ReviewNature genetics2026
Measurement and clinical interpretation of CRISPR off-targets.
Review in Nature genetics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Editing around the target: epitope engineering to protect stem cell grafts.Blood advances · 2026Review
- On-target and off-target activities of CRISPR therapeutics across scales.Trends in biotechnology · 2026Review
- A Dual-Port, Smartphone-Linked, Pocket-Size Fluorimeter for Rapid Molecular Diagnostic Assays at Point of Care.IEEE sensors journal · 2026Article
- Considerations for early life genetic therapies in cystic fibrosis.American journal of physiology. Lung cellular and molecular physiology · 2026Review
- Deep learning-driven prediction of on-target activity, off-target risk, and repair outcomes in CRISPR/Cas9: current landscape and multi-scale perspectives.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Review
- CRISPR/Cas9 in cancer therapy: clinical translation, mechanistic strategies, and therapeutic directions.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
CRISPR genetic therapies are revolutionizing the landscape of preclinical research and clinical studies, providing new potential routes for curative intervention for a range of previously untreatable diseases. As with any therapy, the therapeutic benefits and risks must be weighed against consideration of the disease threat. Genome-related adverse events are an inherent risk of CRISPR genetic therapies, including off-target edits. The perception that CRISPR therapies ought to have near-zero off-targets belies clinical medicine, therapy development and biology, which demonstrate that 'perfect' therapeutics do not exist. Given that not all genomic off-target events are equal, we provide a practical framework to evaluate and assess off-target safety based on the tools available today and ones that will be developed in the future. With the comprehensive information and assessment gathered using these guidelines, we aim to streamline the transition of CRISPR therapeutics from bench to bedside.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.