| Literature DB >> 34420096 |
Anuradha Bhardwaj1, Vikrant Nain2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Genome of an organism has always fascinated life scientists. With the discovery of restriction endonucleases, scientists were able to make targeted manipulations (knockouts) in any gene sequence of any organism, by the technique popularly known as genome engineering. Though there is a range of genome editing tools, but this era of genome editing is dominated by the CRISPR/Cas9 tool due to its ease of design and handling. But, when it comes to clinical applications, CRISPR is not usually preferred. In this review, we will elaborate on the structural and functional role of designer nucleases with emphasis on TALENs and CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing system. We will also present the unique features of TALENs and limitations of CRISPRs which makes TALENs a better genome editing tool than CRISPRs. MAIN BODY: Genome editing is a robust technology used to make target specific DNA modifications in the genome of any organism. With the discovery of robust programmable endonucleases-based designer gene manipulating tools such as meganucleases (MN), zinc-finger nucleases (ZFNs), transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALENs), and clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats associated protein (CRISPR/Cas9), the research in this field has experienced a tremendous acceleration giving rise to a modern era of genome editing with better precision and specificity. Though, CRISPR-Cas9 platform has successfully gained more attention in the scientific world, TALENs and ZFNs are unique in their own ways. Apart from high-specificity, TALENs are proven to target the mitochondrial DNA (mito-TALEN), where gRNA of CRISPR is difficult to import. This review talks about genome editing goals fulfilled by TALENs and drawbacks of CRISPRs.Entities:
Keywords: CRISPR; Genome editing; Meganuclease; TALEN; ZFN
Year: 2021 PMID: 34420096 PMCID: PMC8380213 DOI: 10.1186/s43141-021-00225-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Genet Eng Biotechnol ISSN: 1687-157X
Fig. 1Schematic illustration of genome editing nucleases inducing double-strand break (DSB) in target DNA. DSBs activate the DNA repair pathways: the error-prone nonhomologous end joining (NHEJ) or accurate but template dependent homologous recombination (HR)
Fig. 2Schematic illustration of mode of action of genome editing nuclease (TALENs and CRISPRs) inducing a double-strand break on the target DNA
Comparison of TALEN and CRISPR/Cas9-mediated genome editing
| Feature | TALEN | CRISPR/Cas9 |
|---|---|---|
| Recognition type | DNA-Protein | DNA-RNA |
| Target site length | 30-36 bp | 23 bp |
| Endonuclease | Fok1 | Cas9 |
| Dimerization | Required | Not required |
| Off-target | Low | High |
| Design and Assembly | Labour intensive | Easy |
| Target Range | Unlimited | Limited by PAM |
| Degenerate Recognition | Yes | No |
| Specificity | High, few mismatches tolerated | Moderate, comparatively more mismatches tolerated |
| DNA methylation sensitive | Yes | No |
| Mitochondrial Genome Engineering | Easy | Complicated |
| Precision of Genome Editing | High | Moderate |