Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42632941›Full record

Review3 Biotech2026

Advances in gene transfer technologies: comparing viral and non-viral vectors for therapeutic applications.

Praveen Halagali, Raagul Seenivasan, Amatha Sreedevi, Virendra S Ligade, Parashuram Bugadannavar, Himanshu Sharma, Sachchida Nand Rai, Vamshi Krishna Tippavajhala

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in 3 Biotech, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors.

Praveen HalagaliDepartment of Pharmaceutics, Manipal College of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, India.ORCID 0000-0002-1619-8416
Raagul SeenivasanDepartment of Pharmaceutics, Manipal College of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, India.ORCID 0000-0002-3763-3528
Amatha SreedeviDepartment of Pharmaceutical Regulatory Affairs and Management, Manipal College of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, India.
Virendra S LigadeDepartment of Pharmaceutical Regulatory Affairs and Management, Manipal College of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, India.
Parashuram BugadannavarDepartment of Pharmacy Practice, Manipal College of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, India.
Himanshu SharmaDepartment of Pharmacology, Nims Institute of Pharmacy, Nims University Rajasthan, Jaipur, 303121 India.ORCID 0000-0003-1122-3405
Sachchida Nand RaiSaveetha Institute of Basic Medical Sciences (SIBMS), Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences (SIMATS), Saveetha University, Thandalam, Chennai, 602105 Tamil Nadu India.ORCID 0000-0001-8418-9549
Vamshi Krishna TippavajhalaDepartment of Pharmaceutics, Manipal College of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, India.ORCID 0000-0001-6540-9550

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Gene and cell therapies have emerged as transformative approaches for treating a wide range of genetic and acquired diseases. Central to their success is the development of safe and effective gene delivery systems, categorized broadly into viral and non-viral vectors. Each system has its own advantages and limitations, requiring careful consideration of the target tissue, disease, and the balance between safety, efficacy, and scalability. Viral vectors, including adeno-associated viruses, retroviruses, lentiviruses, herpes simplex viruses, and adenoviruses, offer high transduction efficiency and specificity but raise concerns about immunogenicity and production challenges. Non-viral systems, such as lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) and other synthetic carriers, provide scalable, cost-effective, and potentially safer alternatives but often face hurdles in transduction efficiency and targeted delivery. This review provides a comprehensive overview of the current status of these vector systems for in vivo and ex vivo applications. Key comparisons are made across safety, efficacy, scalability, and immune responses, highlighting recent advancements and innovative approaches. We also discuss the outlook for next-generation gene transfer technologies, focusing on improvements in vector design, manufacturing, and application versatility. By addressing these considerations, we aim to inform the development of optimized therapeutic strategies that leverage the unique strengths of each delivery system.

Indexed as

Ex vivo gene transferGenetic engineeringGene transferIn vivo gene transferNon-viral vectorsViral vectors

Identifiers

PMID42632941
PMCPMC13498545

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.