4.7 Review

Rational designs of in vivo CRISPR-Cas delivery systems

期刊

ADVANCED DRUG DELIVERY REVIEWS
卷 168, 期 -, 页码 3-29

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.addr.2019.11.005

关键词

CRISPR-Cas; Drug delivery; Genome editing; Nanomedicine

资金

  1. National Key R&D Program of China [2017YFA0205600]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81801825, 81901875, 81971723, 51633008]
  3. Program for Guangdong Introducing Innovative and Entrepreneurial Teams [2017ZT07S054]
  4. Guangdong Provincial Pearl River Talents Program [2017GC010713]
  5. Outstanding Scholar Program of Guangzhou Regenerative Medicine and Health Guangdong Laboratory [2018GZR110102001]
  6. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities
  7. UCLA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The CRISPR-Cas system has revolutionized genome editing, but efficient delivery to target tissues/cells remains a challenge. This review summarizes the characteristics of different CRISPR-Cas therapeutic tools and investigates current in vivo delivery systems, emphasizing the requirements for efficient delivery in clinical settings and the safety of different tools.
The CRISPR-Cas system initiated a revolution in genome editing when it was, for the first time, demonstrated success in the mammalian cells. Today, scientists are able to readily edit genomes, regulate gene transcription, engineer posttranscriptional events, and image nucleic acids using CRISPR-Cas-based tools. However, to efficiently transport CRISPR-Cas into target tissues/cells remains challenging due to many extraand intra-cellular barriers, therefore largely limiting the applications of CRISPR-based therapeutics in vivo. In this review, we summarize the features of plasmid-, RNAand ribonucleoprotein (RNP)-based CRISPR-Cas therapeutics. Then, we survey the current in vivo delivery systems. We specify the requirements for efficient in vivo delivery in clinical settings, and highlight both efficiency and safety for different CRISPR-Cas tools. (c) 2019 Published by Elsevier B.V.

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

4.7
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