4.8 Article

A versatile genetic engineering toolkit for E. coli based on CRISPR-prime editing

期刊

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-021-25541-3

关键词

-

资金

  1. Novo Nordisk Foundation [NNF20CC0035580, NNF15OC0016226, NNF16OC0021746]
  2. Technology Development Program to Solve Climate Changes on Systems Metabolic Engineering for Biorefineries from the Ministry of Science and ICT through the National Research Foundation (NRF) of Korea [NRF-2012M1A2A2026556, NRF-2012M1A2A2026557]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The researchers have developed a CRISPR-based prime editing toolkit for high-fidelity genome engineering in E. coli, allowing for substitutions, deletions, and insertions. While efficiency drops with increased fragment sizes, deletions up to 97 bp and insertions up to 33 bp have been successful under optimal conditions.
CRISPR prime editing enables double-strand break free engineering of the genome. Here the authors present a toolkit for prime editing in E. coli. CRISPR base editing is a powerful method to engineer bacterial genomes. However, it restricts editing to single-nucleotide substitutions. Here, to address this challenge, we adapt a CRISPR-Prime Editing-based, DSB-free, versatile, and single-nucleotide resolution genetic manipulation toolkit for prokaryotes. It can introduce substitutions, deletions, insertions, and the combination thereof, both in plasmids and the chromosome of E. coli with high fidelity. Notably, under optimal conditions, the efficiency of 1-bp deletions reach up to 40%. Moreover, deletions of up to 97 bp and insertions up to 33 bp were successful with the toolkit in E. coli, however, efficiencies dropped sharply with increased fragment sizes. With a second guide RNA, our toolkit can achieve multiplexed editing albeit with low efficiency. Here we report not only a useful addition to the genome engineering arsenal for E. coli, but also a potential basis for the development of similar toolkits for other bacteria.

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