The clinical translation of CRISPR gene editing is challenged by the lack of delivery systems that are both safe and efficient in therapeutically relevant cell types such as mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs). Non-viral delivery avoids the immunogenicity and genomic integration risks of viral vectors but faces fundamental trade-offs between editing efficiency and cytotoxicity. Here, we present a comprehensive multiomic analysis of four non-viral CRISPR delivery modalities including cell-penetrating peptide- (CPP), lipid-, and polymer-based nanoparticles and electroporation; across mRNA and ribonucleoprotein (RNP) molecular formats. We systematically evaluate each modality, demonstrating that lipid-based delivery achieved the highest editing rates at the cost of genomic instability risks, interferon pathway activation, and a pro-inflammatory shift in MSC paracrine activity. Alternatively, CPPs yield moderate editing rates while reducing these unintended side-effects, whereas polymers and electroporation consistently yielded the lowest efficiencies. CRISPR molecular format and delivery method interacted in a stress-dependent manner, with RNP delivery reducing editing rates under high-stress systems while improving them in lower-stress modalities such as CPP and electroporation. These findings establish that editing efficiency alone is an insufficient metric for delivery system selection, and that genomic stability, transcriptomic dysregulation, and inflammatory response must be treated as primary design criteria for CRISPR therapies.
Graham, J. P., Arteaga, A. V., Moghaddam, A. S., Spiller, K. L., Laverty, D. J., Gonzalez-Fernandez, T.
Advertisement
Stats
- Recommendations n/a n/a positive of 0 vote(s)
- Views 6
- Comments 0