for Plant Genome Editing

Base Editing Protocol for Plants

The following protocol outlines the key steps for implementing cytosine base editing in plant systems, optimized for Arabidopsis thaliana and major crops like rice and wheat [61]:

• Target Selection and gRNA Design: Identify target site with desired base change within the editing window (typically positions 4-8 from PAM). Verify that the target sequence does not contain additional editable bases nearby to minimize bystander edits.

• Vector Construction: Clone the optimized gRNA expression cassette into a plant transformation vector containing the CBE or ABE coding sequence driven by appropriate promoters (e.g., UBQ10 for constitutive expression). Include plant codon-optimized versions of base editor components and selectable markers for transformation.

• Plant Transformation: For Arabidopsis, use floral dip method with Agrobacterium tumefaciens carrying the base editing construct. For monocots, utilize protoplast transformation or Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of embryogenic callus.

• Selection and Regeneration: Select transformed plants on appropriate antibiotics or herbicides. Regenerate whole plants from callus tissue for monocots.

• Editing Efficiency Assessment: Genotype T0 or T1 plants by sequencing the target region to determine base editing efficiency. Evaluate potential off-target effects by sequencing predicted off-target sites.

• Phenotypic Analysis: Screen edited plants for expected phenotypic changes and select lines with desired traits for further breeding.

Prime Editing Protocol for Plants

This protocol details the implementation of prime editing in plant systems, incorporating recent optimizations from plant studies [14] [13]:

• pegRNA Design: Design pegRNA with 10-15 nt primer binding site (PBS) and 10-30 nt RT template containing the desired edit. Consider using engineered pegRNAs (epegRNAs) with stabilizing RNA motifs (e.g., evopreQ or mpknot) at the 3' end to enhance stability.

• Vector Assembly: Clone the pegRNA expression cassette into a plant binary vector containing the PE coding sequence (PE2 or PEmax). For difficult edits, include a nicking sgRNA expression cassette for PE3 systems. Use polymerase II promoters for PE expression and polymerase III promoters for pegRNA expression.

• Plant Transformation and Selection: Transform plants using standard methods for your species. Select transformants using appropriate selection markers.

• Editing Efficiency Optimization: For challenging targets, consider strategies to enhance efficiency:

  • Use dual pegRNA systems targeting both DNA strands
  • Co-express MLH1dn to suppress mismatch repair
  • Employ temperature optimization during callus culture

• Molecular Characterization: Sequence target loci in T0 plants to identify precise edits. Screen for potential pegRNA scaffold incorporation by PCR. For applications requiring high purity, use high-fidelity Cas9 variants (e.g., with N863A mutation) to minimize indel formation.

• Generational Stability: Advance edited lines to T1 and T2 generations to assess heritability and stability of edits.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 4: Essential Reagents for Base Editing and Prime Editing Research

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Function and Application
Base Editor Plasmids	BE4max, ABE8e, evoFERNY-CBE	Engineered editor backbones with enhanced efficiency and specificity
Prime Editor Systems	PEmax, PE6 variants, PE7	Optimized PE proteins with improved performance and smaller size
pegRNA Scaffolds	epegRNA, xr-pegRNA, cpegRNA	Enhanced stability pegRNAs with modified 3' structures
Delivery Tools	AAV vectors, lipid nanoparticles, Agrobacterium strains	Efficient delivery of editing components to target cells
MMR Inhibitors	MLH1dn, MSH2 mutants	Suppress mismatch repair to enhance prime editing efficiency
Plant Codon-Optimized Editors	PlantBE, PlantPE	Editors optimized for plant codon usage and expression
Analysis Tools	next-generation sequencing, deep sequencing, computational prediction	Verify editing outcomes and assess off-target effects

Future Perspectives and Concluding Remarks

The ongoing evolution of base editing and prime editing technologies continues to expand the possibilities for precision genome manipulation in plant systems. Future developments will likely focus on enhancing editing efficiency through further optimization of editor architecture and delivery methods, expanding targeting scope via engineered Cas variants with relaxed PAM requirements, and improving specificity through high-fidelity editor variants [60] [62]. The integration of these technologies with emerging methods for large DNA fragment editing—such as twin prime editing for targeted integration of gene cassettes—promises to further bridge the gap between precise nucleotide editing and complex genome engineering [13].

For plant biology and crop improvement, base editing and prime editing offer unprecedented opportunities to study gene function and accelerate breeding programs. These technologies enable the creation of precise genetic variants that mirror natural polymorphism, facilitating the functional validation of candidate genes identified through genome-wide association studies and other genomic approaches [61] [13]. As these tools mature and delivery methods improve, they are poised to become standard components of the plant biologist's toolkit, working alongside—and increasingly replacing—traditional HDR-based approaches for a wide range of applications from basic research to precision crop breeding.

Diagram 2: Evolution of precision genome editing technologies. The field has progressed from DSB-dependent methods to base editing, prime editing, and large DNA fragment editing systems, with each advancement addressing limitations of previous approaches.

The advent of programmable genome editing tools has revolutionized biomedical research and agricultural biotechnology, enabling precise manipulation of genetic sequences in living cells. These technologies have progressed from early meganucleases to more sophisticated systems including zinc finger nucleases (ZFNs), transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALENs), and the groundbreaking CRISPR-Cas systems [58] [63]. Within the CRISPR toolkit, three primary platforms have emerged for achieving precise genetic modifications: homology-directed repair (HDR), base editing (BE), and prime editing (PE). Each technology operates through distinct molecular mechanisms and offers unique capabilities for genetic engineering. Understanding the comparative advantages and limitations of these platforms is essential for selecting the appropriate tool for specific applications in basic research, therapeutic development, and crop improvement.

This review provides a comprehensive technical comparison of HDR, base editing, and prime editing, with particular emphasis on their relevance to plant cellular DNA repair mechanisms. We examine the molecular architectures, editing efficiencies, byproduct profiles, and practical implementation considerations for each technology. Recent advances have highlighted the critical importance of matching the editing technology to the specific genetic outcome desired, as no single platform currently outperforms others across all possible applications [62] [64]. By synthesizing current understanding of these technologies, we aim to provide researchers with a framework for selecting optimal genome editing strategies for their specific experimental or therapeutic goals.

Molecular Mechanisms and Technological Evolution

Homology-Directed Repair (HDR)

Mechanism and Requirements: HDR utilizes the cell's endogenous DNA repair machinery to incorporate exogenous DNA templates with desired sequences at specific genomic locations. This process is initiated by creating double-strand breaks (DSBs) using CRISPR-Cas nucleases, which then recruit repair templates containing homologous sequences flanking the target site [65]. The cellular machinery uses these templates to precisely repair the break, thereby introducing the desired genetic change. HDR is predominantly active in mitotic cells, as it relies on specific cell cycle phases for optimal function, making it particularly suitable for dividing cell types but less effective in post-mitotic cells [65].

Therapeutic Limitations: A significant limitation of HDR-based approaches is the competing error-prone non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) pathway, which often results in a complex mixture of editing outcomes dominated by insertions and deletions (indels) rather than precise edits [64] [65]. This fundamental limitation has driven the development of alternative precision editing tools that can operate independently of DSB formation and HDR pathways.

Base Editing (BE)

Molecular Architecture: Base editors represent a significant advancement in precision editing by enabling direct chemical conversion of one DNA base to another without requiring DSBs. These systems consist of a catalytically impaired Cas protein (typically a nickase) fused to a nucleotide deaminase enzyme [65]. Two main classes of base editors have been developed: cytosine base editors (CBEs) that mediate C•G to T•A conversions, and adenine base editors (ABEs) that mediate A•T to G•C conversions [58] [65]. CBEs contain a cytidine deaminase domain (such as APOBEC1) and a uracil glycosylase inhibitor (UGI) to prevent unintended base excision repair, while ABEs use an engineered tRNA adenosine deaminase (TadA) to deaminate adenine in DNA [65].

Editing Window and Limitations: Base editors operate within a defined "editing window" of approximately 4-5 nucleotides within the spacer region of the target site [58]. This constrained activity window can lead to bystander edits, where additional bases within the window are unintentionally modified alongside the target base [58] [64]. Furthermore, conventional base editors are restricted to specific transition mutations (pyrimidine-to-pyrimidine or purine-to-purine changes) and cannot achieve transversions (pyrimidine-to-purine changes or vice versa) or more complex edits such as insertions or deletions [58] [65]. While recent developments have expanded the capabilities of base editing to include some transversions (e.g., C-to-G or A-to-C), the efficiency and purity of these "swap" editing varies considerably across target sites [65].

Prime Editing (PE)

Search-and-Replace Mechanism: Prime editing represents a paradigm shift in precision genome editing by enabling virtually all possible base-to-base conversions, small insertions, and deletions without requiring DSBs or donor DNA templates [58] [62]. The system employs a fusion protein consisting of a Cas9 nickase (H840A) and an engineered reverse transcriptase (RT) from the Moloney murine leukemia virus (M-MLV), programmed with a specialized prime editing guide RNA (pegRNA) [58] [64]. The pegRNA both specifies the target site and encodes the desired edit via an extended RNA template.

Stepwise Editing Process: The prime editing process begins when the Cas9 nickase component binds to the target DNA and nicks the non-target strand. The liberated 3' hydroxyl group then hybridizes to the primer binding site (PBS) region of the pegRNA, serving as a primer for reverse transcription. The RT enzyme extends the DNA using the reverse transcription template (RTT) of the pegRNA, which contains the desired genetic alteration. This creates a branched DNA intermediate where the original unedited strand coexists with the newly synthesized edited strand. Cellular repair mechanisms then resolve this intermediate by excising the unedited 5' flap and ligating the edited 3' flap, thereby incorporating the edit into the genome [58] [62].

Evolution of Prime Editor Systems: The development of prime editing has progressed through multiple generations with significant improvements in efficiency and specificity. PE1, the original prime editor, established the proof-of-concept but demonstrated limited editing efficiency (10-20% in HEK293T cells) [58]. PE2 incorporated an engineered pentamutant version of M-MLV RT (D200N/T306K/W313F/T330P/L603P) with enhanced thermostability, processivity, and affinity for RNA-DNA hybrid substrates, improving editing efficiency to 20-40% [58] [62]. PE3 further augmented efficiency (30-50%) by incorporating an additional sgRNA that nicks the non-edited strand to bias cellular repair toward the edited strand [58]. More recent versions including PE4, PE5, and PE6 have implemented additional strategies such as dominant-negative MLH1 to suppress mismatch repair and engineered RT variants to enhance editing efficiency and precision [58].

Figure 1: Comparative mechanisms of major genome editing technologies. HDR requires double-strand breaks and donor templates, while base editing and prime editing enable more precise edits without double-strand breaks.

Comparative Technical Specifications

Editing Capabilities and Limitations

Table 1: Comparison of Editing Capabilities Across Platforms

Editing Feature	HDR	Base Editing	Prime Editing
DSB Formation	Required	Not required	Not required
Donor DNA Template	Required	Not required	Not required (encoded in pegRNA)
Point Mutations	All types	C→T, A→G, and recently expanded transversions	All 12 possible base-to-base conversions [64]
Insertions	Large inserts possible	Not possible	Small insertions (demonstrated up to 44bp) [58]
Deletions	Large deletions possible	Not possible	Small deletions (demonstrated up to 80bp) [58]
Editing Window	N/A	Narrow (4-5 nucleotides) [58]	Flexible (can edit bases distant from nick site) [64]
Bystander Edits	N/A	Common limitation [58]	Minimal to none [64]
Suitable Cell Types	Primarily dividing cells	Dividing and non-dividing cells	Dividing and non-dividing cells [64]

Efficiency and Precision Metrics

Table 2: Efficiency and Byproduct Comparison

Performance Metric	HDR	Base Editing	Prime Editing
Typical Editing Efficiency	Highly variable (0.1-20%)	Generally high (typically 10-50%) [65]	Variable (5-50% depending on version and target) [58]
Indel Formation	High (often predominant outcome) [64]	Low to moderate [65]	Very low (1-4% in PE2, slightly higher in PE3) [58] [64]
Off-Target Effects	High (DSB-dependent)	Moderate (DNA/RNA off-target activity) [58]	Very low (multiple hybridization events enhance specificity) [58] [64]
Ratio of Correct:Incorrect Edits	Low (often <1:1) [64]	Moderate to high (bystander edits reduce purity)	High (30-fold higher than HDR for some targets) [64]
Therapeutic Readiness	Limited by efficiency and safety concerns	Multiple clinical trials underway	Preclinical development, rapid advancement [66] [65]

Experimental Implementation and Optimization

Prime Editing Workflow and Optimization Strategies

The implementation of prime editing requires careful design and optimization of multiple components. The following workflow illustrates the key steps in conducting prime editing experiments:

Figure 2: Prime editing experimental workflow from design to validation, highlighting critical optimization parameters.

Advanced Prime Editing Systems

Recent advances in prime editing have focused on improving efficiency through various strategies:

pegRNA Optimization: The design of pegRNAs significantly influences editing efficiency. Critical parameters include primer binding site (PBS) length (typically 10-15 nucleotides), reverse transcription template (RTT) length (typically 10-30 nucleotides), and the inclusion of structural motifs such as pseudoknots at the 3' end to enhance stability and prevent degradation [62] [65]. Computational tools like PEGG (Prime Editing Guide Generator) have been developed to facilitate high-throughput design and ranking of pegRNAs based on multiple parameters [67].

Engineered Editor Proteins: Protein engineering efforts have yielded enhanced prime editors with improved performance. PEmax incorporates mutations (R221K and N394K) in the Cas9 region combined with codon optimization and improved nuclear localization signals [62]. The PE6 series includes editors with compact reverse transcriptase domains (PE6a, PE6b) derived from bacterial and fungal sources through phage-assisted continuous evolution (PACE), maintaining high efficiency while reducing cargo size for improved delivery [62]. PE7 further enhances stability and efficiency by fusing the La motif (amino acids 1-194) to the prime editor complex [58].

Mismatch Repair Inhibition: PE4 and PE5 systems incorporate dominant-negative MLH1 (MLH1dn) to temporarily inhibit the mismatch repair (MMR) pathway, which otherwise tends to reject the edited DNA strand as erroneous. This strategy can increase editing efficiency by 2- to 3-fold while reducing indel formation [58].

Novel Reverse Transcriptase Engineering: Beyond the standard M-MLV RT, researchers have explored alternative reverse transcriptases to enhance prime editing. Recently, a prime editing system utilizing reverse transcriptase from porcine endogenous retrovirus (PERV), termed pvPE, demonstrated 2.39-fold higher efficiency than PE7 with significantly fewer unintended edits across multiple mammalian cell lines [66]. This system, when combined with nocodazole treatment to modulate DNA repair pathways, achieved up to 101.69-fold improvement compared to the original pvPE system [66].

Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Key Reagents for Prime Editing Implementation

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Function and Application
Prime Editor Plasmids	PE2, PEmax, PE6 variants [58] [62]	Express the Cas9-reverse transcriptase fusion protein
pegRNA Expression Systems	Modified sgRNA scaffolds with 3' extensions [58]	Encode target specificity and desired edit sequence
Delivery Vehicles	AAV, Lentivirus, Lipid Nanoparticles [68]	Enable efficient intracellular delivery of editing components
Efficiency Enhancers	MLH1dn, La protein fusions, nocodazole [58] [66]	Improve editing rates through various mechanistic approaches
Design Tools	PEGG, computational prediction algorithms [67]	Facilitate optimal pegRNA design and ranking
Analysis Methods	Next-generation sequencing, sensor libraries [67]	Quantify editing efficiency and specificity

Applications in Research and Therapeutics

Therapeutic Genome Editing

Prime editing has demonstrated significant potential for correcting pathogenic mutations across diverse genetic disorders. Its ability to install precise edits without double-strand breaks makes it particularly attractive for therapeutic applications where minimizing genotoxic risks is paramount [62] [65]. Notable applications include correction of the cystic fibrosis-causing variant R785X, where prime editing achieved precise correction without bystander edits that complicate base editing approaches [64]. Similarly, prime editing has been used to correct the Tay-Sachs disease causing 1278insTATC mutation in HEXA in patient-derived fibroblasts, with PE6b showing higher editing efficiency than PEmax despite its smaller size [62].

In cancer research, high-throughput prime editing sensor libraries have enabled functional characterization of thousands of genetic variants in their native genomic context. This approach has been applied to profile over 1,000 TP53 variants, revealing that certain mutations in the oligomerization domain display opposite phenotypes when studied at endogenous expression levels compared to exogenous overexpression systems [67]. These findings highlight how prime editing enables more physiologically relevant functional genomics studies by maintaining native gene regulation and protein stoichiometry.

Agricultural and Biotechnology Applications

Beyond human therapeutics, prime editing holds promise for agricultural biotechnology and crop improvement. The precision of prime editing enables introduction of beneficial traits without introducing foreign DNA, potentially streamlining regulatory approval [66]. Recent demonstration of triple gene-edited pigs using the pvPE system showcases the potential for multiplex genome editing in complex organisms [66]. In plants, prime editing could facilitate development of crops with enhanced nutritional content, disease resistance, and climate resilience through precise modification of endogenous genes.

Future Perspectives and Challenges

Despite rapid progress, prime editing faces several challenges that must be addressed to realize its full potential. Editing efficiency remains variable across genomic loci and cell types, necessitating further optimization of editor proteins and delivery strategies [69]. The relatively large size of prime editing components presents challenges for packaging into delivery vectors such as adeno-associated viruses (AAVs), driving ongoing efforts to develop more compact systems [62] [68]. Additionally, understanding the cellular determinants of prime editing efficiency, particularly factors influencing the resolution of edited DNA flaps and mismatch repair processing, will be crucial for enhancing performance [58] [62].

Future developments will likely focus on expanding the targeting scope through engineered Cas proteins with altered PAM specificities, enhancing editing efficiency through improved reverse transcriptases and accessory factors, and refining delivery methods for in vivo applications [65] [69]. The integration of machine learning approaches for pegRNA design and outcome prediction will further streamline implementation and improve reliability [67]. As the prime editing toolbox continues to expand and mature, it is poised to become an increasingly versatile platform for precise genome manipulation across basic research, therapeutic development, and agricultural biotechnology.

The comparative analysis of HDR, base editing, and prime editing reveals a complex landscape where each technology offers distinct advantages for specific applications. HDR remains valuable for large sequence insertions but is limited by efficiency and safety concerns. Base editing provides efficient point mutation correction for a subset of possible changes but is constrained by editing window limitations and bystander effects. Prime editing represents the most versatile platform, capable of installing virtually any small-scale edit with high precision and minimal byproducts, though efficiency challenges remain for some targets.

The ongoing refinement of these technologies, particularly the rapid evolution of prime editing systems, continues to expand the possibilities for precise genome manipulation. Selection of the appropriate editing platform depends critically on the specific genetic modification desired, the target cell type, and the required efficiency and purity. As these technologies mature, they promise to accelerate both basic research and clinical applications, enabling new approaches for understanding gene function and treating genetic diseases.

The field of plant genome editing is undergoing a revolutionary shift from random mutagenesis towards precise genetic modification. This evolution is critical for addressing global challenges in food security, climate resilience, and sustainable agriculture. Early genome editing technologies, particularly CRISPR-Cas9, introduced programmable double-strand breaks (DSBs) in plant DNA, relying predominantly on the plant's endogenous non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) repair pathway, which often results in unpredictable insertions or deletions (indels) [70]. While valuable for gene knockouts, this approach lacks the precision required for many advanced breeding applications.

The pursuit of highly efficient precision editing necessitates a fundamental understanding of plant cellular DNA repair mechanisms, particularly the competition between error-prone NHEJ and precise homology-directed repair (HDR) pathways [20] [7]. Unlike mammalian systems, plants possess unique repair characteristics including the absence of a reserved germline, with new organisms deriving from meristematic cells where accumulated mutations can lead to widespread genetic abnormalities [20]. Furthermore, plants must constantly manage DNA damage from endogenous reactive oxygen species (ROS) produced during photosynthesis and metabolic processes, as well as exogenous stressors like ultraviolet radiation [20] [7]. This complex repair environment presents both challenges and opportunities for developing precision editing tools that can predictably and efficiently introduce desired genetic changes without the collateral damage associated with traditional approaches.

DNA Repair Mechanisms: The Foundation of Editing Outcomes

Key DNA Repair Pathways in Plants

The efficacy of genome editing technologies is inextricably linked to the DNA repair pathways they engage. In plants, the major repair pathways include:

• Non-Homologous End Joining (NHEJ): The dominant DSB repair pathway in plants, operating throughout the cell cycle [7]. NHEJ directly ligates broken DNA ends without a template, making it inherently error-prone and responsible for random indel mutations following Cas9-induced DSBs. Key components include Ku70-Ku80 heterodimers that bind DNA ends and DNA ligase IV [20].

• Homology-Directed Repair (HDR): A precise repair pathway that requires a homologous template (such as a sister chromatid or supplied donor DNA) to accurately repair DSBs [70]. While HDR offers the potential for precise gene editing, its efficiency in plants is significantly lower than NHEJ, presenting a major challenge for precise genome modification.

• Base Excision Repair (BER): Critical for correcting small, non-helix-distorting base lesions caused by oxidation, alkylation, or deamination [20] [7]. BER initiates with recognition and removal of damaged bases by DNA glycosylases, followed by strand cleavage, end processing, gap filling, and ligation.

• Nucleotide Excision Repair (NER): A versatile pathway that addresses bulky, helix-distorting DNA lesions such as cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers (CPDs) caused by UV radiation [20] [7]. The multistep process involves damage recognition, dual incisions, oligonucleotide excision, and repair synthesis.

Table 1: Major DNA Repair Pathways in Plants and Their Characteristics

Repair Pathway	Primary DNA Damage Targets	Template Requirement	Fidelity	Key Plant Factors
NHEJ	Double-strand breaks	None	Error-prone	Ku70/Ku80, DNA-PKcs, XRCC4, DNA Ligase IV
HDR	Double-strand breaks	Homologous template	High-fidelity	RAD51, BRCA1, BRCA2, RAD54
BER	Base modifications, single-strand breaks	None (intrinsic)	High	DNA glycosylases, AP endonuclease, POLλ, POLβ
NER	Bulky adducts, pyrimidine dimers	None (intrinsic)	High	XPC, XPA, XPD, XPF-ERCC1, XPG

The following diagram illustrates how these major repair pathways respond to different types of DNA damage, including those induced by genome editing tools:

Manipulating Repair Pathways for Enhanced Precision

Current research focuses on strategically manipulating these repair pathways to favor precise editing outcomes. For HDR-based approaches, key strategies include:

• Cell cycle synchronization: HDR is most active in S and G2 phases, making cell cycle modulation a potential strategy for enhancing HDR efficiency [7].
• Suppression of NHEJ components: Transient inhibition of key NHEJ factors (e.g., Ku70/Ku80) using chemical inhibitors or CRISPRi can reduce competing error-prone repair [20].
• Optimization of donor template design: Strategic use of single-stranded versus double-stranded DNA donors and incorporation of homology arm modifications can significantly impact HDR efficiency [13].

Understanding these fundamental repair mechanisms provides the necessary foundation for developing and optimizing the precision editing tools discussed in the following sections.

Evolution of Precision Editing Technologies

From CRISPR-Cas9 to Base Editing

The development of CRISPR-Cas9 from a bacterial adaptive immune system marked a turning point in genome editing [14] [70]. The system consists of two key components: the Cas9 endonuclease, which creates DSBs in DNA, and a single guide RNA (sgRNA) that directs Cas9 to specific genomic sequences adjacent to a protospacer adjacent motif (PAM) [14]. While revolutionary, the reliance on DSB formation and subsequent repair via NHEJ limited its precision.

Base editors emerged as a breakthrough technology that circumvented the need for DSBs. These systems fuse a catalytically impaired Cas9 (nCas9) with a deaminase enzyme, enabling direct chemical conversion of one base pair to another without DSB formation [71]. The major classes of base editors include:

• Cytosine Base Editors (CBEs): Convert C•G to T•A base pairs through cytidine deaminase activity [71] [59].
• Adenine Base Editors (ABEs): Convert A•T to G•C base pairs using engineered adenosine deaminases [71].
• Dual Base Editors (DBEs): Enable both C-to-T and A-to-G conversions simultaneously [71].

Base editors operate within a defined "editing window" of approximately 4-5 nucleotides in the spacer region and have significantly advanced the field of precision editing by minimizing indel formation compared to standard CRISPR-Cas9 [59]. However, they remain constrained by their limited targeting scope (primarily transitions rather than transversions) and potential for bystander edits within the editing window [71].

Prime Editing: Expanding the Precision Toolbox

Prime editing represents a further evolution in precision editing technology, capable of installing all possible base-to-base conversions, small insertions, and deletions without requiring DSBs or donor DNA templates [59]. The system comprises two key components:

• Prime Editor Protein: A fusion of nCas9 (H840A) with an engineered reverse transcriptase (RT) [59].
• Prime Editing Guide RNA (pegRNA): A specialized guide that both specifies the target site and encodes the desired edit within its reverse transcriptase template (RTT) sequence [59].

The prime editing process involves: (1) binding of the prime editor complex to the target DNA, (2) nicking of the non-target strand by nCas9, (3) reverse transcription of the edit from the pegRNA template, and (4) resolution of the resulting DNA heteroduplex to incorporate the edit into the genome [59].

Significant engineering efforts have enhanced prime editor performance through:

• pegRNA optimization: Incorporating structured RNA motifs (e.g., evopreQ, mpknot) at the 3' end of pegRNAs protects against degradation and improves editing efficiency 3-4 fold [59].
• PE protein engineering: The development of PE2 (with an optimized RT) and PE3 (which incorporates an additional nicking sgRNA) significantly enhanced editing efficiency [59].
• Split systems: Engineering split prime editors (sPE) addresses delivery challenges associated with the large size of prime editing components [59].

Table 2: Comparison of Major Precision Genome Editing Technologies

Technology	Mechanism	Editing Outcomes	DSB Formation	Donor Requirement	Theoretical Targeting Scope	Key Limitations
CRISPR-Cas9	DSB induction + NHEJ/HDR	Indels, precise edits with HDR	Yes	For HDR	PAM-dependent	Low HDR efficiency, indels predominant
Base Editing	Direct chemical base conversion	C→T, G→A, A→G, T→C	No	No	PAM-dependent, editing window constrained	Bystander edits, primarily transitions only
Prime Editing	Reverse transcription from pegRNA	All point mutations, small insertions/deletions	No	No (pegRNA-encoded)	PAM-dependent	Variable efficiency across targets/loci

Advanced Applications: Large DNA Fragment Editing

Beyond single-base changes, recent advances have enabled precise manipulation of large DNA fragments, expanding applications for crop improvement. These technologies leverage both DSB-dependent and DSB-independent mechanisms:

• Targeted Deletions: Using paired CRISPR-Cas9 cuts or dual pegRNA strategies with prime editors to excise specific genomic regions [13] [59]. This approach has successfully deleted segments up to several hundred kilobases in plants, enabling functional studies and trait engineering.

• Gene Replacement: Employing HDR with large donor templates or twin prime editing (twinPE) to replace genomic segments [13]. Recent work has demonstrated precise replacement of entire gene sequences in crops, though efficiencies remain variable.

• Chromosomal Rearrangements: Utilizing coordinated DSBs to induce inversions, translocations, and duplications [13]. For example, CRISPR-Cas9-mediated 75.5-Mb inversion in maize demonstrated the potential for large-scale genome engineering [13].

• Targeted Insertion: Leveraging HDR, prime editing, or recombinase-mediated systems for inserting large DNA fragments, including entire gene cassettes [13]. Advanced systems like PASTE (Programmable Addition via Site-specific Targeting Elements) combine prime editing with serine integrases for precise insertion of large payloads [14].

These applications are particularly valuable for manipulating complex agronomic traits controlled by multiple genes or regulatory elements, enabling sophisticated engineering of metabolic pathways, disease resistance clusters, and architectural traits.

Methodological Advances: Delivery and Detection

Delivery Methods for Editing Components

Efficient delivery of editing reagents remains a critical factor for achieving high editing efficiency. Current delivery approaches each offer distinct advantages and limitations:

• Agrobacterium-mediated Transformation: The most widely used method for plant transformation, particularly for stable integration of editing constructs [70]. While effective, it can result in complex integration patterns and transgene persistence.

• Ribonucleoprotein (RNP) Complexes: Direct delivery of preassembled Cas9-gRNA complexes into protoplasts via PEG-mediated transformation or electroporation [70] [72]. This approach enables transient activity, reduces off-target effects, and avoids DNA integration.

• Viral Vectors: Engineered plant viruses (e.g., tobacco rattle virus, bean yellow dwarf virus) for systemic delivery of editing reagents [55] [70]. Viral vectors offer high infection efficiency but are constrained by payload size limitations.

• Nanoparticle-mediated Delivery: Emerging approach using biomaterial-based nanoparticles to deliver RNPs or nucleic acids, potentially combining efficiency with minimal off-target effects [72].

Detection and Quantification Methods

Accurate detection and quantification of editing outcomes are essential for technology development and application. The most common methods include:

• Targeted Amplicon Sequencing (AmpSeq): Considered the "gold standard" for comprehensive profiling of editing outcomes due to its high sensitivity and accuracy [55]. AmpSeq provides quantitative data on editing efficiency and can detect low-frequency edits in heterogeneous samples.

• PCR-Capillary Electrophoresis/IDAA: Medium-throughput method for fragment analysis that provides accurate efficiency quantification when benchmarked against AmpSeq [55].

• Droplet Digital PCR (ddPCR): Highly sensitive and absolute quantification method suitable for detecting specific known edits, particularly in polyploid species [55].

• Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism (RFLP) and T7 Endonuclease I (T7E1) Assays: Gel-based methods for detecting editing events through altered restriction patterns or mismatch cleavage, but with lower sensitivity and accuracy compared to sequencing-based methods [55].

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Tools for Precision Genome Editing

Reagent/Tool Category	Specific Examples	Function/Application	Key Considerations
Editor Systems	SpCas9, nCas9 (H840A), SaCas9, Cas12	Core editing machinery	PAM specificity, size constraints, efficiency
Deaminase Enzymes	rAPOBEC1, TadA-TadA*	Base editing components	Editing window, sequence context preferences
Delivery Vectors	GeminiVirus replicons, AAV, Agrobacterium binary vectors	reagent delivery	Capacity, tropism, integration frequency
Detection Assays	AmpSeq, ddPCR, RFLP, T7E1	Edit quantification	Sensitivity, throughput, cost, multiplexing capability
Design Tools	CRISPOR, CRISPR-P, PE-Designer	gRNA/pegRNA design	Off-target prediction, efficiency scoring

Future Perspectives and Research Priorities

The trajectory toward highly efficient precision genome editing in plants will require advances in several key areas:

Enhancing Editing Efficiency and Specificity

Future efforts must focus on overcoming the fundamental limitations of current precision editing technologies:

• Expanding Targeting Scope: Engineering novel Cas variants with relaxed PAM requirements and broader sequence compatibility will increase the targetable genomic space [72]. Ongoing discovery of natural Cas orthologs and directed evolution approaches are generating editors with diverse PAM preferences.

• Improving Edit Precision: Reducing off-target and bystander edits through enhanced editor architectures and control mechanisms [72] [59]. Strategies include engineering high-fidelity Cas variants, developing allosteric control systems, and optimizing expression levels to minimize off-target activity while maintaining on-target efficiency.

• Increasing Editing Efficiency: Optimizing editor expression, nuclear localization, and engagement with cellular repair machinery [14] [59]. This includes codon optimization for plant systems, development of plant-specific promoters, and fusion with repair-enhancing domains that modulate the native DNA repair environment.

Mastering DNA Repair Pathway Control

A critical frontier in precision editing is the directed manipulation of endogenous DNA repair pathways to favor desired outcomes:

• HDR Enhancement: Developing strategies to temporarily suppress NHEJ while promoting HDR during specific editing windows [20] [7]. This may include chemical treatments, temperature optimization, or co-expression of key HDR factors.

• Repair Pathway Engineering: Introducing heterologous repair factors or engineered versions of native proteins that bias repair toward precise outcomes [7]. Plant-specific repair mechanisms offer unique opportunities for manipulation not available in mammalian systems.

• Cell-Type Specific Editing: Leveraging tissue-specific promoters and developmentally timed expression to target editing to specific cell types or developmental stages when desired repair pathways are most active [7].

Integration with Systems Biology

The next generation of precision editing will increasingly integrate with multi-omics approaches and predictive modeling:

• Machine Learning-Guided Design: Developing predictive algorithms that incorporate genomic context, chromatin accessibility, and repair dynamics to optimize editing strategies [72]. Training such models requires large-scale editing outcome datasets across diverse plant species and genomic contexts.

• Multi-Gene Engineering: Implementing coordinated editing of multiple genetic elements to engineer complex traits while maintaining precision [13]. This includes developing systems for stacking multiple edits without accumulating unintended mutations.

The following diagram outlines an integrated future workflow that combines these advanced approaches for achieving highly efficient precision genome editing:

The path toward highly efficient precision genome editing in plants represents a convergence of multiple technological frontiers: advanced editor engineering, sophisticated delivery systems, deep understanding of DNA repair mechanisms, and integrative computational approaches. As these technologies mature, they will increasingly enable precise manipulation of complex agronomic traits, accelerating crop improvement for food security and sustainable agriculture. Realizing the full potential of precision editing will require ongoing collaboration between plant biologists, genome engineers, computational scientists, and breeders to translate technological capabilities into transformative agricultural applications.

Conclusion

The mastery of plant DNA repair mechanisms, particularly the interplay between NHEJ and HDR, is fundamental to unlocking the full potential of precision genome editing. While NHEJ offers a robust tool for gene disruption, HDR remains the holy grail for precise allele replacement and gene knock-in, despite its challenges with low efficiency. The development of strategies to modulate DNA repair pathways—through inhibition of NHEJ, suppression of SSA, and cell cycle control—provides promising avenues for improvement. Furthermore, the emergence of base editing and prime editing offers complementary precision tools, though they currently have their own limitations regarding editing scope and efficiency. For biomedical and clinical research, understanding these plant-specific mechanisms is not only vital for creating next-generation crops to ensure global food security but also provides a unique, tolerant model system for studying fundamental genetics. Future research must focus on achieving predictable, high-frequency HDR and integrating these advanced editing technologies into a versatile platform for both basic plant biology and transformative agricultural applications.

References

• 1. HDR vs. NHEJ: CRISPR Gene Editing Techniques [https://www.zeclinics.com/blog/hdr-vs-nhej-in-crispr-gene]
• 2. How Do Plants Cope with DNA Damage? A Concise Review ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9916837/]
• 3. NHEJ and HDR can occur simultaneously during gene ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11301975/]
• 4. Comparative analysis of multiple DNA double-strand break ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12075812/]
• 5. Comparative Analysis of Methods for Assessing On-Target ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2409-9279/8/2/23]
• 6. Systematic quantification of HDR and NHEJ reveals effects ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/srep23549]
• 7. DNA damage and repair in plants – from models to crops [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2015.00885/full]
• 8. The Plant DNA Damage Response: Signaling Pathways ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2019.00653/full]
• 9. Repair and tolerance of oxidative DNA damage in plants [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1383574208001154]
• 10. Protecting DNA from errors and damage - PubMed Central - NIH [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11107726/]
• 11. Growth arrest is a DNA damage protection strategy in ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-60733-1]
• 12. Single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) donor repair templates and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12491282/]
• 13. Advances and prospects of large DNA fragment editing in ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41477-025-02160-0]
• 14. A long journey towards genome editing technologies in ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/genome-editing/articles/10.3389/fgeed.2025.1663352/full]
• 15. Mechanisms of Genome Maintenance in Plants: Playing It ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/genetics/articles/10.3389/fgene.2021.675686/full]
• 16. The plant SMC5/6 complex: DNA repair, developmental ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0981942824009355]
• 17. Fine-Tuning Homology-Directed Repair (HDR) for ... [https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/26/9/4067]
• 18. Microhomology-Mediated End-Joining Chronicles: Tracing the ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12426944/]
• 19. Efficient high-precision homology-directed repair ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41592-023-01949-1]
• 20. Mechanisms of Genome Maintenance in Plants: Playing It ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8258418/]
• 21. DNA Base Excision Repair in Plants: An Unfolding Story With ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6728418/]
• 22. An update on precision genome editing by homology- ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8968426/]
• 23. Development of versatile non-homologous end joining- ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-18911-9]
• 24. Nonhomologous End Joining-Mediated Gene ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3641218/]
• 25. Mechanism and Applications of CRISPR/Cas-9-Mediated ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8388126/]
• 26. CRISPR/Cas9 therapeutics: progress and prospects [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41392-023-01309-7]
• 27. Predictable NHEJ Insertion and Assessment of HDR ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/genome-editing/articles/10.3389/fgeed.2022.825236/full]
• 28. Components of CRISPR/Cas9 [https://blog.addgene.org/components-of-crispr/cas9-our-new-crispr-101-ebook]
• 29. Various Aspects of a Gene Editing System—CRISPR–Cas9 [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7767219/]
• 30. HDR vs NHEJ: DNA Repair Pathway Comparison [https://invivobiosystems.com/crispr/hdr-vs-nhej/]
• 31. Enhancing HR Frequency for Precise Genome Editing in ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2022.883421/full]
• 32. CRISPR/Cas9‐Mediated Gene Knockout in Cereal Crops - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12461677/]
• 33. The multiple layers of RNA response in double-strand ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s12276-025-01572-4]
• 34. CRISPR-Cas9-mediated homology-directed repair for ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2162253124002312]
• 35. Precise genome-editing in human diseases [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41392-024-01750-2]
• 36. Efficient precise knockin with a double cut HDR donor after ... [https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-017-1164-8]
• 37. CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing applications [https://horizondiscovery.com/en/applications/gene-editing]
• 38. Boost HDR Efficiency with new HDR Enhancer Protein | IDT [https://www.idtdna.com/pages/about/news/2025/09/25/integrated-dna-technologies-launches-new-enhancer-protein-to-accelerate-crispr-based-therapies-from-translational-research-to-clinical-breakthrough]
• 39. Methodologies for Improving HDR Efficiency [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/genetics/articles/10.3389/fgene.2018.00691/full]
• 40. Strategies for CRISPR-based knock-ins in primary human ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/immunology/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2025.1589729/full]
• 41. Fine-Tuning Homology-Directed Repair (HDR) for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12071731/]
• 42. Multi-pathway DNA-repair reporters reveal competition ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-32743-w]
• 43. The hidden risks of CRISPR/Cas: structural variations and ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-62606-z]
• 44. Strategies for High-Efficiency Mutation Using the CRISPR/ ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8860194/]
• 45. Impact of CRISPR/HDR-editing versus lentiviral transduction ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10997443/]
• 46. CRISPR-Cas9 HDR optimization: RAD52, denatured, and 5 [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12616026/]
• 47. Detection and Quantification of HDR and NHEJ Induced by ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6372302/]
• 48. Precise, predictable genome integrations by deep-learning ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41587-025-02771-0]
• 49. Highly efficient CRISPR-mediated genome editing through ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-52493-1]
• 50. Advances in Delivery Mechanisms of CRISPR Gene- ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/genome-editing/articles/10.3389/fgeed.2022.830178/full]
• 51. CRISPR Delivery Methods: Cargo, Vehicles, and Challenges [https://www.synthego.com/blog/delivery-crispr-cas9/]
• 52. CRISPR Plasmids - Plants [https://www.addgene.org/crispr/plant/]
• 53. CRISPR 101: Homology Directed Repair [https://blog.addgene.org/crispr-101-homology-directed-repair]
• 54. Predictable NHEJ Insertion and Assessment of HDR ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9037586/]
• 55. Comprehensive benchmarking of genome editing ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12144422/]
• 56. Ultra-Sensitive Quantification Of Genome Editing Events ... [https://www.cellandgene.com/doc/ultra-sensitive-quantification-of-genome-editing-events-using-droplet-digital-pcr-0001]
• 57. Comparing the precision of two digital PCR applications for ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-13143-8]
• 58. Emerging trends in prime editing for precision genome ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12322275/]
• 59. Emerging trends in prime editing for precision genome ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s12276-025-01463-8]
• 60. Advances in base editing: A focus on base transversions [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1383574224000280]
• 61. Advances and Applications of Plant Base Editing Technologies [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12524351/]
• 62. Prime editing: therapeutic advances and mechanistic insights [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41434-024-00499-1]
• 63. Recent advances in therapeutic gene-editing technologies [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S152500162500200X]
• 64. Prime editing – an update on the field | Gene Therapy [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41434-021-00263-9]
• 65. cutting-edge applications of base editing and prime editing in ... [https://translational-medicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12967-024-05957-3]
• 66. Highly efficient prime editors for mammalian genome ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167779925003142]
• 67. High-throughput evaluation of genetic variants with prime ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41587-024-02172-9]
• 68. Advanced delivery systems for gene editing [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2162253125000113]
• 69. Review Prime editing: advances and therapeutic applications [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167779923000859]
• 70. CRISPR-based gene editing in plants: Focus on reagents ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11830140/]
• 71. Plant base editing: a decade of progress and future ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2662173825002103]
• 72. CRISPR/CAS Innovations: Advancing Precision And ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/research-topics/72218/crisprcas-innovations-advancing-precision-and-specificity-in-plant-genetic-engineeringundefined]