Skip to main content
. 2020 Sep 23;11(10):1113. doi: 10.3390/genes11101113

Table 1.

Delivery method comparison for gene editing.

Method Delivery Material Approach Carrying Capacity Advantages Disadvantages
Adenoviruses Double-stranded DNA in vivo 7.5–30 kb
  • -

    Enables simultaneous packaging of CRISPR components

  • -

    High transfection efficiency
  • -

    High immunogenicity
Adeno-associated viruses single-stranded DNA in vivo 4.8 kb
  • -

    Mild toxicity

  • -

    Low immunogenicity

  • -

    High transfection efficiency
  • -

    Limited packaging capacity

  • -

    Immunogenicity risk still exists
Lentiviruses single-stranded RNA in vivo 8 kb
  • -

    High transduction efficiency

  • -

    Enables simultaneous packaging of CRISPR components
  • -

    Potential insertional mutagenesis

  • -

    Off-target effects due to persistent expression
Hydrodynamic delivery DNA plasmid, ribonucleoprotein (RNP) in vivo
  • -

    No need for viral vectors

  • -

    Simple

  • -

    Cost-effective
  • -

    Large volumes of gene solution required

  • -

    Traumatic to tissues
Electroporation DNA plasmid, mRNA, RNP ex vivo
  • -

    High transfection efficiency

  • -

    Viral free

  • -

    Amenable to difficult to transduce cells

  • -

    relatively fast

  • -

    Delivery of transient forms of nucleases (i.e., Cas9 RNP)
  • -

    Low cell viability

  • -

    high cost for reagents and cuvettes
Lipid nanoparticles DNA plasmid, mRNA, RNP in vivo
  • -

    Viral free

  • -

    Low cost and no instrument required
  • -

    Toxicity concerns

  • -

    Not efficient delivery for some cell types
Cell-penetrating peptides Protein, RNP in vivo
  • -

    Viral free

  • -

    delivery of transient forms of Cas9
  • -

    Immunogenicity risks

  • -

    inefficient delivery and low editing