Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41495582›Full record

ReviewMolecular biotechnology2026

Prime Editing, CRISPR-Cas9, and NanoCas Genome Editing for Cancer Treatment.

Hemayet Hossain, Snigdha Sharmin Binte Sayeed, Saiful Islam, Tanvir Ahmad, Khadiza Akter Brishty, Md Shahidur Rahman Chowdhury, Mohammed Shah Alam, Mohammad Showkat Mahmud, Md Mahfujur Rahman

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Molecular biotechnology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
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

9 authors.

Hemayet HossainDepartment of Anatomy and Histology, Sylhet Agricultural University, Sylhet, 3100, Bangladesh.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9785-2549
Snigdha Sharmin Binte SayeedDepartment of Microbiology and Hygiene, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh, 2202, Bangladesh.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-1924-2229
Saiful IslamDepartment of Anatomy and Histology, Sylhet Agricultural University, Sylhet, 3100, Bangladesh.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0002-2099-6784
Tanvir AhmadDepartment of Medicine, Sylhet Agricultural University, Sylhet, 3100, Bangladesh.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0001-7491-2681
Khadiza Akter BrishtyDepartment of Zoology (GSSC), University of Dhaka, Dhaka, 1000, Bangladesh.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4594-7703
Md Shahidur Rahman ChowdhuryDepartment of Medicine, Sylhet Agricultural University, Sylhet, 3100, Bangladesh.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0210-6581
Mohammed Shah AlamDepartment of Microbiology, Gono Bishwabidyalay, Dhaka, 1344, Bangladesh.
Mohammad Showkat MahmudDepartment of Microbiology, Gono Bishwabidyalay, Dhaka, 1344, Bangladesh.
Md Mahfujur RahmanDepartment of Medicine, Sylhet Agricultural University, Sylhet, 3100, Bangladesh. mahfuj.vetmed@sau.ac.bd.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2062-8471

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over the past two decades, genome editing has advanced dramatically from Zinc Finger Nucleases (ZFNs) and Transcription Activator-Like Effector Nucleases (TALENs) to more refined systems such as CRISPR-Cas9, prime editing, and nanoCas technologies. These innovations have opened new frontiers in cancer treatment. This review aims to critically examine and compare recent advances in these genome editing platforms, with a focus on their molecular mechanisms, delivery challenges, oncological applications, and clinical prospects. We systematically explore how CRISPR-Cas9 enables gene knockouts, high-throughput functional genomic screens, and immune editing, while acknowledging its limitations due to off-target effects and genotoxicity. In contrast, base and prime editors offer precise, double-strand breaks (DSBs) free alternatives, suitable for correcting oncogenic mutations such as TP53, KRAS, and EGFR. Prime editing, although versatile, faces delivery and efficiency challenges. The emergence of nanoCas systems, derived from compact Cas orthologs, provides promising delivery advantages for in vivo applications. We also examine how tumor microenvironment, cell-type specificity, and immune barriers impact editing efficacy and safety. Strategies such as high-fidelity variants, optimized guide RNAs, and stimuli-responsive nanoparticles are discussed to enhance precision and minimize risk. Conclusively, integrating these genome editing tools into oncology requires addressing translational barriers while harnessing their precision and therapeutic potential for next-generation cancer treatments.

Indexed as

CRISPR-Cas SystemsGene EditingGenetic TherapyNeoplasmsAnimalsHumansNanotechnologyTumor MicroenvironmentCRISPR-Cas9Genome editingGenotoxicityOncogenesisPrecision editingPrime editing

Identifiers

PMID41495582

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.