4.7 Article

An optimized SpCas9 high-fidelity variant for direct protein delivery

期刊

MOLECULAR THERAPY
卷 31, 期 7, 页码 2257-2265

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.ymthe.2023.03.007

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, a high-fidelity SpCas9 variant suitable for RNP delivery, rCas9HF, was developed and compared with the only available high-fidelity Cas9 variant, HiFi Cas9. The comparative analysis showed different targeting capabilities of the two variants throughout the genome. The development of rCas9HF increases the genome editing solutions for the highest precision and efficient applications.
Electroporation of the Cas9 ribonucleoprotein (RNP) complex offers the advantage of preventing off-target cleavages and potential immune responses produced by long-term expression of the nuclease. Nevertheless, the majority of engineered high-fi- delity Streptococcus pyogenes Cas9 (SpCas9) variants are less active than the wild-type enzyme and are not compatible with RNP delivery. Building on our previous studies on evoCas9, we developed a high-fidelity SpCas9 variant suitable for RNP delivery. The editing efficacy and precision of the recombinant high-fidelity Cas9 (rCas9HF), characterized by the K526D substitution, was compared with the R691A mutant (HiFi Cas9), which is currently the only available high-fidelity Cas9 that can be used as an RNP. The comparative analysis was extended to gene substitution experiments where the two high fidelities were used in combination with a DNA donor template, generating different ratios of non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) versus homology-directed repair (HDR) for precise editing. The analyses revealed a heterogeneous efficacy and precision indicating different targeting capabilities between the two variants throughout the genome. The development of rCas9HF, characterized by an editing profile diverse from the currently used HiFi Cas9 in RNP electroporation, increases the genome editing solutions for the highest precision and efficient applications.

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