Small nuclear RNA base editing may be safer than CRISPR, according to the study, which includes research by Yale University scientists.

A new study from UC San Diego and Yale University researchers highlights an alternative approach to genetic editing that may be safer than CRISPR, the most popular method.

CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats) uses RNA and bacterial proteins to edit DNA, a process adapted from a method used by bacteria as an immune defense against viruses’ DNA.

CRISPR, however, can cause unintended, harmful edits and an immune response that kills edited cells, which would outweigh the benefits of gene editing, according to Gene Yeo, PhD, corresponding author on the study and professor in the UCSD School of Medicine Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine.

In the study, published Sept 18 in Nature Chemical Biology, Yeo and his team, which includes researchers from Yale University, tested two other editing systems that also use RNA for gene editing, but with more specific, temporary modifications than CRISPR.

“Human-based editing systems,” as opposed to bacteria-based editing systems, “have less potential for issues,” Yeo said in a press release.

Both editing systems used small nuclear RNAs — RNA molecules that don’t make proteins, located inside the nucleus of cells — to swap out certain “letters” in the genetic code.

The small nuclear RNA approach showed better effectiveness on complex RNAs and created fewer accidental edits, among other advantages.

Genetic editing through a minimally invasive manner like using small nuclear RNA may mean safer, more precise treatments for a variety of diseases.

“We are excited about continuing to advance the field of engineered RNA modifiers,” Yeo said.