Comparing TALE- and dCas9-Based Designer Transcription Factors

Designed Transcription Factors based on dCas9

Designed Transcription Factors based on dCas9

Genome editing with programmable nucleases using transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALENs) or RNA-guided clustered regularly interspersed short palindromic repeat (CRISPR) associated protein (Cas9) have become popular and important technologies.

These systems can be modified to carry other functional protein domains such that transcription activators like VP64 or repressors like KRAB (Krueppel-associated box) repressor domains to create “designed transcription factors”.

Perturbing patterns of gene expression is a powerful functional genomics tool – transcription repression or mis-activation coupled with phenotype analysis.

TAL Effector Domains can be switched to achieve a variety of functions and activities.

TAL Effector Domains can be switched to achieve a variety of functions and activities.

Given the availability of TALE-based or nuclease-defective Cas9 (dCas9)-based designed transcription factor systems, which is ‘better’?

Gao et al (2014) publish their investigations into this problem in Nucleic Acids Research in the context of mouse embryonic fibroblast cells in vitro.

Using a number of gene expression metrics including luciferase assays, endogenous gene expression measurements and induction pluripotent stem cells Gao et al. found each system had their own characteristics

Clearly CRISPR/Cas9 was more cost effective, scalable and capable of trageting multiple loci but ‘the TALE system has the advantage of customizable length of DNA binding domain.’ (from Gao et al.)

Performance of these two systems was also distinguishable with dCas9-Activators consistently less effective than TALE-Acitvators of transcription while, on the other hand, dCas9-Repressors were as good or better than TALE-Repressors of transcription.  The authors report that binding of dCas9 resulted in physical interference of other transcription factors and this may have contributed to its effectiveness when designed to be a repressor.


Various scissors and shears for particular applications.

There has been a great deal of excitement about genome editing systems recently, and rightfully so.  In this excitement a less nuanced understanding of the systems may lead one to believe that TALEs are obsolete and should be shelved, while CRISPR/Cas9 is going to solve all of our functional genomics problems quickly, easily and cheaply.  Gao et al (2014) like a number of others who have made meaningful comparisons of the systems find that they are different and each with their own pros and cons.  Understanding the capabilities of each system, their limitations and differences are clearly important.  You want to pick the right tool for the job.

Gao et al think that their “results provided the scientific justification of a combined TALE/dCas9 approach for efficient simulataneous genetic activation and repression of independent loci”

Gao X, Tsang JCH, Gaba F, Wu D, Lu L, Liu P (2014) Comparison of TALE designer transcription factors and the CRISPR/dCas9 in regulation of gene expression by targeting enhancers. Nucleic Acids Res  10.1093/nar/gku836


Recent Related Technology Topics Posts:

CRISPR/Cas9-Mediated Conditional Mutagenesis

 CRISPR/Cas9 for RNA Cleavage 

Guide RNA Design & Off-Target Analysis: A Tool for Non-Model Organisms 

Clever CRISPR Knock-In Approach Clever CRISPR Knock-In Approach 

Purified Cas9 Protein for Insect Genome Modification with CRISPRs 


1 Comment

  1. Dear Sir
    We are seeking dsRNA Delivery System that Resists Nuclease Degradation

    A client requires a technology, ideally, or a qualified collaborator for development of a system suitable for oral delivery of dsRNA to insects. The limitation to the current approach involves the inactivation of the dsRNA by a nuclease. Consequently, the client is therefore seeking a dsRNA delivery technology that provides protection from nucleases.

    Ideally, the technology will be completely prepared by the provider and available for testing within the short-term (weeks). Technologies that the client would have to deploy in-house or those that require a longer period of time before the product could be tested are less preferable but also of interest.

    Key considerations for the technology are that it:
    Can be produced in microorganisms and/or plants.
    Has proof of concept for efficacy in delivery of long dsRNA (minimum of 80 bp)
    Has proof of concept for dsRNA oral delivery to insects.

    Technologies of interest include those:
    Using ribonucleic acid binding proteins
    Nuclease inhibitors
    Available for acquisition, licensing and/or collaboration.

    Technologies NOT of interest include those that:
    Involve live viruses
    Use algae-based production methods
    Cannot be produced in a cell-based system

    If you can supply this lead,tell me and lets speak abaut it
    Best Regards
    Tomy Rudyanto
    Accepted leads will be paid for approximately 45 days after acceptance.

    If you can supply a lead for dsRNA Delivery System that Resists Nuclease Degradation, please let me know

    Best Regards
    Tomy rudyanto

Post a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *