Cited by 415RNA Interference and Gene DeliveryCRISPR and Genetic EngineeringNanoparticle-Based Drug Delivery

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 205 of the 206 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 167 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Non-viral delivery systems for CRISPR/Cas9-based genome editing: Challenges and opportunities

Open access
Li, Ling, Hu, Shuo, Chen, Xiaoyuan·2018·Biomaterials

Abstract

In recent years, CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeat)/Cas (CRISPR-associated) genome editing systems have become one of the most robust platforms in basic biomedical research and therapeutic applications. To date, efficient in vivo delivery of the CRISPR/Cas9 system to the targeted cells remains a challenge. Although viral vectors have been widely used in the delivery of the CRISPR/Cas9 system in vitro and in vivo, their fundamental shortcomings, such as the risk of carcinogenesis, limited insertion size, immune responses and difficulty in large-scale production, severely limit their further applications. Alternative non-viral delivery systems for CRISPR/Cas9 are urgently needed. With the rapid development of non-viral vectors, lipid- or polymer-based nanocarriers have shown great potential for CRISPR/Cas9 delivery. In this review, we analyze the pros and cons of delivering CRISPR/Cas9 systems in the form of plasmid, mRNA, or protein and then discuss the limitations and challenges of CRISPR/Cas9-based genome editing. Furthermore, current non-viral vectors that have been applied for CRISPR/Cas9 delivery in vitro and in vivo are outlined in details. Finally, critical obstacles for non-viral delivery of CRISPR/Cas9 system are highlighted and promising strategies to overcome these barriers are proposed.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This review argues that efficient in vivo delivery remains a major hurdle for CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing and that non-viral vectors are promising alternatives to viral vectors despite lower delivery efficiency. It surveys plasmid, mRNA, and protein delivery formats, then outlines non-viral vector examples and extracellular/intracellular barriers to clinical translation.

Key findings

  • Non-viral vectors may offer low immunogenicity, absence of endogenous virus recombination, less limitation on large genetic payloads, and ease of large-scale production, but relatively low gene delivery efficiency and transgene expression remain major barriers.
  • The review compares three CRISPR/Cas9 delivery formats: plasmid DNA is simple and stable but large (>7 kb total plasmid) and requires nuclear entry; mRNA gives quick, transient expression but has poor stability and possible low efficiency; Cas9/sgRNA ribonucleoprotein gives the swiftest, most transient editing but is difficult to deliver due to Cas9 size (~160 kD) and charge.
  • Reported non-viral delivery examples include up to 30% editing in HeLa, HEK-293T, and Raw 264.7 cells with arginine-modified gold nanoparticles; 37% reduction in EGFP expression in CHO cells over 4 days with ZIFs; ~39% editing in AGS cells with GO-PEG-PEI; ~20% Cas9-mediated genome modification in cochlear hair cells after Cas9:sgRNA injection; >6% hepatocyte correction in a hereditary tyrosinemia mouse model; and >97% (mice) or >90% (rats) reduction in serum TTR protein levels with LNP-INT01, with editing persisting at least 12 months.
  • The paper highlights barriers including encapsulation difficulty, physiological instability, host immune responses, insufficient targeted accumulation, phagocytic/RES clearance, cellular uptake, endosomal/lysosomal degradation, cytoplasmic mobility, and nuclear import.

Methods

  • Design: narrative review of non-viral delivery systems for CRISPR/Cas9-based genome editing, focusing on challenges and opportunities rather than presenting new primary data.
  • Data/sample: published literature and selected in vitro and in vivo studies on CRISPR/Cas9 delivery using plasmid, mRNA, or protein formats and non-viral vectors.
  • Main analysis: thematic synthesis of delivery formats, non-viral vector examples, disease applications, and extracellular/intracellular delivery barriers, with proposed strategies to overcome them.

Limitations

  • The paper states that non-viral vectors face two main in vivo limitations: serum stability of polyplexes after systemic administration and relatively low transfection efficiency in targeted tissues. It also states that non-viral vectors applied in CRISPR/Cas9 delivery remain very few and that cationic lipid-based vectors, though among the most effective to date, are mainly limited to local administration.
  • The paper states multiple delivery obstacles: effective encapsulation due to large size and charge properties of Cas9 protein, mRNA, and donor DNA; instability under physiological conditions; host immune responses; insufficient accumulation in target tissues; phagocytic clearance and RES blockage; cellular uptake; endosomal/lysosomal degradation; and cytoplasmic mobility/nuclear import.
  • Evident from the text: this is a narrative review with selected examples rather than a systematic review or meta-analysis, so it does not provide quantitative pooled estimates or comprehensive comparative efficacy across all non-viral systems.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2018.04.031

Cites

205 of 205 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 167 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 94 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 39
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 19
57 of 57
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Strategies for facilitating particle accumulation in targeted tissues for non-viral delivery vectors-mediated gene therapy can also be applied to non-viral vectors-mediated CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing.

    “We assume that these strategies can also be applied to non-viral vectors-mediated CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing.”
1 of 1

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Zuris study is cited as an unrelated reference

    Minor

    The text attributes the cochlear genome-editing result to Zuris et al. and cites reference 69, but reference 69 lists Lehrman's article about a gene-therapy death. The bibliography lists the Zuris et al. delivery study as reference 88.

1 of 1

Citations

Cites

1 retracted

Items 201–205 of 205

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 206 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 415

Metadata

Authors
Li, L., Hu, S., & Chen, X.
Affiliations
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • Central South University (CN)
Corresponding author
  • Hu, Shuo
  • Chen, Xiaoyuan
Venue
Biomaterials
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-07
Volume
171
Pages
207-218
ISSN
0142-9612 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2802060782
Cited by
415
References
206
Citations by year
2026: 31 · 2025: 48 · 2024: 59 · 2023: 64 · 2022: 57 · 2021: 71 · 2020: 43 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 8
FWCI
3.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Biomaterials (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (81771873)
  • National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering
  • National Institutes of Health
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › RNA Interference and Gene Delivery
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › CRISPR and Genetic Engineering
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Biomaterials › Nanoparticle-Based Drug Delivery
Keywords
CRISPR/Cas9, genome editing, non-viral delivery, gene delivery vectors, lipid nanoparticles, polymeric nanoparticles, plasmid DNA delivery, mRNA delivery, protein delivery, in vivo delivery, CRISPR therapeutics
MeSH terms
Gene Editing, CRISPR-Associated Protein 9, Disease, Viruses, Gene Transfer Techniques, CRISPR-Cas Systems

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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