Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35174354›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in genome editing2022

Highly Efficient Genome Editing in Plant Protoplasts by Ribonucleoprotein Delivery of CRISPR-Cas12a Nucleases.

Yingxiao Zhang, Yanhao Cheng, Hong Fang, Nathaniel Roberts, Liyang Zhang, Christopher A Vakulskas, Randall P Niedz, James N Culver, Yiping Qi

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in genome editing, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Genome Editing by Grafting.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. DNA-free CRISPR genome editing in raspberry (Frontiers in genome editing · 2025
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. CRISPR/Cas as a Genome-Editing Technique in Fruit Tree Breeding.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Yingxiao ZhangDepartment of Plant Science and Landscape Architecture, University of Maryland, College Park, College Park, MD, United States.
Yanhao ChengDepartment of Plant Science and Landscape Architecture, University of Maryland, College Park, College Park, MD, United States.
Hong FangDepartment of Plant Science and Landscape Architecture, University of Maryland, College Park, College Park, MD, United States.
Nathaniel RobertsIntegrated DNA Technologies, Coralville, IA, United States.
Liyang ZhangIntegrated DNA Technologies, Coralville, IA, United States.
Christopher A VakulskasIntegrated DNA Technologies, Coralville, IA, United States.
Randall P NiedzU.S. Horticultural Research Laboratory, USDA-Agricultural Research Service, Fort Pierce, FL, United States.
James N CulverDepartment of Plant Science and Landscape Architecture, University of Maryland, College Park, College Park, MD, United States.
Yiping QiDepartment of Plant Science and Landscape Architecture, University of Maryland, College Park, College Park, MD, United States.
Integrated DNA Technologies (United States) · USUniversity of Maryland, College Park · USInstitute for Bioscience and Biotechnology ResearchNanjing Agricultural University · CNU.S. Horticultural Research Laboratory · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR) mediated genome editing is a powerful approach for crop improvement. Traditional transformation methods based on plasmid delivery pose concerns associated with transgene integration and off-target effects. CRISPR delivered as ribonucleoproteins (RNPs) can prevent exogenous DNA integration, minimize off-target effects, and reduce cellular toxicity. Although RNP delivered CRISPR genome editing has been demonstrated in many plant species, optimization strategies that yield high editing efficiencies have not been thoroughly investigated. Using rice and citrus protoplast systems we demonstrated highly efficient genome editing using Cas12a delivered as RNPs. Four Cas12a variants, including LbCas12a, LbCas12a-E795L, AsCas12a, and AsCas12a Ultra, were investigated. Nearly 100% editing efficiency was observed for three out of four target sites by LbCas12a, LbCas12a-E795L, and AsCas12a Ultra, as measured by restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) and verified by next generation sequencing of PCR amplicons. RNP delivery resulted in higher editing efficiencies than plasmid delivery at 32°C and 25°C. LbCas12a and LbCas12a-E795L demonstrated increased editing efficiencies in comparison to AsCas12a and AsCas12a Ultra, especially when used at lower RNP concentrations. In addition, we discovered that a 1:1 Cas12a:crRNA molar ratio is sufficient to achieve efficient genome editing. Nuclear localization signals (NLSs) are essential for efficient RNP-based genome editing. However, the different crRNA modifications tested did not significantly improve genome editing efficiency. Finally, we applied the Cas12a RNP system in citrus protoplasts and obtained similarly high editing efficiencies at the target site. Our study provides a comprehensive guideline for Cas12a-mediated genome editing using RNP delivery in plant cells, setting the foundation for the generation of transgene-free genome edited plants.

Indexed as

citrusCRISPR-Cas12agenome editingprotoplastribonucleoproteinrice

Identifiers

PMID35174354
PMCPMC8842731
OpenAlexW4213079748

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.