Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewEurope PMCOpen access

The potential of CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing for the study and treatment of intervertebral disc pathologies

Krupkova O., Cambria E., Besse L., Besse A., Bowles R., Wuertz-Kozak K.

Narrative Review on Back Pain, Disc Degeneration, published in JOR Spine (2018) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

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
Read the A–D evidence level guide

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
JOR Spine (2018)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
31463435
PMCID
PMC6686831
DOI
10.1002/jsp2.1003
Citations
32

Abstract (original English)

The CRISPR/Cas9 system has emerged as a powerful tool for mammalian genome engineering. In basic and translational intervertebral disc (IVD) research, this technique has remarkable potential to answer fundamental questions on pathway interactions, to simulate IVD pathologies, and to promote drug development. Furthermore, the precisely targeted CRISPR/Cas9 gene therapy holds promise for the effective and targeted treatment of degenerative disc disease and low back pain. In this perspective, we provide an overview of recent CRISPR/Cas9 advances stemming from/with transferability to IVD research, outline possible treatment approaches for degenerative disc disease, and discuss current limitations that may hinder clinical translation.

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 evidence

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research