Table 5.
Non-viral methods used in gene delivery for GHL studies.
| Non-viral methods | Advantages (+) and limitations (−) | Example | Reference | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chemical | Lipid/polymer nanoparticles | + Enables dose-dependent delivery | Liposomes | [134] |
| + Easy to produce | Lipofectamine 2000 | [17, 19, 20, 135] | ||
| + Versatile for delivering different forms of CRISPR-Cas9 agents | Polybrene | [136] | ||
| + Biodegradable | Dendritic polymers | [137] | ||
| − Potential cytotoxicity | Polyethylenimine | [39, 138] | ||
| Gold nanoparticles | + High chemical stability | Gold nanoparticles | [51, 52] | |
| + Efficient delivery | ||||
| − Potential cytotoxicity | ||||
| Physical | Microinjection | + Highly specific delivery into a single target cell | Microinjection | [18, 19, 58, 117, 119, 124] |
| + Versatile for delivering different forms of CRISPR-Cas9 agents | ||||
| − Mechanical damage of cells | ||||
| − Low-throughput | ||||
| Electroporation | + Broad applicability of cell types | Electroporation | [6, 139–141] | |
| + Efficient delivery | ||||
| + Versatile for delivering different forms of CRISPR-Cas9 agents | ||||
| − Potential cytotoxicity | ||||
| − Nonspecific delivery | ||||