Table 2.
Transposase (TPase) | Pro | Con | References |
---|---|---|---|
TPase driven by an inducible promoter, integrated into the genome | •Usable in most fungi | •Inducible promoters are often leaky and transposon mutants are unstable (the transposase can work on inserted transposons and excise them again) | Li et al., 2011; Gao et al., 2018; Mielich et al., 2018; Segal et al., 2018; Zhu et al., 2018a |
TPase driven by an inducible promoter, on a plasmid | •Stable transposition upon removal of the plasmid | •Some fungi do not support plasmids | Gangadharan et al., 2010; Guo et al., 2013; Michel et al., 2017; Edskes et al., 2018; Mutumwinka et al., 2018; Zhu et al., 2018b; Gale et al., 2020 |
TPase driven by an overexpression promoter, on a plasmid | •Stable transposition upon removal of the plasmid | •Some fungi do not support plasmids •Transposition can only be controlled by removal of the plasmid |
Patterson et al., 2018 |
Transposon (TP) | Pro | Con | |
Inside a selectable feature (on a plasmid or in the genome) | •Transposition from the genome is possible in most fungi | •Some transposons leave excision scars, making selection less efficient | Michel et al., 2017 |
With a selection marker as cargo, on a plasmid | •Clear insertion selection upon removal of the plasmid | •Some fungi do not support plasmids | Gangadharan et al., 2010; Guo et al., 2013; Edskes et al., 2018; Gao et al., 2018; Mutumwinka et al., 2018; Patterson et al., 2018; Zhu et al., 2018a; Gale et al., 2020 |
Inside a gene or promoter of a selection marker with another selection marker as cargo, integrated in the genome or on a plasmid | •Transposition from the genome is possible in most fungi •Clear insertion selection |
•Some transposons leave excision scars, making excision selection less efficient | Li et al., 2011; Mielich et al., 2018; Segal et al., 2018; Zhu et al., 2018b |