ReviewFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2026
Genetic manipulation technologies for precise cellular control: a comparative review of five approaches.
Review in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Genetic manipulation technologies have revolutionized our ability to control cellular activities with high precision. Five major approaches-chemogenetics, optogenetics, odorgenetics, magnetogenetics, and sonogenetics-offer distinct advantages for different research and therapeutic scenarios. However, a unified framework for systematic comparison across these technologies has been lacking.This review provides a comprehensive analysis of these five genetic manipulation technologies from three perspectives: molecular mechanisms, quantitative performance metrics, and application scenarios. We first dissect the signaling pathways and key molecular components underlying each technology. We then establish a seven-dimensional evaluation framework encompassing spatiotemporal resolution, tissue penetration, cell-type specificity, reversibility, multiplexing capability, biosafety, and technical accessibility. Using this framework, we systematically score and compare the five technologies, revealing that optogenetics excels in spatiotemporal precision (millisecond/micrometer scale), chemogenetics offers superior clinical translatability, while sonogenetics and magnetogenetics provide advantages for non-invasive deep tissue applications. We further analyze optimal application scenarios for each technology, including neural circuit dissection, chronic disease management, and deep tissue intervention.This comparative analysis provides researchers with an evidence-based guide for technology selection. We propose that future developments should focus on hybrid approaches combining the strengths of multiple technologies, and on addressing current limitations in delivery efficiency and long-term biosafety for clinical translation.
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.