Sign in
Synthetic BiologyCellular & Molecular Biology Letters
Peer-reviewed journal article

Profiling the impact of the promoters on CRISPR-Cas12a system in human cells

Jinhe LiiD, Qinchun LiangiD, Huaping ZhouiD, Ming ZhouiD, Hongxin HuangiD

Abstract

The plasmid vector platform is the most commonly used for the expression of the versatile CRISPR-Cas technique and the promoter is a crucial element for the expression vector, thus profiling the impact of the promoters on CRISPR editors provides the basic information for the gene-editing toolkits and can be a guideline for its design. Herein, we made a parallel comparison among four commonly used promoters (CAG,[~]1700bp; EF1a core, [~]210bp; CMV, [~]500bp; and PGK, [~]500bp) in CRISPR-Cas12a system in mammalian cells to explore the impact of promoters on this powerful tool. We found that without badly damaging targeting specificity, the CAG promoter-driving Cas12a editor exhibited the most active (efficiency takes as 100%, specificity index= [~]75%) in genomic cleavage, multiplex editing, transcriptional activation, and base editing, followed by promoter CMV (efficiency=70[~]90% (vs CAG), specificity index= [~]78%), and then EF1a core and PGK (both efficiency=40[~]60%, vs CAG) but with higher specificity (specificity index= [~]84% and [~]82%, respectively). Therefore, CAG is recommended in the CRISPR-Cas12a system for the applications that need a robust editing activity but without size limitation, CMV mostly can be an alternative for CAG when requiring a smaller space, EF1a is similar to PGK with relatively high specificity, but has a smaller size, thus is more suitable for in vivo therapeutic applications. The data outlined the properties of the widely used promoters in the CRISPR-Cas12a system, which can be a guide for its applications and can be a useful resource for the gene-editing field.

02 /Specification & Classification

Click any tag to browse matching papers
Citations
10
FWCI
0.89
Field percentile
top 31%

Reproducibility ledger

Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.

Sign in to file a reproducibility report.

Similarity Map
SelectedSame fieldCross-field
THISHuang '22Luk '22Zhang '22Sharrar '23Nguyen '23Murugan '19
72% semantic matchSynthetic Biology
Hongxin Huang, Weiqi Lv, Jinhe Li+7 more·bioRxiv·Oct 20, 2022