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