ArticleFrontiers in genome editing2026
Highly efficient CRISPR editing enabled by magnetic nanoparticle delivery.
Article in Frontiers in genome editing, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Efficient delivery of CRISPR components remains a major determinant of genome editing outcomes. In this study, we compared conventional lipofection with magnetic nanoparticle-assisted gene delivery (magnetofection) for CRISPR-mediated genome editing efficiency using SpCas9 and AsCas12a systems. Based on the average values obtained from multiple independent targets, lipofection resulted in relatively low indel efficiencies, with mean values of average 8.1%-12.47%. In contrast, magnetofection markedly enhanced genome editing outcomes, yielding average indel efficiencies of average 42.29%-45.04%, representing a substantial increase (3.39- and 5.56-fold, respectively) compared with lipofection. This enhancement was consistently observed across both SpCas9-and AsCas12a-mediated editing, indicating that the improved efficiency conferred by magnetic nanoparticle delivery is independent of the nuclease platform. Furthermore, the increased performance of magnetofection was reproducible across multiple genomic loci and cell lines and was also effective under RNP-based delivery conditions, demonstrating its robustness and reliability. In addition to indel-based genome disruption, magnetofection also significantly improved prime editing efficiency (13.95% on average) compared to lipofection (3.81% on average). Overall, our results demonstrate that magnetic nanoparticle-mediated delivery enables highly efficient and reproducible CRISPR genome editing, substantially outperforming conventional lipofection for both indel formation and prime editing. Magnetofection therefore represents a powerful and broadly applicable delivery strategy for next-generation genome editing applications.
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.