ArticlePloS one2026
Functional comparison of SP6 RNA polymerase and T7 RNA polymerase.
Article in PloS one, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
RNA-based therapeutics have emerged as a powerful class of drugs, highlighted by the rapid development and success of COVID-19 vaccines. Therapeutic RNA synthesis relies on in vitro transcription (IVT), most commonly using bacteriophage RNA polymerases (RNAP) such as T7 RNAP and SP6 RNAP. However, efficient incorporation of modified nucleotides and the reduction of double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) by-products to improve pharmacokinetic properties and reduce immunostimulatory effects remain major challenges. While T7 RNAP has been extensively engineered to expand substrate tolerance and reduce dsRNA formation, engineering efforts for SP6 RNAP remain comparatively limited, and a direct functional comparison between the two enzymes is lacking. Here, we systematically compared wild-type (wt) T7 and SP6 RNAP with respect to nucleotide analogue incorporation and dsRNA formation. We evaluated engineered variants of both polymerases for their ability to incorporate the modified nucleotides 2'‑F‑UTP and 2'‑O‑methyl‑UTP during IVT. In general, T7 RNAP displayed higher yields than SP6 RNAP for long RNA transcripts and a T7 RNAP variant demonstrated the highest acceptance of 2'‑F‑UTP. However, when using 2'‑OMe‑UTP in IVT, only a SP6 RNAP enabled synthesis of a ~ 760 nt long transcript. Moreover, the assessment of dsRNA formation with both wild-type polymerases revealed that SP6 RNAP produced substantially less dsRNA than T7 RNAP during IVT. Together, these results highlight distinct and complementary strengths of T7 and SP6 RNAP. While the SP6 RNAP FA variant showed particular promise for the synthesis of mRNA containing bulky nucleotide modifications, the reduced dsRNA formation observed for SP6 RNAP wt suggests an additional advantage for improving RNA quality.
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.