ReviewClinical and translational medicine2026
CRISPR-Cas9 and precision editing technologies linking functional genomics to clinical translation in genetic diseases.
Review in Clinical and translational medicine, 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
backgroundCRISPR-Cas9 and derivative precision-editing platforms increasingly connect pathogenic variant interpretation with functional genomics and therapeutic development in genetic diseases. This narrative review focuses on a variant-mechanism-driven framework for matching editing strategies to mutation structure, functional consequence, disease-model evidence, delivery feasibility, safety risk, and translational readiness. MAIN BODY: The review summarizes how monogenic, polygenic, coding, non-coding, mitochondrial, and complex disease contexts influence the choice of canonical Cas9 editing, base editing, prime editing, Cas variants, CRISPR interference/activation, epigenome editing, and disease-model systems. It further compares ex vivo and in vivo delivery routes, safety assessment strategies, immunogenicity and genotoxicity concerns, and clinical implementation barriers, including CMC/manufacturing scalability, long-term follow-up, affordability, and regulatory oversight. Current evidence supports the clinical maturity of ex vivo hematopoietic editing, whereas most in vivo and precision-repair approaches remain constrained by delivery, durability, product heterogeneity, and safety uncertainties.
conclusionThe central conclusion is that future CRISPR-based interventions should be judged not only by editability, but by whether molecular correction can be translated into durable, safe, manufacturable, and clinically meaningful benefit.
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.