ReviewJournal of cellular and molecular medicine2026
Advances in CRISPR Base Editing: From Molecular Evolution to Therapeutic Applications in Genomic Medicine.
Review in Journal of cellular and molecular medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Next-Generation Bone Marrow Cell Therapies for Cardiac Repair: Integrating Gene Therapy and Bioengineering to Enhance Therapeutic Potency.Journal of cardiovascular translational research · 2026Review
- Decoding and Overcoming Temozolomide Resistance Through CRISPR/Cas Technologies.Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 2026Review
- Clinical translation of CRISPR-Cas9 therapeutics in cancer and inherited genetic disorders.Frontiers in genome editing · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
CRISPR-Cas9 systems revolutionized gene editing, but inherent drawbacks, namely DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) and the difficulty of achieving precise repairs (due to low HDR efficiency), led researchers to invent new, more accurate gene editing tools. Base editing represents a significant leap forward, enabling targeted single-nucleotide conversions directly on the DNA without DSBs or donor templates. The core technology involves fusing catalytically dead or nickase Cas proteins to DNA deaminase enzymes. Cytosine base editors (CBEs) convert C•G to T•A pairs, while adenine base editors (ABEs) change A•T to G•C. These editors exploit the deaminase function within the R-loop structure formed by Cas binding and co-opt endogenous DNA repair mechanisms for precision. While offering improved efficiency and editing precision, base editing faces persistent challenges, such as off-target effects, bystander edits, delivery and ethical concerns. Continuous engineering efforts have refined these tools, enhancing accuracy, expanding targetability and reducing unwanted edits. The base editing arsenal has also broadened to include C-to-G base editors (CGBEs), dual A&C editors and versions targeting organelles. Successful preclinical studies demonstrating the correction of mutations responsible for the disease have paved the way for clinical trials, which are now testing therapies for conditions like sickle cell disease, β-thalassaemia and hypercholesterolemia using various delivery systems. This review explores CRISPR base editing's origins, mechanisms of action, potential therapies and current restrictions, pointing to its broadening impact on medical genetics.
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.