ArticleMicrobiology spectrum2025
Comparison of CRISPR-Cas9, CRISPR-Cas12f1, and CRISPR-Cas3 in eradicating resistance genes KPC-2 and IMP-4.
Article in Microbiology spectrum, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Engineered bacterial therapeutics from synthetic biology to clinical translation: A multi-database scientometric analysis, 2000-2026.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2026Review
- Emerging synthetic biology-assisted technologies for overcoming antibiotic resistance: CRISPR-Cas, bacteriophage, microbiome, and metabolic engineering-based solutions.Journal of microbiology (Seoul, Korea) · 2026Review
- Avian PathogenicVeterinary sciences · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Bacterial plasmid encoding antibiotic resistance could be eradicated by various CRISPR systems, such as CRISPR-Cas9, Cas12f1, and Cas3. However, the efficacy of these gene editing tools against bacterial resistance has not been systematically assessed and compared. This study eliminates carbapenem resistance genes KPC-2 and IMP-4 via CRISPR-Cas9, Cas12f1, and Cas3 systems, respectively. The eradication efficiency of the three CRISPR systems was evaluated. First, the target sites for the three CRISPR systems were designed within the regions 542-576 bp of the KPC-2 gene and 213-248 bp of the IMP-4 gene, respectively. The recombinant CRISPR plasmids were transformed into IMPORTANCE: With the continuous development and application of CRISPR-based resistance removal technologies, CRISPR-Cas9, Cas12f1, and Cas3 have gradually come into focus. However, it remains uncertain which system exhibits more potent efficacy in the removal of bacterial resistance. This study verifies that CRISPR-Cas9, Cas12f1, and Cas3 can eradicate the carbapenem-resistant genes KPC-2 and IMP-4 and restore the sensitivity of drug-resistant model bacteria to antibiotics. Among the three CRISPR systems, the CRISPR-Cas3 system showed the highest eradication efficiency. Although each system has its advantages and characteristics, our results provide guidance on the selection of the CRISPR system from the perspective of resistance gene removal efficiency, contributing to the further application of CRISPR-based bacterial resistance removal technologies.
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.