ArticleMicrobial cell factories2020
CRISPR/Cas9-deaminase enables robust base editing in Rhodobacter sphaeroides 2.4.1.
Article in Microbial cell factories, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 52 citations in OpenAlex.
- Base Editors for Engineering Industrial Microorganisms: Types, Applications, and Future Perspectives.Biotechnology journal · 2026Review
- Research progress of base editing and prime editing tools based on the CRISPR/Cas system.Molecular therapy. Nucleic acids · 2025Review
- Genetic tools for engineering Zymomonas mobilis, Cereibacter sphaeroides and Novosphingobium aromaticivorans to improve production of bioenergy compounds.Microbial cell factories · 2025Review
- Development of a highly efficient base editing system for Lactobacilli to improve probiotics and dissect essential functions.Applied microbiology and biotechnology · 2025Article
- Genomic engineering inFrontiers in microbiology · 2025Article
- Multiplex CRISPR-Cas Genome Editing: Next-Generation Microbial Strain Engineering.Journal of agricultural and food chemistry · 2024Review
- Rapid screening of point mutations by mismatch amplification mutation assay PCR.Applied microbiology and biotechnology · 2024Article
- Highly efficient multiplex base editing: One-shot deactivation of eight genes inSynthetic and systems biotechnology · 2023Article
- Base editing enables duplex point mutagenesis inFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Article
- Recent Advances in CRISPR-Cas Technologies for Synthetic Biology.Journal of microbiology (Seoul, Korea) · 2023Review
- The development of an ingestible biosensor for the characterization of gut metabolites related to major depressive disorder: hypothesis and theory.Frontiers in systems biology · 2023Article
- CRISPR-Mediated Base Editing: From Precise Point Mutation to Genome-Wide Engineering in Nonmodel Microbes.Biology · 2022Review
- Characteristics and Application ofFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Review
- Screening and engineering of high-activity promoter elements through transcriptomics and red fluorescent protein visualization inSynthetic and systems biotechnology · 2021Article
- CRISPR/Cas12a-mediated genome engineering in the photosynthetic bacterium Rhodobacter capsulatus.Microbial biotechnology · 2021Article
- Improving CoQMicrobial cell factories · 2021Article
- Genome Editing in Bacteria: CRISPR-Cas and Beyond.Microorganisms · 2021Review
- The transition of Rhodobacter sphaeroides into a microbial cell factory.Biotechnology and bioengineering · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCRISPR/Cas9 systems have been repurposed as canonical genome editing tools in a variety of species, but no application for the model strain Rhodobacter sphaeroides 2.4.1 was unveiled.
resultsHere we showed two kinds of programmable base editing systems, cytosine base editors (CBEs) and adenine base editors (ABEs), generated by fusing endonuclease Cas9 variant to cytosine deaminase PmCDA1 or heterodimer adenine deaminase TadA-TadA*, respectively. Using CBEs, we were able to obtain C-to-T mutation of single and double targets following the first induction step, with the efficiency of up to 97% and 43%; while the second induction step was needed in the case of triple target, with the screening rate of 47%. Using ABEs, we were only able to gain A-to-G mutation of single target after the second induction step, with the screening rate of 30%. Additionally, we performed a knockout analysis to identify the genes responsible for coenzyme Q10 biosynthesis and found that ubiF, ubiA, ubiG, and ubiX to be the most crucial ones.
conclusionsTogether, CBEs and ABEs serve as alternative methods for genetic manipulation in Rhodobacter sphaeroides and will shed light on the fundamental research of other bacteria that are hard to be directly edited by Cas9-sgRNA.
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.