Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42662076›Full record

ReviewMolecular therapy. Advances2026

From epigenetic mark detection to rational design of epigenetic editing strategies.

Ali Faiq, Sibtain Haider, Claudio Mussolino

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Molecular therapy. Advances, 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

3 authors.

Ali FaiqInstitute for Transfusion Medicine and Gene Therapy, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, 79106 Freiburg, Germany.
Sibtain HaiderInstitute for Transfusion Medicine and Gene Therapy, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, 79106 Freiburg, Germany.
Claudio MussolinoInstitute for Transfusion Medicine and Gene Therapy, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, 79106 Freiburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although cells within an organism share nearly identical genomes, their transcriptional programs differ markedly due to reversible chemical modifications known as epigenetic marks. These marks, including DNA methylation and histone modifications, regulate gene expression without altering DNA sequence and play a central role in development and disease. While epigenetic drugs such as DNA methyltransferase inhibitors have shown clinical benefit, their genome-wide activity often results in off-target toxicity limiting broader therapeutic applications. This has driven the development of locus-specific epigenetic editing strategies. Programmable epigenetic modifiers (PEMs) combine customizable DNA-binding platforms, such as CRISPR-dCas systems, transcription activator-like effectors (TALEs), or zinc fingers, with epigenetic effector domains to precisely install or remove regulatory marks at defined genomic loci. Because effective editing depends on the pre-existing epigenetic landscape, detection and characterization of target-site epigenetic states is a prerequisite for rational editor design, increasingly aided by machine-learning models that predict editing outcomes. In this review, we summarize current technologies for epigenetic mark detection and discuss the transition from global pharmacological approaches to programmable, modular editing systems that enable spatial and temporal control of gene regulation. We further address heritability and delivery constraints. Reversible, site-specific epigenetic editing represents a promising therapeutic paradigm for cancer, genetic disorders, and regenerative medicine.

Indexed as

CRISPR dCas9epigenetic mappingepigenetic marksprogrammable epigenetic modifiersTALEs

Identifiers

PMID42662076
PMCPMC13519620

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.