Source 1review2021Microorganisms
Toolkit/fluorescent-protein-based methods to evaluate CRISPR efficacy
fluorescent-protein-based methods to evaluate CRISPR efficacy
Also known as: fluorescent-protein-based methods
Taxonomy: Technique Branch / Method. Workflows sit above the mechanism and technique branches rather than replacing them.
Summary
Fluorescent-protein-based methods are assay approaches discussed for evaluating the efficacy of CRISPR-based genome-editing systems in bacteria. The available evidence supports their use as fluorescence-based functional readouts of bacterial editing performance, but does not specify particular reporter proteins, construct architectures, or assay workflows.
Usefulness & Problems
Why this is useful
These methods are useful as evaluation tools for bacterial CRISPR genome editing efficacy. In the cited review context, they are positioned as part of the methodological landscape for assessing editing outcomes in bacteria, a setting where CRISPR-Cas has been less widely favored than in eukaryotic genome editing.
Problem solved
They address the need to evaluate the efficacy of CRISPR-based genome-editing systems in bacteria. The source does not provide more specific detail on which editing outcomes, performance metrics, or bacterial species are measured.
Problem links
This assay could plausibly support faster validation of CRISPR-based engineering in bacteria, which may be useful if the gap is pursued through microbial editing for methane mitigation. It is not a greenhouse-gas measurement platform, so its relevance is only as an enabling assay for upstream strain engineering.
Taxonomy & Function
Primary hierarchy
Technique Branch
Method: A concrete measurement method used to characterize an engineered system.
Techniques
Functional AssayTarget processes
editingImplementation Constraints
cofactor dependency: cofactor requirement unknownencoding mode: genetically encodedimplementation constraint: context specific validationoperating role: sensor
Only the general use case is supported: application to evaluation of CRISPR-based genome-editing systems in bacteria. No practical details are provided on construct design, excitation or emission properties, expression systems, delivery methods, or instrumentation.
The evidence is limited to a review-level statement that such methods are addressed for evaluating bacterial CRISPR editing efficacy. It does not identify specific fluorescent proteins, reporter designs, detection modalities, host organisms, or validation datasets.
Validation
Cell-freeBacteriaMammalianMouseHumanTherapeuticIndep. Replication
Supporting Sources
Ranked Claims
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
1 source1 linked approval claimfirst-pass slug fluorescent-protein-based-methods-to-evaluate-crispr-efficacy
we also address fluorescent-protein-based methods to evaluate the efficacy of CRISPR-based systems for genome editing in bacteria
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:
Comparisons
Source-backed strengths
The evidence supports that these methods provide a functional fluorescence-based readout for CRISPR editing efficacy in bacteria. No quantitative performance characteristics, sensitivity data, or comparative benchmarking are reported in the supplied evidence.
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 high throughput screening
fluorescent-protein-based methods to evaluate CRISPR efficacy and high throughput screening address a similar problem space because they share editing.
Shared frame: same top-level item type; shared target processes: editing
fluorescent-protein-based methods to evaluate CRISPR efficacy and lateral flow assay strip test combined with CRISPR/Cas12a 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 whole genome screening of gene knockout mutants
fluorescent-protein-based methods to evaluate CRISPR efficacy and whole genome screening of gene knockout mutants address a similar problem space because they share editing.
Shared frame: same top-level item type; shared target processes: editing
Ranked Citations
- 1.