Why the study?
Choosing and implementing safe and effective delivery systems for the therapeutic application of CRISPR/Cas9 remains a significant challenge.
This review summarizes recent advancements, benefits, and limitations of using viral vectors for in vivo delivery of CRISPR/Cas9 components.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May guide vector selection in CRISPR research; leaves open safer alternatives for clinical translation.
The Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeat (CRISPR) and its accompanying protein (Cas9) are now the most effective, efficient, and precise genome editing techniques. Two essential components of the CRISPR/Cas9 system are guide RNA (gRNA) and CRISPR-associated (Cas9) proteins. Choosing and implementing safe and effective delivery systems in the therapeutic application of CRISPR/Cas9 has proven to be a significant problem. For in vivo CRISPR/Cas9 delivery, viral vectors are the natural specialists. Due to their higher delivery effectiveness than other delivery methods, vectors such as adenoviral vectors (AdVs), adeno-associated viruses (AAVs), and lentivirus vectors (LVs) are now commonly employed as delivery methods. This review thoroughly examined recent achievements in using a variety of viral vectors as a means of CRISPR/Cas9 delivery, as well as the benefits and limitations of each viral vector. Future thoughts for overcoming the current restrictions and adapting the technology are also discussed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Misganaw Asmamaw Mengstie (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: