ArticleBiomarker research2026
Biomarker implications of gene editing in hematologic diseases: latest updates from ASH 2025.
Article in Biomarker research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The 2025 American Society of Hematology (ASH) Annual Meeting highlighted rapid advances in gene editing for hematologic diseases, with increasing emphasis on precision editing and early exploration of in vivo delivery strategies. Beyond technological development, several measurable parameters are emerging as potential biomarkers, including fetal hemoglobin (HbF), F-cell proportion, HbF/F-cell, editing durability, and long-term clonal monitoring. Clinical studies demonstrated that disruption of the BCL11A enhancer or editing of the HBG1/2 promoter can induce sustained HbF reactivation, which is associated with reduced transfusion burden or transfusion independence in transfusion-dependent β-thalassemia and improved clinical outcomes in sickle cell disease. Near-pancellular HbF distribution and HbF/F-cell levels above anti-sickling thresholds further support the pharmacodynamic value of HbF-related biomarkers. Long-term follow-up studies have also incorporated editing durability and clonal monitoring into safety assessment frameworks. Emerging platforms such as RNA Gene Writer and CD90-targeted virus-like particles have demonstrated the feasibility of in vivo hematopoietic stem cell editing, although challenges related to targeting efficiency, delivery specificity, immunogenicity, and long-term safety remain. Overall, ASH 2025 suggests a shift from achieving gene editing to quantifying efficacy, durability, and safety, with standardized biomarker frameworks likely to play an increasingly important role in future clinical translation.
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.