ReviewNature protocols2025
Peptide-enabled ribonucleoprotein delivery for CRISPR engineering (PERC) in primary human immune cells and hematopoietic stem cells.
Review in Nature protocols, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Chemically modified CRISPR enzymes for multi-organ genome editingbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- On-target and off-target activities of CRISPR therapeutics across scales.Trends in biotechnology · 2026Review
- CRISPR application in hematological disorders: from bench to bedside.Blood advances · 2026Review
- Self-Assembling Short Peptide Carriers for Gene Delivery.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Calcium Shock Enables Efficient and Programmable Particle Delivery for Genome Editing Applications.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- CRISPR-AuNP: physicochemical optimization of a gold nanoparticle platform for cost-effective and modular non-viral gene editing in HSPCs.Gene therapy · 2026Article
- Scalable purification enables high-quality virus-like particles for therapeutic translation.The Journal of biological chemistry · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Peptide-enabled ribonucleoprotein delivery for CRISPR engineering (PERC) is a new approach for ex vivo genome editing of primary human cells. PERC uses a single amphiphilic peptide reagent to mediate intracellular delivery of the same pre-formed CRISPR ribonucleoprotein enzymes that are broadly used in research and therapeutics, resulting in high-efficiency editing of stimulated immune cells and cultured hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells (HSPCs). PERC facilitates nuclease-mediated gene knockout, precise transgene knock-in and base editing. The protocol involves mixing the CRISPR ribonucleoprotein enzyme with peptide and then incubating with cultured cells. For efficient transgene knock-in, adeno-associated virus (AAV) homology-directed repair template (HDRT) DNA may be included. In contrast to electroporation, PERC is appealing because it needs no dedicated hardware and has less impact on cell phenotype and viability. Because of the gentle nature of PERC, delivery can be performed multiple times without substantial impact to cell health or phenotype. Editing efficiencies can surpass 90% when using either Cas9 or Cas12a in primary T cells or HSPCs. After 3 h dedicated to reagent preparation, the PERC delivery step can be completed in 1 h, with the associated cell culture steps taking 3-7 d total. Because the protocol calls for only three readily available reagents (protein, RNA and peptide) and does not require dedicated hardware for any step, PERC demands no special expertise and is exceptionally straightforward to adopt. The inherent compatibility of PERC with established cell engineering pipelines makes the protocol appealing for rapid deployment in research and clinical settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40032999What 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.