Induced Pluripotency and Gene Editing in Disease Modelling: Perspectives and Challenges
Seah YF., El Farran CA., Warrier T., Xu J., Loh YH.
Narrative Review, published in Int J Mol Sci (2015) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
- Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
- Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
- Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
- Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
- Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.
- Study type
- Narrative Review
- Journal
- Int J Mol Sci (2015)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 26633382
- PMCID
- PMC4691066
- DOI
- 10.3390/ijms161226119
- Citations
- 14
Abstract (original English)
Embryonic stem cells (ESCs) are chiefly characterized by their ability to self-renew and to differentiate into any cell type derived from the three main germ layers. It was demonstrated that somatic cells could be reprogrammed to form induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) via various strategies. Gene editing is a technique that can be used to make targeted changes in the genome, and the efficiency of this process has been significantly enhanced by recent advancements. The use of engineered endonucleases, such as homing endonucleases, zinc finger nucleases (ZFNs), transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALENs) and Cas9 of the CRISPR system, has significantly enhanced the efficiency of gene editing. The combination of somatic cell reprogramming with gene editing enables us to model human diseases in vitro, in a manner considered superior to animal disease models. In this review, we discuss the various strategies of reprogramming and gene targeting with an emphasis on the current advancements and challenges of using these techniques to model human diseases.
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
- • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.
Evidence level
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.