. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Jan 4.

Published in final edited form as: J Mol Biol. 2018 Jun 28;431(1):48–65. doi: 10.1016/j.jmb.2018.06.034

Table 2.

Advantages and disadvantages of different CRISPR-Cas delivery systems

Delivery Method	Advantages	Disadvantages	References
Lentivirus	-Stable gene expression -High transfection efficiency -Good for difficult-to- transfect cells (primary cells) -Large cargo capacity	-Not ideal for in vivo delivery	[61]-[65]
AAV	-High transduction efficiency -Low cytotoxicity -Relevant for in vivo screens	-Limited cargo capacity (4.7 kb) -Expensive	[66], [67]
Electroporation	-High transfection efficiency -Good for difficult-to transfect cells (primary cells) -Beneficial for RNP delivery	-High cytotoxicity -Limited to arrayed screens	[65], [69]-[71]
Lipid nanoparticles	-Low cost -Easy handling -Beneficial for RNP delivery	-Low transfection efficiency -Highly dependent on cell type -Limited to arrayed screens	[65], [69]
*piggyBac* transposon	-Stable gene expression	-Potential for off-target effects -Limited scalability in pooled formats	[72], [73]
Gold nanoparticles	-High transfection efficiency -Large cargo capacity -Less off-target effects -Beneficial for RNP delivery	-Limited to arrayed screens	[69], [74], [75]