It is known that CMV promoter has a tendency to lose its transcriptional activity and this is theorized to be due to gradual methylation at its CpG sites which may lead to low-level expression. In that case EF-1a would be better.
I have attached few papers for your reference.
Article Comparison of the EF-1α and the CMV promoter for engineering...
Article A conserved long noncoding RNA, GAPLINC, modulates the immun...
There have been studies that have compared exogenous gene expression in Thp-1 cells using different promoters. The choice of promoter can have a significant impact on the level and specificity of gene expression.
The EF-1 alpha promoter is a constitutive promoter that is active in a wide variety of cell types, including Thp-1 cells. It is typically used to express genes constitutively, meaning that the gene is always active, regardless of the cell's physiological state. EF-1 alpha promoter-driven gene expression is considered as one of the most robust promoters for stable gene expression in various cell lines.
The CMV (Cytomegalovirus) promoter is also a constitutive promoter that is active in a wide variety of cell types, including Thp-1 cells. However, the CMV promoter is considered to be stronger than EF-1 alpha and can drive high-level expression in many cell types. It is also commonly used as a constitutive promoter in various genetic engineering applications.
In some studies, researchers have reported that the CMV promoter was stronger than EF-1 alpha promoter in terms of the level of transgene expression. However, the expression level of the exogenous gene is also dependent on the specific context of the experiment, the gene of interest and the cell line used.
In conclusion, the choice of promoter will depend on the specific needs of your experiment, and both EF-1 and CMV can be useful options. It may be useful to test a few different promoters to determine which one works best for your specific system.