ArticleBMC biotechnology2026
PAM-flexible SpCas9 variants expand the targeting scope for porcine genome editing and cellular disease modeling.
Article in BMC biotechnology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCRISPR-Cas-mediated gene editing has revolutionized life sciences, yet the targeting scope of the widely used SpCas9 is limited by its strict requirement for the NGG protospacer adjacent motif (PAM). To overcome this limitation, PAM-flexible SpCas9 variants have been developed and characterized in multiple species; however, their potential in pigs (an important biomedical model for humans) remains unexplored. Here, we systematically evaluated the editing performance of three PAM-flexible SpCas9 variants (SpRY, SpG, and SpCas9-NG) and their derived base editors in porcine fetal fibroblasts (PFFs).
resultsProfiling across 228 target sites revealed that SpRY exhibits nearly PAM-less activity, with significantly higher editing efficiency at NRN (15.82%, R = A/G) than at NYN PAMs (5.75%, Y = C/T). SpG and SpCas9-NG preferentially targeted NGN PAMs, achieving mean efficiencies of 14.81% and 16.33%, respectively. PAM‑flexible cytosine base editors (CBEs) mediated efficient C:G‑to‑T:A conversion, with mean efficiencies of 12.01% for SpRY‑BE4max (NNN PAMs), 15.43% for SpG‑BE4max (NGN PAMs), and 18.39% for SpCas9‑NG‑BE4max (NGN PAMs). Similarly, PAM‑flexible adenine base editors (ABEs) mediated efficient A:T‑to‑G:C conversion, with mean efficiencies of 15.66% for SpRY‑ABE8e (NNN PAMs), 24.16% for SpG‑ABE8e (NGN PAMs), and 20.50% for SpCas9‑NG‑ABE8e (NGN PAMs). By exploiting this expanded targeting scope, we successfully introduced 16 pathogenic single‑nucleotide variants (SNVs) at NRN PAM sites in the porcine genome, with editing efficiencies reaching up to 40.68% for CBEs and 61.76% for ABEs.
conclusionsPAM-flexible SpCas9 variants and their derived base editors greatly expand the targeting scope for porcine genome engineering, thereby substantially broadening the applicability potential of CRISPR-Cas-mediated genome editing tools in porcine genetic improvement and disease model generation.
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.