Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38786024›Full record

ReviewCells2024

CRISPR-Based Gene Therapies: From Preclinical to Clinical Treatments.

Marine Laurent, Marine Geoffroy, Giulia Pavani, Simon Guiraud

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cells, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 61 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
61citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

61 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Angiogenic Doping: Plausible Yet Difficult to Detect.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Genomic Impacts of Biological Exposures.Journal of developmental biology · 2026
    Review
  20. Review

1 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Marine LaurentINTEGRARE, UMR_S951, Genethon, Inserm, Univ Evry, Université Paris-Saclay, 91190 Evry, France.
Marine GeoffroySQY Therapeutics, 78180 Montigny-le-Bretonneux, France.
Giulia PavaniChildren's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA.
Simon GuiraudSQY Therapeutics, 78180 Montigny-le-Bretonneux, France.ORCID 0000-0003-1987-7454

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years, clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPRs) and CRISPR-associated (Cas) protein have emerged as a revolutionary gene editing tool to treat inherited disorders affecting different organ systems, such as blood and muscles. Both hematological and neuromuscular genetic disorders benefit from genome editing approaches but face different challenges in their clinical translation. The ability of CRISPR/Cas9 technologies to modify hematopoietic stem cells ex vivo has greatly accelerated the development of genetic therapies for blood disorders. In the last decade, many clinical trials were initiated and are now delivering encouraging results. The recent FDA approval of Casgevy, the first CRISPR/Cas9-based drug for severe sickle cell disease and transfusion-dependent β-thalassemia, represents a significant milestone in the field and highlights the great potential of this technology. Similar preclinical efforts are currently expanding CRISPR therapies to other hematologic disorders such as primary immunodeficiencies. In the neuromuscular field, the versatility of CRISPR/Cas9 has been instrumental for the generation of new cellular and animal models of Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD), offering innovative platforms to speed up preclinical development of therapeutic solutions. Several corrective interventions have been proposed to genetically restore dystrophin production using the CRISPR toolbox and have demonstrated promising results in different DMD animal models. Although these advances represent a significant step forward to the clinical translation of CRISPR/Cas9 therapies to DMD, there are still many hurdles to overcome, such as in vivo delivery methods associated with high viral vector doses, together with safety and immunological concerns. Collectively, the results obtained in the hematological and neuromuscular fields emphasize the transformative impact of CRISPR/Cas9 for patients affected by these debilitating conditions. As each field suffers from different and specific challenges, the clinical translation of CRISPR therapies may progress differentially depending on the genetic disorder. Ongoing investigations and clinical trials will address risks and limitations of these therapies, including long-term efficacy, potential genotoxicity, and adverse immune reactions. This review provides insights into the diverse applications of CRISPR-based technologies in both preclinical and clinical settings for monogenic blood disorders and muscular dystrophy and compare advances in both fields while highlighting current trends, difficulties, and challenges to overcome.

Indexed as

CRISPR-Cas SystemsGene EditingGenetic TherapyAnimalsClinical Trials as TopicClustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic RepeatsHumansMuscular Dystrophy, Duchenneblood disordersCRISPR/Cas9Duchenne muscular dystrophygene editingneuromuscular disordersβ-hemoglobinopathies

Identifiers

PMID38786024
PMCPMC11119143

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.