Research and Therapeutic Approaches in Stem Cell Genome Editing by CRISPR Toolkit
Mollashahi B., Latifi-Navid H., Owliaee I., Shamdani S., Uzan G., Jamehdor S.
Narrative Review, published in Molecules (2023) — 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
- Molecules (2023)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 36838970
- PMCID
- PMC9961668
- DOI
- 10.3390/molecules28041982
- Citations
- 8
Abstract (original English)
The most widely used genome editing toolkit is CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats). It provides the possibility of replacing and modifying DNA and RNA nucleotides. Furthermore, with advancements in biological technology, inhibition and activation of the transcription of specific gene(s) has become possible. Bioinformatics tools that target the evolution of CRISPR-associated protein 9 (Cas9) turn this protein into a vehicle that is specific for a DNA or RNA region with single guide RNA (sgRNA). This toolkit could be used by researchers to investigate the function of stem cell gene(s). Here, in this review article, we cover recent developments and applications of this technique in stem cells for research and clinical purposes and discuss different CRISPR/Cas technologies for knock-out, knock-in, activation, or inhibition of gene expression. Additionally, a comparison of several deliveries and off-target detecting strategies is discussed.
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.