ReviewNature reviews. Genetics2026
Monitoring biological effects of somatic cell genome editing.
Review in Nature reviews. Genetics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Editing around the target: epitope engineering to protect stem cell grafts.Blood advances · 2026Review
- Combining modeling approaches for rapid preclinical evaluation of retinal gene therapy.Molecular therapy. Advances · 2026Article
- CRISPR-Cas9 and precision editing technologies linking functional genomics to clinical translation in genetic diseases.Clinical and translational medicine · 2026Review
- On-target and off-target activities of CRISPR therapeutics across scales.Trends in biotechnology · 2026Review
- Reversing cancer cell behavior using AI-guided CRISPR and quantum nanobiology: a systems-based approach to epigenetic reprogramming.Gene therapy · 2026Review
- Towards clinical translation of nanomedicines: Formulation scale-up and model systems.Advanced drug delivery reviews · 2026Review
- Monitoring Fetal Somatic Cell Genome EditingHuman gene therapy · 2026Article
- Exploring the role of CRISPR in advancing space biotechnology: challenges and solutions for human survival beyond earth.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
28 authors.
Funding
Abstract
CRISPR-based genome editing therapeutics are entering the clinic, offering transformative potential but also presenting potential risks. Preclinical-to-clinical toolkits are needed to assess the safety and efficacy of these new therapies and accelerate progress. Emerging technologies to monitor the biological effects of genome editors cover a range of biological scales, from the direct measurement of editing outcomes in DNA, to human microphysiological systems, and non-invasive in vivo imaging. Measurements of on-target and off-target editing outcomes, including sequences unique to humans, provide essential benchmarks to understand functional responses. Microphysiological systems, including organoids and organs-on-chips, enable phenotypic evaluations of editing strategies in varied organ lineages and disease states. Non-invasive imaging modalities can track the biodistribution and activities of genome editors and edited cells in vivo. Collectively, these technologies provide complementary insights across different scales, from the single nucleotide to the whole organism, bridging preclinical therapeutics development with clinical trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.