Skip to main content

Table 1 Comparison of genome editing techniques (ZFN vs TALEN vs CRISPR)

From: CRISPR/Cas9 revitalizes adoptive T-cell therapy for cancer immunotherapy

 

ZFN

TALEN

CRISPR

Recognition Site

Zinc finger proteins

RVD regions of TALE protein

Single guide RNA

Target Sequence Length (bp†)

9–12

14–20

~ 20

Nuclease

FokI nuclease

FokI nuclease

Cas9 protein

Engineering Feasibility

Low

Higher

Highest

Cytotoxicity

High

Moderate

Moderate

Susceptibility to Immune Reactions

Low

Low

Moderate

Clinical Trials Usage

Moderate

Low

High

Enzyme Engineering

Difficult

Easy

Very easy

Means of Recognition

Protein

Protein

RNA-DNA pairing and then protein

Efficiency

Moderate

Moderate

High

Specificity

Low

Moderate

High

Multiple Gene Editing

No

Yes

Yes

Gene Editing in Babies

No

No

Yes

RNA Editing

No

No

Yes

Vector Delivery

Easy due to small size

Difficult due to large size

Moderate as SpCas9 is relatively large

Cost

Low

High

Low

  1. bp Base pair, ZFN Zinc-finger nuclease, TALEN Transcription activator-like effector nuclease, CRISPR Clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeat