Toolkit/CRISPR-Cas-mediated genome editing

CRISPR-Cas-mediated genome editing

Engineering Method·Research·Since 2021

Also known as: CRISPR-Cas

Taxonomy: Technique Branch / Method. Workflows sit above the mechanism and technique branches rather than replacing them.

Summary

CRISPR-Cas-mediated genome editing is a programmable genome-editing approach discussed here in the context of bacterial systems. The cited review summarizes the main approaches for bacterial CRISPR-Cas editing and the difficulties associated with applying these systems in bacteria.

Usefulness & Problems

Why this is useful

This approach is useful because CRISPR-Cas technologies are characterized in the source as simple and programmable, properties that drove their broad impact in eukaryotic genome editing. In bacteria, the review positions CRISPR-Cas as a genome-editing strategy to be considered alongside more laborious multi-step methods such as suicide plasmids.

Problem solved

CRISPR-Cas-mediated genome editing addresses the need for programmable genome modification in bacterial systems. The review specifically frames the problem as how to perform bacterial genome editing despite difficulties that have limited adoption of CRISPR-Cas in bacteria relative to eukaryotes.

Problem links

Need controllable genome or transcript editing

Derived

CRISPR-Cas-mediated genome editing is a programmable genome-editing approach discussed here in the context of bacterial systems. The cited review summarizes its main approaches, associated difficulties in bacteria, and alternative methods intended to circumvent these issues.

Taxonomy & Function

Primary hierarchy

Technique Branch

Method: A concrete method used to build, optimize, or evolve an engineered system.

Target processes

editingtranscription

Implementation Constraints

application domain: crop engineeringcofactor dependency: cofactor requirement unknownencoding mode: genetically encodedimplementation constraint: context specific validationoperating role: builderswitch architecture: multi component

The review includes fluorescent-protein-based methods for evaluating efficacy of CRISPR-based genome-editing systems in bacteria. No construct architecture, delivery modality, host range, or cofactor requirements are provided in the supplied evidence.

The cited evidence states that CRISPR-Cas technologies have not been as widely favored for bacterial genome editing as they have been in eukaryotes. The available evidence here does not specify particular Cas proteins, editing outcomes, efficiencies, or bacterial species, so performance constraints cannot be detailed further from this source set.

Validation

Cell-freeBacteriaMammalianMouseHumanTherapeuticIndep. Replication

Supporting Sources

Ranked Claims

Claim 1engineering promisesupports2025Source 2needs review

CRISPR/Cas-mediated genome editing, stress-inducible promoter engineering, and synthetic transcriptional circuits are promising strategies for fine-tuning HSF expression and enhancing multi-stress resilience in crops.

We also discuss biotechnological strategies such as CRISPR/Cas-mediated genome editing, stress-inducible promoter engineering, and synthetic transcriptional circuits that offer promising avenues for fine-tuning HSF expression and enhancing multi-stress resilience in crops.
Claim 2comparative adoptionsupports2021Source 1needs review

Although CRISPR-Cas technologies revolutionized genome editing in eukaryotes because of simplicity and programmability, they have not been as widely favored for bacterial genome editing.

The discovery and applications of clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)-Cas based technologies have revolutionized genome editing in eukaryotic organisms due to its simplicity and programmability. Nevertheless, this system has not been as widely favored for bacterial genome editing.
Section: abstract
Claim 3comparative adoptionsupports2021Source 1needs review

Although CRISPR-Cas technologies revolutionized genome editing in eukaryotes because of simplicity and programmability, they have not been as widely favored for bacterial genome editing.

The discovery and applications of clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)-Cas based technologies have revolutionized genome editing in eukaryotic organisms due to its simplicity and programmability. Nevertheless, this system has not been as widely favored for bacterial genome editing.
Section: abstract
Claim 4comparative adoptionsupports2021Source 1needs review

Although CRISPR-Cas technologies revolutionized genome editing in eukaryotes because of simplicity and programmability, they have not been as widely favored for bacterial genome editing.

The discovery and applications of clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)-Cas based technologies have revolutionized genome editing in eukaryotic organisms due to its simplicity and programmability. Nevertheless, this system has not been as widely favored for bacterial genome editing.
Section: abstract
Claim 5comparative adoptionsupports2021Source 1needs review

Although CRISPR-Cas technologies revolutionized genome editing in eukaryotes because of simplicity and programmability, they have not been as widely favored for bacterial genome editing.

The discovery and applications of clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)-Cas based technologies have revolutionized genome editing in eukaryotic organisms due to its simplicity and programmability. Nevertheless, this system has not been as widely favored for bacterial genome editing.
Section: abstract
Claim 6comparative adoptionsupports2021Source 1needs review

Although CRISPR-Cas technologies revolutionized genome editing in eukaryotes because of simplicity and programmability, they have not been as widely favored for bacterial genome editing.

The discovery and applications of clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)-Cas based technologies have revolutionized genome editing in eukaryotic organisms due to its simplicity and programmability. Nevertheless, this system has not been as widely favored for bacterial genome editing.
Section: abstract
Claim 7comparative adoptionsupports2021Source 1needs review

Although CRISPR-Cas technologies revolutionized genome editing in eukaryotes because of simplicity and programmability, they have not been as widely favored for bacterial genome editing.

The discovery and applications of clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)-Cas based technologies have revolutionized genome editing in eukaryotic organisms due to its simplicity and programmability. Nevertheless, this system has not been as widely favored for bacterial genome editing.
Section: abstract
Claim 8evaluation method scopesupports2021Source 1needs review

The review addresses fluorescent-protein-based methods for evaluating the efficacy of CRISPR-based genome-editing systems in bacteria.

Finally, we also address fluorescent-protein-based methods to evaluate the efficacy of CRISPR-based systems for genome editing in bacteria.
Section: abstract
Claim 9evaluation method scopesupports2021Source 1needs review

The review addresses fluorescent-protein-based methods for evaluating the efficacy of CRISPR-based genome-editing systems in bacteria.

Finally, we also address fluorescent-protein-based methods to evaluate the efficacy of CRISPR-based systems for genome editing in bacteria.
Section: abstract
Claim 10evaluation method scopesupports2021Source 1needs review

The review addresses fluorescent-protein-based methods for evaluating the efficacy of CRISPR-based genome-editing systems in bacteria.

Finally, we also address fluorescent-protein-based methods to evaluate the efficacy of CRISPR-based systems for genome editing in bacteria.
Section: abstract
Claim 11evaluation method scopesupports2021Source 1needs review

The review addresses fluorescent-protein-based methods for evaluating the efficacy of CRISPR-based genome-editing systems in bacteria.

Finally, we also address fluorescent-protein-based methods to evaluate the efficacy of CRISPR-based systems for genome editing in bacteria.
Section: abstract
Claim 12evaluation method scopesupports2021Source 1needs review

The review addresses fluorescent-protein-based methods for evaluating the efficacy of CRISPR-based genome-editing systems in bacteria.

Finally, we also address fluorescent-protein-based methods to evaluate the efficacy of CRISPR-based systems for genome editing in bacteria.
Section: abstract
Claim 13evaluation method scopesupports2021Source 1needs review

The review addresses fluorescent-protein-based methods for evaluating the efficacy of CRISPR-based genome-editing systems in bacteria.

Finally, we also address fluorescent-protein-based methods to evaluate the efficacy of CRISPR-based systems for genome editing in bacteria.
Section: abstract
Claim 14evaluation method scopesupports2021Source 1needs review

The review addresses fluorescent-protein-based methods for evaluating the efficacy of CRISPR-based genome-editing systems in bacteria.

Finally, we also address fluorescent-protein-based methods to evaluate the efficacy of CRISPR-based systems for genome editing in bacteria.
Section: abstract
Claim 15evaluation method scopesupports2021Source 1needs review

The review addresses fluorescent-protein-based methods for evaluating the efficacy of CRISPR-based genome-editing systems in bacteria.

Finally, we also address fluorescent-protein-based methods to evaluate the efficacy of CRISPR-based systems for genome editing in bacteria.
Section: abstract
Claim 16evaluation method scopesupports2021Source 1needs review

The review addresses fluorescent-protein-based methods for evaluating the efficacy of CRISPR-based genome-editing systems in bacteria.

Finally, we also address fluorescent-protein-based methods to evaluate the efficacy of CRISPR-based systems for genome editing in bacteria.
Section: abstract
Claim 17evaluation method scopesupports2021Source 1needs review

The review addresses fluorescent-protein-based methods for evaluating the efficacy of CRISPR-based genome-editing systems in bacteria.

Finally, we also address fluorescent-protein-based methods to evaluate the efficacy of CRISPR-based systems for genome editing in bacteria.
Section: abstract
Claim 18evaluation method scopesupports2021Source 1needs review

The review addresses fluorescent-protein-based methods for evaluating the efficacy of CRISPR-based genome-editing systems in bacteria.

Finally, we also address fluorescent-protein-based methods to evaluate the efficacy of CRISPR-based systems for genome editing in bacteria.
Section: abstract
Claim 19method characterizationsupports2021Source 1needs review

Bacterial genome editing includes laborious and multi-step methods such as suicide plasmids.

Genome editing in bacteria encompasses a wide array of laborious and multi-step methods such as suicide plasmids.
Section: abstract
Claim 20method characterizationsupports2021Source 1needs review

Bacterial genome editing includes laborious and multi-step methods such as suicide plasmids.

Genome editing in bacteria encompasses a wide array of laborious and multi-step methods such as suicide plasmids.
Section: abstract
Claim 21method characterizationsupports2021Source 1needs review

Bacterial genome editing includes laborious and multi-step methods such as suicide plasmids.

Genome editing in bacteria encompasses a wide array of laborious and multi-step methods such as suicide plasmids.
Section: abstract
Claim 22method characterizationsupports2021Source 1needs review

Bacterial genome editing includes laborious and multi-step methods such as suicide plasmids.

Genome editing in bacteria encompasses a wide array of laborious and multi-step methods such as suicide plasmids.
Section: abstract
Claim 23method characterizationsupports2021Source 1needs review

Bacterial genome editing includes laborious and multi-step methods such as suicide plasmids.

Genome editing in bacteria encompasses a wide array of laborious and multi-step methods such as suicide plasmids.
Section: abstract
Claim 24method characterizationsupports2021Source 1needs review

Bacterial genome editing includes laborious and multi-step methods such as suicide plasmids.

Genome editing in bacteria encompasses a wide array of laborious and multi-step methods such as suicide plasmids.
Section: abstract
Claim 25method characterizationsupports2021Source 1needs review

Bacterial genome editing includes laborious and multi-step methods such as suicide plasmids.

Genome editing in bacteria encompasses a wide array of laborious and multi-step methods such as suicide plasmids.
Section: abstract
Claim 26method characterizationsupports2021Source 1needs review

Bacterial genome editing includes laborious and multi-step methods such as suicide plasmids.

Genome editing in bacteria encompasses a wide array of laborious and multi-step methods such as suicide plasmids.
Section: abstract
Claim 27method characterizationsupports2021Source 1needs review

Bacterial genome editing includes laborious and multi-step methods such as suicide plasmids.

Genome editing in bacteria encompasses a wide array of laborious and multi-step methods such as suicide plasmids.
Section: abstract
Claim 28method characterizationsupports2021Source 1needs review

Bacterial genome editing includes laborious and multi-step methods such as suicide plasmids.

Genome editing in bacteria encompasses a wide array of laborious and multi-step methods such as suicide plasmids.
Section: abstract
Claim 29promise outlooksupports2021Source 1needs review

CRISPR-Cas still holds promise as a generalized genome-editing tool in bacteria and is undergoing further optimization for expanded application in these organisms.

CRISPR-Cas still holds promise as a generalized genome-editing tool in bacteria and is developing further optimization for an expanded application in these organisms.
Section: abstract
Claim 30promise outlooksupports2021Source 1needs review

CRISPR-Cas still holds promise as a generalized genome-editing tool in bacteria and is undergoing further optimization for expanded application in these organisms.

CRISPR-Cas still holds promise as a generalized genome-editing tool in bacteria and is developing further optimization for an expanded application in these organisms.
Section: abstract
Claim 31promise outlooksupports2021Source 1needs review

CRISPR-Cas still holds promise as a generalized genome-editing tool in bacteria and is undergoing further optimization for expanded application in these organisms.

CRISPR-Cas still holds promise as a generalized genome-editing tool in bacteria and is developing further optimization for an expanded application in these organisms.
Section: abstract
Claim 32promise outlooksupports2021Source 1needs review

CRISPR-Cas still holds promise as a generalized genome-editing tool in bacteria and is undergoing further optimization for expanded application in these organisms.

CRISPR-Cas still holds promise as a generalized genome-editing tool in bacteria and is developing further optimization for an expanded application in these organisms.
Section: abstract
Claim 33promise outlooksupports2021Source 1needs review

CRISPR-Cas still holds promise as a generalized genome-editing tool in bacteria and is undergoing further optimization for expanded application in these organisms.

CRISPR-Cas still holds promise as a generalized genome-editing tool in bacteria and is developing further optimization for an expanded application in these organisms.
Section: abstract
Claim 34promise outlooksupports2021Source 1needs review

CRISPR-Cas still holds promise as a generalized genome-editing tool in bacteria and is undergoing further optimization for expanded application in these organisms.

CRISPR-Cas still holds promise as a generalized genome-editing tool in bacteria and is developing further optimization for an expanded application in these organisms.
Section: abstract
Claim 35review scope summarysupports2021Source 1needs review

The review summarizes main approaches and difficulties associated with CRISPR-Cas-mediated genome editing in bacteria and presents alternatives intended to circumvent these issues.

In this review, we summarize the main approaches and difficulties associated with CRISPR-Cas-mediated genome editing in bacteria and present some alternatives to circumvent these issues, including CRISPR nickases, Cas12a, base editors, CRISPR-associated transposases, prime-editing, endogenous CRISPR systems, and the use of pre-made ribonucleoprotein complexes of Cas proteins and guide RNAs.
Section: abstract
Claim 36review scope summarysupports2021Source 1needs review

The review summarizes main approaches and difficulties associated with CRISPR-Cas-mediated genome editing in bacteria and presents alternatives intended to circumvent these issues.

In this review, we summarize the main approaches and difficulties associated with CRISPR-Cas-mediated genome editing in bacteria and present some alternatives to circumvent these issues, including CRISPR nickases, Cas12a, base editors, CRISPR-associated transposases, prime-editing, endogenous CRISPR systems, and the use of pre-made ribonucleoprotein complexes of Cas proteins and guide RNAs.
Section: abstract
Claim 37review scope summarysupports2021Source 1needs review

The review summarizes main approaches and difficulties associated with CRISPR-Cas-mediated genome editing in bacteria and presents alternatives intended to circumvent these issues.

In this review, we summarize the main approaches and difficulties associated with CRISPR-Cas-mediated genome editing in bacteria and present some alternatives to circumvent these issues, including CRISPR nickases, Cas12a, base editors, CRISPR-associated transposases, prime-editing, endogenous CRISPR systems, and the use of pre-made ribonucleoprotein complexes of Cas proteins and guide RNAs.
Section: abstract
Claim 38review scope summarysupports2021Source 1needs review

The review summarizes main approaches and difficulties associated with CRISPR-Cas-mediated genome editing in bacteria and presents alternatives intended to circumvent these issues.

In this review, we summarize the main approaches and difficulties associated with CRISPR-Cas-mediated genome editing in bacteria and present some alternatives to circumvent these issues, including CRISPR nickases, Cas12a, base editors, CRISPR-associated transposases, prime-editing, endogenous CRISPR systems, and the use of pre-made ribonucleoprotein complexes of Cas proteins and guide RNAs.
Section: abstract
Claim 39review scope summarysupports2021Source 1needs review

The review summarizes main approaches and difficulties associated with CRISPR-Cas-mediated genome editing in bacteria and presents alternatives intended to circumvent these issues.

In this review, we summarize the main approaches and difficulties associated with CRISPR-Cas-mediated genome editing in bacteria and present some alternatives to circumvent these issues, including CRISPR nickases, Cas12a, base editors, CRISPR-associated transposases, prime-editing, endogenous CRISPR systems, and the use of pre-made ribonucleoprotein complexes of Cas proteins and guide RNAs.
Section: abstract
Claim 40review scope summarysupports2021Source 1needs review

The review summarizes main approaches and difficulties associated with CRISPR-Cas-mediated genome editing in bacteria and presents alternatives intended to circumvent these issues.

In this review, we summarize the main approaches and difficulties associated with CRISPR-Cas-mediated genome editing in bacteria and present some alternatives to circumvent these issues, including CRISPR nickases, Cas12a, base editors, CRISPR-associated transposases, prime-editing, endogenous CRISPR systems, and the use of pre-made ribonucleoprotein complexes of Cas proteins and guide RNAs.
Section: abstract
Claim 41review scope summarysupports2021Source 1needs review

The review summarizes main approaches and difficulties associated with CRISPR-Cas-mediated genome editing in bacteria and presents alternatives intended to circumvent these issues.

In this review, we summarize the main approaches and difficulties associated with CRISPR-Cas-mediated genome editing in bacteria and present some alternatives to circumvent these issues, including CRISPR nickases, Cas12a, base editors, CRISPR-associated transposases, prime-editing, endogenous CRISPR systems, and the use of pre-made ribonucleoprotein complexes of Cas proteins and guide RNAs.
Section: abstract
Claim 42review scope summarysupports2021Source 1needs review

The review summarizes main approaches and difficulties associated with CRISPR-Cas-mediated genome editing in bacteria and presents alternatives intended to circumvent these issues.

In this review, we summarize the main approaches and difficulties associated with CRISPR-Cas-mediated genome editing in bacteria and present some alternatives to circumvent these issues, including CRISPR nickases, Cas12a, base editors, CRISPR-associated transposases, prime-editing, endogenous CRISPR systems, and the use of pre-made ribonucleoprotein complexes of Cas proteins and guide RNAs.
Section: abstract
Claim 43review scope summarysupports2021Source 1needs review

The review summarizes main approaches and difficulties associated with CRISPR-Cas-mediated genome editing in bacteria and presents alternatives intended to circumvent these issues.

In this review, we summarize the main approaches and difficulties associated with CRISPR-Cas-mediated genome editing in bacteria and present some alternatives to circumvent these issues, including CRISPR nickases, Cas12a, base editors, CRISPR-associated transposases, prime-editing, endogenous CRISPR systems, and the use of pre-made ribonucleoprotein complexes of Cas proteins and guide RNAs.
Section: abstract
Claim 44review scope summarysupports2021Source 1needs review

The review summarizes main approaches and difficulties associated with CRISPR-Cas-mediated genome editing in bacteria and presents alternatives intended to circumvent these issues.

In this review, we summarize the main approaches and difficulties associated with CRISPR-Cas-mediated genome editing in bacteria and present some alternatives to circumvent these issues, including CRISPR nickases, Cas12a, base editors, CRISPR-associated transposases, prime-editing, endogenous CRISPR systems, and the use of pre-made ribonucleoprotein complexes of Cas proteins and guide RNAs.
Section: abstract
Claim 45review scope summarysupports2021Source 1needs review

The review summarizes main approaches and difficulties associated with CRISPR-Cas-mediated genome editing in bacteria and presents alternatives intended to circumvent these issues.

In this review, we summarize the main approaches and difficulties associated with CRISPR-Cas-mediated genome editing in bacteria and present some alternatives to circumvent these issues, including CRISPR nickases, Cas12a, base editors, CRISPR-associated transposases, prime-editing, endogenous CRISPR systems, and the use of pre-made ribonucleoprotein complexes of Cas proteins and guide RNAs.
Section: abstract

Approval Evidence

3 sources6 linked approval claimsfirst-pass slug crispr-cas-mediated-genome-editing
We also discuss biotechnological strategies such as CRISPR/Cas-mediated genome editing, stress-inducible promoter engineering, and synthetic transcriptional circuits that offer promising avenues for fine-tuning HSF expression and enhancing multi-stress resilience in crops.

Source:

We further highlight how multi-omics-guided gene discovery, when paired with CRISPR/Cas-mediated genome editing, enables precise reprogramming of key regulatory loci to enhance adaptive responses.

Source:

we summarize the main approaches and difficulties associated with CRISPR-Cas-mediated genome editing in bacteria

Source:

engineering capabilitysupports

Multi-omics-guided gene discovery paired with CRISPR/Cas-mediated genome editing enables precise reprogramming of key regulatory loci to enhance adaptive responses.

We further highlight how multi-omics-guided gene discovery, when paired with CRISPR/Cas-mediated genome editing, enables precise reprogramming of key regulatory loci to enhance adaptive responses.

Source:

engineering promisesupports

CRISPR/Cas-mediated genome editing, stress-inducible promoter engineering, and synthetic transcriptional circuits are promising strategies for fine-tuning HSF expression and enhancing multi-stress resilience in crops.

We also discuss biotechnological strategies such as CRISPR/Cas-mediated genome editing, stress-inducible promoter engineering, and synthetic transcriptional circuits that offer promising avenues for fine-tuning HSF expression and enhancing multi-stress resilience in crops.

Source:

comparative adoptionsupports

Although CRISPR-Cas technologies revolutionized genome editing in eukaryotes because of simplicity and programmability, they have not been as widely favored for bacterial genome editing.

The discovery and applications of clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)-Cas based technologies have revolutionized genome editing in eukaryotic organisms due to its simplicity and programmability. Nevertheless, this system has not been as widely favored for bacterial genome editing.

Source:

evaluation method scopesupports

The review addresses fluorescent-protein-based methods for evaluating the efficacy of CRISPR-based genome-editing systems in bacteria.

Finally, we also address fluorescent-protein-based methods to evaluate the efficacy of CRISPR-based systems for genome editing in bacteria.

Source:

promise outlooksupports

CRISPR-Cas still holds promise as a generalized genome-editing tool in bacteria and is undergoing further optimization for expanded application in these organisms.

CRISPR-Cas still holds promise as a generalized genome-editing tool in bacteria and is developing further optimization for an expanded application in these organisms.

Source:

review scope summarysupports

The review summarizes main approaches and difficulties associated with CRISPR-Cas-mediated genome editing in bacteria and presents alternatives intended to circumvent these issues.

In this review, we summarize the main approaches and difficulties associated with CRISPR-Cas-mediated genome editing in bacteria and present some alternatives to circumvent these issues, including CRISPR nickases, Cas12a, base editors, CRISPR-associated transposases, prime-editing, endogenous CRISPR systems, and the use of pre-made ribonucleoprotein complexes of Cas proteins and guide RNAs.

Source:

Comparisons

Source-backed strengths

The source attributes simplicity and programmability to CRISPR-Cas technologies. The review also notes fluorescent-protein-based methods for evaluating the efficacy of CRISPR-based genome-editing systems in bacteria, indicating that assay frameworks exist for performance assessment.

Source:

The discovery and applications of clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)-Cas based technologies have revolutionized genome editing in eukaryotic organisms due to its simplicity and programmability. Nevertheless, this system has not been as widely favored for bacterial genome editing.

Compared with caging strategy for crRNA

CRISPR-Cas-mediated genome editing and caging strategy for crRNA address a similar problem space because they share editing.

Shared frame: same top-level item type; shared target processes: editing

Strengths here: looks easier to implement in practice.

Compared with catalytically dead Cas9

CRISPR-Cas-mediated genome editing and catalytically dead Cas9 address a similar problem space because they share editing.

Shared frame: same top-level item type; shared target processes: editing

Compared with gene editing technology

CRISPR-Cas-mediated genome editing and gene editing technology address a similar problem space because they share editing.

Shared frame: same top-level item type; shared target processes: editing

Ranked Citations

  1. 1.
    Best ReviewSource 1Microorganisms2021Claim 7Claim 7Claim 7

    Seeded from load plan for claim c1.

  2. 2.
    StructuralSource 2MED2025Claim 1

    Extracted from this source document.