ArticleGene therapy2022
Two high-fidelity variants: efSaCas9 and SaCas9-HF, which one is better?
Article in Gene therapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing: technological advances, delivery strategies and precision engineering of primary cells for therapeutic application in genetic disorders and diabetes mellitus.Molecular biology reports · 2026Review
- CRISPR-Cas9: Genome Engineering and Future Vaccine Applications.Molecular biotechnology · 2026Review
- Therapeutic in vivo genome editing: innovations and challenges in rAAV vector-based CRISPR delivery.Gene therapy · 2026Review
- Orthogonal CRISPR systems for targeted integration and multiplex base editing enable nonviral engineering of allogeneic CAR-T cells.Molecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy · 2025Article
- Engineering adeno-associated viral vectors for CRISPR/Cas based in vivo therapeutic genome editing.Biomaterials · 2025Review
- Review
- Superior Fidelity and Distinct Editing Outcomes of SaCas9 Compared with SpCas9 in Genome Editing.Genomics, proteomics & bioinformatics · 2023Article
- Full-Length Model of SaCas9-sgRNA-DNA Complex in Cleavage State.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Recent Advances in Improving Gene-Editing Specificity through CRISPR-Cas9 Nuclease Engineering.Cells · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
CRISPR/Cas9 (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats/CRISPR-associated endonuclease Cas9) nucleases have been widely applied for genome engineering. Staphylococcus aureus Cas9 (SaCas9) is compact, which can be packaged in AAV (adeno-associated virus) vector for in vivo gene editing. While, wild-type SaCas9 can induce unwanted off-target mutations and substantially limits the applications. So far, there are two reported SaCas9 variants with high-fidelity, including efSaCas9 from our previous study and SaCas9-HF. However, it remains unknown which one possessing the better fidelity and higher activity. Here, we performed a parallel comparison of efSaCas9 and SaCas9-HF in human cells through fluorescent reporter system and target deep sequencing, respectively. The results demonstrated that efSaCas9 possesses higher cleavage activity and fidelity than SaCas9-HF at the most endogenous sites in human cells. Collectively, our study provides insights for the rational selection of suitable SaCas9 for human genome editing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35095097What 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.