4.8 Article

Comparison of TALE designer transcription factors and the CRISPR/dCas9 in regulation of gene expression by targeting enhancers

期刊

NUCLEIC ACIDS RESEARCH
卷 42, 期 20, 页码 -

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/nar/gku836

关键词

-

资金

  1. Wellcome Trust [098051]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31370904, 30972691]
  3. Shanghai Municipal Science and Technology Foundation [10QA1405900]
  4. Training Program of Excellent Young Talents of the Shanghai Municipal Health System [XYQ20110115]
  5. National Basic Research Program of China [2011CB504004, 2010CB945500]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The transcription activator-like effectors (TALEs) and the RNA-guided clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeat (CRISPR) associated protein (Cas9) utlilize distinct molecular mechanisms in targeting site recognition. The two proteins can be modified to carry additional functional domains to regulate expression of genomic loci in mammalian cells. In this study, we have compared the two systems in activation and suppression of the Oct4 and Nanog loci by targeting their enhancers. Although both are able to efficiently activate the luciferase reporters, the CRISPR/dCas9 system is much less potent in activating the endogenous loci and in the application of reprogramming somatic cells to iPS cells. Nevertheless, repression by CRISPR/dCas9 is comparable to or even better than TALE repressors. We demonstrated that dCas9 protein binding results in significant physical interference to binding of native transcription factors at enhancer, less efficient active histone markers induction or recruitment of activating complexes in gene activation. This study thus highlighted the merits and drawbacks of transcription regulation by each system. A combined approach of TALEs and CRISPR/dCas9 should provide an optimized solution to regulate genomic loci and to study genetic elements such as enhancers in biological processes including somatic cell reprogramming and guided differentiation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据