I am comparing the different platforms for a paper. The approximate cost of constructs and vectors are dependent on the cell line and experiments, varying from hundreds to several thousands but I'm more interested in the cost of setting up the entire platform and the price of the equipment/cost per run.
I am guessing that CRISPR being the newest would be more expensive than its predecessors but I cannot be sure. It isn't available on the website of large biotech companies and I would have to send a query for it to each one for comparison. I was hoping someone here would have an idea. Any input would be greatly appreciated.
Also, if you have any disadvantages for CRISPR that would be helpful too. So far, there seems to be a lot of researchers opting for CRISPR over the other systems. I only have PAM-dependency and off-target edits as major disadvantages so I am looking for financial burdens or other limitations.
Thanks so much.
Dear Darellynn Oo,
for research purposes CRISPR has become so popular because it has many technical advantages over ZNF and TAL, and this also translates into cost advantages. With ZNF and TAL you need to spend considerably more time to design the "target" region and synthesize the individual proteins. In contrast, the Cas9 works via the guideRNA, which can easily be synthesized chemically. Finally, you have to think about the costs of identifying and analyzing all your events. Again, as CRPSPR is easier, faster and more efficient the choise is clear for researchers for almost all purposes. For commercial purposes, the costs and burden of IP becomes a major issue, so companies may choose other technologies depending on who owns the technology, license costs, etc.
Best Markus
Hello Markus and thanks for the response,
I am looking for disadvantages actually. In terms of efficacy, I read that CRISPR is preferred for KO but TALEN has higher precision therefore more suitable for KI experiments.
I know that TALEN has been used for CAR T development (Cellectis) for this reason though I can't be sure whether CRISPR will eventually be a better option in the near future. There's a paper by Fu, 2013 which covers off-target cleavage by gRNA-nuclease constructs in 3 different cell lines and the numbers were fairly high ranging from 8-20+%.
Apart from ease-of-use and nuclease activity, could you describe other advantages that CRISPR would have over TALEN system? I am unbiased since I actually do not use any of them, I'd like to understand all the pros and cons of each system.
Dear Darellynn Oo,
when looking at off-target effects its important to distinguish between delivery of the protein and delivery of genes for expressing the proteins. The latter are active over long periods of time, thus increasing off-target effects. Off-target effects are largely dependent on how the experiments are done. Also, they are of key importance for any genome editing apporaches in humans (somatic cells), but somewhat less critical for other applications, at least in my opinion. Of note, Cellectis owns IP rights for TALEN (if i remember correctly).
With respect to other differences it seems that the ease-of-use and lower costs of CRISPR facilitates further developments of this technology, e.g. to perform epigenetic changes, use Cas9 nickase or inactive Cas9 variants etc. There are already a number of papers out reporting different types of use and applications.
Cheers Markus
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Molecular Cell Biology
- Culture Cells
- Cell Line