Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39920233›Full record

ArticleCommunications biology2025

Enhanced genome editing with a Streptococcus equinus Cas9.

Jingtong Liu, Yao Wang, Jingjing Wei, Shengzhou Wang, Miaomiao Li, Zheyong Huang, Sufang Zhang, Huihui Liu, Jinhai Huang, Yongming Wang

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Communications biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Insight into crRNA Processing inInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    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

10 authors.

Jingtong Liu *Center for Medical Research and Innovation, Shanghai Pudong Hospital, Fudan University Pudong Medical Center, Zhongshan Hospital, School of Life Sciences, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200438, China.
Yao Wang *Center for Medical Research and Innovation, Shanghai Pudong Hospital, Fudan University Pudong Medical Center, Zhongshan Hospital, School of Life Sciences, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200438, China.
Jingjing WeiCenter for Medical Research and Innovation, Shanghai Pudong Hospital, Fudan University Pudong Medical Center, Zhongshan Hospital, School of Life Sciences, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200438, China.
Shengzhou WangCenter for Medical Research and Innovation, Shanghai Pudong Hospital, Fudan University Pudong Medical Center, Zhongshan Hospital, School of Life Sciences, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200438, China.
Miaomiao LiCenter for Medical Research and Innovation, Shanghai Pudong Hospital, Fudan University Pudong Medical Center, Zhongshan Hospital, School of Life Sciences, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200438, China.
Zheyong HuangCenter for Medical Research and Innovation, Shanghai Pudong Hospital, Fudan University Pudong Medical Center, Zhongshan Hospital, School of Life Sciences, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200438, China.
Sufang ZhangKey Laboratory of Forest Protection of National Forestry and Grassland Administration, Ecology and Nature Conservation Institute, Chinese Academy of Forestry, Beijing, 100091, China.
Huihui LiuNational Permanent Scientific Research Base for Warm Temperate Zone Forestry of Jiulong Mountain in Beijing, Experimental Center of Forestry in North China, CAF, Beijing, 102300, China.
Jinhai HuangEye Institute and Department of Ophthalmology, Eye & ENT Hospital, Fudan University, NHC Key Laboratory of Myopia (Fudan University), Key Laboratory of Myopia, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Shanghai, China. jinhaihuang@fudan.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9952-3175
Yongming WangCenter for Medical Research and Innovation, Shanghai Pudong Hospital, Fudan University Pudong Medical Center, Zhongshan Hospital, School of Life Sciences, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200438, China. ymw@fudan.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8269-5296

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A large number of SpCas9 orthologs has been computationally identified, but their genome editing potential remains largely unknown. In this study, a GFP-activation assay was used to screen a panel of 18 SpCas9 orthologs, ten of which demonstrated activity in human cells. Notably, these orthologs had a preference for purine-rich PAM sequences. Four of the tested orthologs displayed enhanced specificity compared to SpCas9. Of particular interest is SeqCas9, which recognizes a simple NNG PAM and displays activity and specificity comparable to SpCas9-HF1. In addition, SeqCas9 exhibits superior base editing efficiency compared to SpCas9-NG and SpCas9-NRRH at multiple endogenous loci. This research sheds light on the diversity of SpCas9 orthologs and their potential for specific and efficient genome editing, especially in cases involving base editing.

Indexed as

CRISPR-Associated Protein 9CRISPR-Cas SystemsGene EditingStreptococcusHEK293 CellsHumansCRISPR-Associated Protein 9

Identifiers

PMID39920233
PMCPMC11806022

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.