Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41425600›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in immunology2025

Engineering with care: safety assessment platforms for CRISPR-modified natural killer cells.

Alieh Fazeli, Evelyn Ullrich, Toni Cathomen, Tobias Bexte

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in immunology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
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.

Alieh FazeliInstitute for Transfusion Medicine and Gene Therapy, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Evelyn UllrichDepartment of Pediatrics, Experimental Immunology and Cell Therapy, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Toni CathomenInstitute for Transfusion Medicine and Gene Therapy, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Tobias BexteDepartment of Pediatrics, Experimental Immunology and Cell Therapy, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

CRISPR-based gene editing has become a transformative tool to enhance immune cell therapies. In particular, engineering natural killer (NK) cells with CRISPR/Cas systems has gained traction due to their ability to mediate strong anti-tumor responses in an MHC-unrestricted, non-alloreactive manner. Early trials show the feasibility and safety of allogeneic NK cells, paving the way as scalable "off-the-shelf" products. CRISPR/Cas9 edits genomes by inducing DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs), mainly repaired through non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) or homology-directed repair (HDR). While effective, CRISPR carries risks of off-target (OT) activity that may disrupt essential genes, cause chromosomal rearrangements, or trigger oncogenic changes - posing threats to product integrity and patient safety. These concerns intensify with multiplex editing, where multiple loci are modified to improve function, persistence, and immune evasion. Since unmodified NK cells are typically short-lived, many clinical-stage products are engineered to express IL-15 or related constructs, extending their half-life and amplifying risks associated with unintended changes. This underscores the urgent need for robust safety assessments. In this review, we summarize the current landscape of safety assessment platforms for evaluating gene edited NK cells. We highlight predictive in silico tools, biochemical

Indexed as

CRISPR-Cas SystemsGene EditingImmunotherapy, AdoptiveKiller Cells, NaturalAnimalsHumansallogeniccell therapyCRISPRgene-editingNK cellsoff-targetsafety assessment

Identifiers

PMID41425600
PMCPMC12714958

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.