ReviewJournal of industrial microbiology & biotechnology2019
Barriers to genome editing with CRISPR in bacteria.
Review in Journal of industrial microbiology & biotechnology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 75 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
75 citing papers in PubMed.
- Technical limitations of CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing in bacteria: challenges and future directions.Archives of microbiology · 2026Review
- An inducer-independent, single-plasmid CRISPR-Cas9 system for genome editing in Bacillus species.Applied microbiology and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Transferable genetic toolsets for nonmodel gut Clostridia enable in vivo reversible control of metabolite production.Nature biotechnology · 2026Article
- Harnessing endogenous CRISPR-Cas9 for inducible genetic engineering ofApplied and environmental microbiology · 2026Article
- Advances in Decoding Bacterial N-Terminal Proteoforms: Technologies, Challenges, and Functional Insights.Microorganisms · 2026Review
- An optimized CRISPR/Cas9-based genome editing platform enhances bacteriocin production in Lactiplantibacillus plantarum.Journal of biological engineering · 2026Article
- Energy-assisted CRISPR cleavage and probiotic vesicle signaling platform: Microbiome reprogramming for homeostasis.Science advances · 2026Article
- Targeted DNA ADP-ribosylation triggers templated repair in bacteria and base mutagenesis in eukaryotes.Nature biotechnology · 2026Article
- Using auxotrophic donor strains to explore pQBR57 plasmid host range among environmental soil bacterial isolates.Microbiology (Reading, England) · 2026Article
- Genome editing of phylogenetically distinct bacteria using cross-species retron-mediated recombineering.Nature biotechnology · 2026Article
- Application and Research Prospects of CRISPR/Cas Gene Editing Technology in Lactic Acid Bacteria.Microorganisms · 2026Review
- Unlocking genome engineering inMicrobiology spectrum · 2026Article
- Harnessing a germ‑free mouse gut bioreactor for directed evolution of probiotics to combat non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Synthetic Biology of Plants and Microbes for Agriculture, Environment, and Future Applications.Chemical reviews · 2026Review
- Functional characterization of a type I-F1 CRISPR-cas system from the clinical isolate Shewanella xiamenensis Sh95 reveals constitutive activity and plasmid-curing capability.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Multilayered regulation by RNA thermometers enables precise control of Cas9 expression in E. coli.Nucleic acids research · 2026Article
- Identification of proteins influencing CRISPR-associated transposases for enhanced genome editing.Science advances · 2026Article
- Alanine Scanning Analysis of MexB in Multidrug-Resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa Using the Native Type I-F CRISPR-Cas-Mediated Genome Editing.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2026Article
- A comprehensive review of genomic-scale genetic engineering as a strategy to improve bacterial productivity.Microbiology (Reading, England) · 2025Review
- The Human Archaeome: Commensals, Opportunists, or Emerging Pathogens?Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
15 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Genome editing is essential for probing genotype-phenotype relationships and for enhancing chemical production and phenotypic robustness in industrial bacteria. Currently, the most popular tools for genome editing couple recombineering with DNA cleavage by the CRISPR nuclease Cas9 from Streptococcus pyogenes. Although successful in some model strains, CRISPR-based genome editing has been slow to extend to the multitude of industrially relevant bacteria. In this review, we analyze existing barriers to implementing CRISPR-based editing across diverse bacterial species. We first compare the efficacy of current CRISPR-based editing strategies. Next, we discuss alternatives when the S. pyogenes Cas9 does not yield colonies. Finally, we describe different ways bacteria can evade editing and how elucidating these failure modes can improve CRISPR-based genome editing across strains. Together, this review highlights existing obstacles to CRISPR-based editing in bacteria and offers guidelines to help achieve and enhance editing in a wider range of bacterial species, including non-model strains.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.