Cas9 versus Cas12a/Cpf1: Structure–function comparisons and implications for genome editing
Abstract
Cas9 and Cas12a are multidomain CRISPR‐associated nucleases that can be programmed with a guide RNA to bind and cleave complementary DNA targets. The guide RNA sequence can be varied, making these effector enzymes versatile tools for genome editing and gene regulation applications. While Cas9 is currently the best‐characterized and most widely used nuclease for such purposes, Cas12a (previously named Cpf1) has recently emerged as an alternative for Cas9. Cas9 and Cas12a have distinct evolutionary origins and exhibit different structural architectures, resulting in distinct molecular mechanisms. Here we compare the structural and mechanistic features that distinguish Cas9 and Cas12a, and describe how these features modulate their activity. We discuss implications for genome editing, and how they may influence the choice of Cas9 or Cas12a for specific applications. Finally, we review recent studies in which Cas12a has been utilized as a genome editing tool. This article is categorized under: RNA Interactions with Proteins and Other Molecules > Protein–RNA Interactions: Functional Implications Regulatory RNAs/RNAi/Riboswitches > Biogenesis of Effector Small RNAs RNA Interactions with Proteins and Other Molecules > RNA–Protein Complexes
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
AsCas12a has different PAM requirements and natural very high specificity.
“Among these, AsCas12a has been widely used for its different PAM requirements and a natural very high specificity17–20.”
From Allele specific repair of splicing mutations in cystic fibrosis through AsCas12a genome editing (2019) · cites this paper as [19]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 109 · Cited by 267
- Authors
- Swarts, D. C., & Jinek, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Zurich (CH)
- Department of Biochemistry University of Zurich Zurich Switzerland
- Venue
- WIREs RNA
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2018-05-22
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- e1481-e1481
- ISSN
- 1757-7004 (ISSN-L)
- 1757-7012
- OpenAlex
- W2803295557
- Cited by
- 267
- References
- 109
- Citations by year
- 2026: 32 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 38 · 2019: 32 · 2018: 3
- FWCI
- 2.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews - RNA (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Vallee Foundation
- Howard Hughes Medical Institute
- European Molecular Biology Organization (aALTF 509‐2017, ALTF 179‐2015)
- Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (SNSF 31003A_149393)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › CRISPR and Genetic Engineering
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › RNA regulation and disease
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Bacterial Genetics and Biotechnology
- Keywords
- Cas9, CRISPR/Cas12a, genome editing, guide RNA, DNA cleavage mechanism, RNA-protein interactions, gene expression regulation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review