1 Introduction

Genome engineering, the process of making precise and targeted modifications to the DNA of living organisms, has emerged as a transformative field in modern science. This technology allows scientists to alter genetic material with unprecedented accuracy, opening up new possibilities for understanding and manipulating biological systems. The significance of genome engineering lies in its vast potential applications, ranging from medical therapies to agricultural improvements. For instance, CRISPR-Cas9, a revolutionary gene-editing tool, has garnered significant attention for its ability to modify DNA with high precision, offering hope for treating genetic disorders and enhancing crop resilience (Carroll, 2014; Tariq, 2023). The ability to edit genomes precisely not only advances our understanding of genetic functions but also paves the way for innovative solutions to some of the most pressing challenges in healthcare and food security.

The field of genome engineering has evolved rapidly over the past few decades, driven by the development of various gene-editing tools. Early methods, such as zinc-finger nucleases (ZFNs) and transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALENs), laid the groundwork for targeted DNA modifications by creating double-strand breaks at specific genomic locations (Hilton and Gersbach, 2015; Tariq, 2023). These technologies, while effective, were often complex and time-consuming to design. The advent of CRISPR-Cas9 has revolutionized the field by providing a simpler, more versatile, and highly efficient method for genome editing. CRISPR-Cas9 utilizes RNA molecules to guide the Cas9 enzyme to specific DNA sequences, where it introduces precise cuts, allowing for targeted gene modifications. This breakthrough has not only accelerated research in functional genomics but also expanded the scope of genome engineering to include applications in personalized medicine, agriculture, and beyond (Gao, 2021).

This study aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the current state and future prospects of genome engineering, with a focus on precision, efficiency, and ethical considerations. The objectives are threefold to elucidate the technological advancements that have shaped the field of genome engineering, and explore the diverse applications of these technologies in medicine, agriculture, and other domains and address the ethical and societal implications associated with genome editing. By examining the latest research and developments, this study seeks to highlight the transformative potential of genome engineering while emphasizing the need for responsible and ethical use of these powerful tools. The scope of the study encompasses a detailed analysis of various genome editing platforms, including CRISPR-Cas9, base editors, and prime editors, and their applications in different fields. Additionally, the study will discuss the challenges and future directions in genome engineering, aiming to provide a balanced perspective on the opportunities and risks associated with this rapidly evolving technology.

2 Advances in Genome Engineering Technologies

2.1 Overview of CRISPR-Cas9 and its impact on the field

The CRISPR-Cas9 system has revolutionized the field of genome engineering by providing a highly efficient, precise, and easy-to-use tool for modifying DNA sequences. Originating from a bacterial adaptive immune system, CRISPR-Cas9 utilizes a guide RNA (gRNA) to direct the Cas9 nuclease to specific DNA sequences, where it introduces double-strand breaks. These breaks can then be repaired by cellular mechanisms, leading to targeted gene modifications (Ran et al., 2013; Doudna and Charpentier, 2014). The simplicity of the CRISPR-Cas9 system, which requires only a short RNA sequence to guide the Cas9 enzyme, has made it accessible and widely adopted across various fields, including functional genomics, disease modeling, and agricultural research (Hsu et al., 2014). The technology’s ability to facilitate multiplexed targeting and its adaptability to different organisms have further cemented its role as a cornerstone of modern genome engineering.

2.2 Emerging technologies

Beyond the traditional CRISPR-Cas9 system, several innovative genome editing technologies have emerged, offering even greater precision and versatility. Base editing, for instance, allows for the direct conversion of one DNA base pair to another without introducing double-strand breaks, thereby reducing the risk of unintended mutations (Manghwar et al., 2019; Nidhi et al., 2021). Prime editing, another advancement, combines the capabilities of CRISPR-Cas9 with a reverse transcriptase to enable precise insertions, deletions, and base conversions, offering a more flexible and accurate approach to genome modification (Li et al., 2021). Additionally, new variants of the CRISPR system, such as CRISPR-Cas12a (Cpf1) and xCas9, have been developed to expand the range of targetable sequences and improve specificity (Shah et al., 2018). These emerging technologies are pushing the boundaries of what is possible in genome engineering, paving the way for more sophisticated and safer genetic interventions.

2.3 Comparison of different genome engineering tools in terms of precision and efficiency

When comparing different genome engineering tools, CRISPR-Cas9 stands out for its ease of use, efficiency, and versatility. However, it is not without limitations, such as off-target effects and the requirement for a specific protospacer-adjacent motif (PAM) sequence (Ding et al., 2016; Katrekar et al., 2017). Base editing and prime editing address some of these limitations by offering higher precision and reducing the likelihood of off-target mutations. Base editing, for example, can achieve single-nucleotide changes with minimal collateral damage, making it ideal for correcting point mutations (Manghwar et al., 2019; Nidhi et al., 2021). Prime editing, with its ability to perform a wide range of genetic modifications without double-strand breaks, offers a higher level of precision and versatility compared to traditional CRISPR-Cas9 (Li et al., 2021). Other tools, such as zinc finger nucleases (ZFNs) and TAL effector nucleases (TALENs), also provide high specificity but are more complex to design and implement, limiting their widespread use (Shah et al., 2018). Overall, the choice of genome engineering tool depends on the specific requirements of the application, with newer technologies like base editing and prime editing offering promising alternatives for achieving precise and efficient genetic modifications.

3 Precision in Genome Engineering

3.1 Mechanisms ensuring target specificity and reducing off-target effects

Precision in genome engineering is paramount to ensure that genetic modifications occur at the intended loci without unintended alterations. Various mechanisms have been developed to enhance target specificity and reduce off-target effects. One of the primary strategies involves the careful design of guide RNAs (gRNAs) to ensure they bind specifically to the target DNA sequence. Advances in computational tools have significantly improved the prediction and selection of optimal gRNA sequences, thereby minimizing off-target activity (Ran et al., 2013). Additionally, the use of high-fidelity variants of CRISPR-associated proteins, such as SpCas9-HF1 and eSpCas9, has been shown to reduce off-target cleavage by altering the protein's interaction with DNA (Tycko et al., 2016; Manghwar et al., 2020). Another approach involves the use of paired nickases, which require two adjacent nicks to induce a double-strand break, thereby increasing specificity. These strategies collectively contribute to the precision of genome editing by ensuring that modifications are confined to the desired genomic locations.

3.2 Innovations in enhancing precision

Recent innovations have further enhanced the precision of genome engineering. One such innovation is the modification of Protospacer Adjacent Motif (PAM) sequences, which are essential for the binding of CRISPR-associated proteins to target DNA. By engineering CRISPR proteins to recognize alternative PAM sequences, researchers have expanded the range of targetable sites within the genome (Tycko et al., 2016; Tran et al., 2020). Additionally, advancements in guide RNA design, such as the incorporation of chemical modifications and the use of truncated gRNAs, have improved binding specificity and reduced off-target effects (Manghwar et al., 2020). Delivery systems have also seen significant improvements, with the development of viral and non-viral vectors that enhance the efficiency and precision of CRISPR delivery to target cells. For instance, adeno-associated virus (AAV) vectors have been optimized for delivering CRISPR components with high specificity and minimal off-target activity (Tran et al., 2020). These innovations collectively contribute to the enhanced precision of genome engineering, enabling more accurate and efficient genetic modifications.

3.3 Case examples of precise genome edits in model organisms

Several case studies highlight the successful application of precise genome editing in model organisms. For example, the CRISPR/Cas9 system has been used to generate knockout mice with high precision by targeting specific genes and inducing mutations through non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) (Horii and Hatada, 2015). In another study, researchers utilized CRISPR/Cas9 to introduce specific mutations in zebrafish, allowing for the detailed study of gene function and disease models (Ran et al., 2013). Additionally, the use of TALENs and ZFNs has enabled precise genome modifications in a variety of species, including plants and animals, to enhance desirable traits such as disease resistance and improved nutritional content (Carroll, 2014). These case examples demonstrate the versatility and precision of genome engineering technologies in diverse biological systems, paving the way for advancements in both basic research and applied biotechnology.

4 Efficiency of Genome Engineering

4.1 Factors influencing the efficiency of genome editing

Several factors influence the efficiency of genome editing, including the type of nuclease used, the delivery method, and the cellular environment. The CRISPR-Cas9 system, for instance, has been widely adopted due to its high precision and efficiency in targeting specific DNA sequences. However, the efficiency can be affected by off-target effects, which are unintended modifications at non-target sites. Strategies such as the double-nicking approach using Cas9 nickase mutants have been developed to minimize these off-target effects and enhance overall editing efficiency (Ran et al., 2013).

Another significant factor is the DNA repair pathway activated following the introduction of double-strand breaks (DSBs). Homology-directed repair (HDR) and non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) are the primary pathways, with HDR being more precise but less efficient compared to NHEJ (Yang et al., 2013). The availability of donor DNA templates and the cell cycle stage also play crucial roles in determining the efficiency of HDR-mediated edits (Paix et al., 2017).

4.2 Methods to Enhance Editing Efficiency

To enhance the efficiency of genome editing, several methods have been developed. Optimizing the delivery of gene-editing components is paramount. Techniques such as viral vectors, electroporation, and nanoparticle-based delivery systems have been employed to improve the uptake and expression of editing tools in target cells (Yang et al., 2013; Mueller et al., 2018).

Modifying the DNA repair pathways can also significantly enhance editing efficiency. For instance, base editing, which involves the direct conversion of one DNA base to another without creating DSBs, has shown high efficiency and precision in various cell types (Rees and Liu, 2018; Hua et al., 2018). Base editors, such as cytidine deaminase fused with Cas9 nickase, enable efficient C-to-T conversions, thereby bypassing the need for HDR and reducing the occurrence of undesired by-products (Hua et al., 2018; Huang et al., 2021).

Additionally, optimizing the editing conditions, such as the design of single guide RNAs (sgRNAs) and the use of computational tools to predict the most efficient sgRNA sequences, can further improve the success rates of genome editing. Computational models that consider factors like chromatin accessibility and local sequence context have been developed to enhance the design of sgRNAs for base editors (Giner et al., 2023).

4.3 Applications of efficient genome engineering in agriculture and medicine

Efficient genome engineering has transformative applications in both agriculture and medicine. In agriculture, precise genome editing can lead to the development of crops with improved traits such as disease resistance, enhanced nutritional content, and better yield. For example, base editing has been successfully used to introduce specific point mutations in the rice genome, resulting in desirable agronomic traits (Hua et al., 2018).

In medicine, efficient genome editing holds the promise of curing genetic diseases by correcting pathogenic mutations at their source. CRISPR-Cas9 and base editing technologies are being explored for therapeutic applications, including the treatment of genetic disorders like sickle cell anemia and cystic fibrosis (Doudna, 2020; Khalil, 2020). The ability to achieve high editing efficiencies in mammalian cells and model organisms paves the way for the development of gene therapies that can potentially cure previously untreatable conditions (Huang et al., 2021).

5 Case Study of Gene Therapy for Inherited Genetic Disorders

5.1 Overview of gene therapy and its reliance on genome engineering

Gene therapy involves the introduction of normal, healthy genes into cells to correct the underlying cause of a wide variety of inherited and acquired diseases. This therapeutic approach has evolved significantly over the past few decades, transitioning from the addition of new genes to the precise manipulation of the human genome using advanced genome-editing technologies. These technologies, such as CRISPR/Cas9, zinc finger nucleases, and TALENs, enable the correction of mutations, addition of therapeutic genes, and removal of deleterious genes with high precision (Maeder and Gersbach, 2016; Dunbar et al., 2018). The development of safer and more efficient gene delivery vectors, such as adeno-associated viruses (AAV) and lentiviral vectors, has been crucial in advancing gene therapy from experimental stages to clinical applications (Wang et al., 2000; Dunbar et al., 2018).

5.2 Successes and challenges in treating inherited genetic disorders

Gene therapy has shown promising results in treating a variety of inherited genetic disorders. For instance, the use of lentiviral vectors has led to clinical benefits in patients with immunodeficiencies, hemoglobinopathies, and metabolic disorders (Wang et al., 2000). Additionally, gene therapy has produced significant clinical improvements in conditions such as congenital blindness, hemophilia B, and spinal muscular atrophy through the in vivo delivery of therapeutic AAV vectors (Dunbar et al., 2018). Despite these successes, several challenges remain. Early clinical trials exposed serious therapy-related toxicities, such as inflammatory responses and malignancies caused by vector-mediated insertional activation of proto-oncogenes. Moreover, issues related to the costs of these therapies, access to care, and the need for long-term safety and efficacy monitoring continue to pose significant hurdles (Figure 1) (Cicalese and Aiuti, 2020; Maldonado et al., 2021).

5.3 Ethical considerations in gene therapy applications

The rapid advancements in gene therapy and genome editing technologies have raised important ethical considerations. One major concern is the potential for off-target effects and genotoxicity, which could lead to unintended genetic alterations and associated health risks (Doudna, 2020). Additionally, the high costs of gene therapy treatments and the challenges in ensuring equitable access to these therapies necessitate discussions on healthcare policies and payment models. The possibility of germline genome editing, which could result in heritable genetic changes, further complicates the ethical landscape, requiring a societal consensus on the responsible use of these technologies (Doudna, 2020). As gene therapy continues to evolve, it is imperative to address these ethical issues to ensure that the benefits of these groundbreaking treatments are realized in a safe and equitable manner.

6 Ethical Considerations in Genome Engineering

6.1 Overview of ethical concerns

The advent of CRISPR/Cas9 technology has revolutionized the field of genome engineering, making it possible to edit the human germline with unprecedented precision and efficiency. However, this capability has sparked significant ethical concerns, particularly regarding germline editing and the distinction between genetic enhancement and therapy. Germline editing involves modifications that are heritable, raising profound ethical questions about the long-term impacts on future generations and the potential for unintended consequences (Sugarman, 2015; Vassena et al., 2016; Coller, 2019). While therapeutic applications aim to prevent or treat serious genetic diseases, the possibility of using genome editing for enhancement purposes—such as improving physical or cognitive abilities - poses ethical dilemmas about equity, consent, and the nature of human identity (Ishii, 2015; Krishan et al., 2015; Porteus, 2016).

6.2 Regulatory frameworks and their role in guiding ethical genome engineering

Regulatory frameworks play a crucial role in guiding the ethical application of genome engineering technologies. Various national and international bodies have established guidelines to ensure that genome editing research and applications are conducted responsibly. For instance, the US National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Medicine have recommended stringent ethical and regulatory requirements for germline genome editing, allowing it only under specific conditions aimed at preventing serious diseases (Porteus, 2016). These frameworks emphasize the importance of rigorous oversight, transparency, and public engagement to address the ethical and social implications of genome editing (Segers, 2023). The establishment of international collaborative efforts and regulatory harmonization is essential to prevent misuse and ensure that genome editing technologies are developed and applied ethically.

6.3 Public perception and the importance of transparent communication

Public perception of genome engineering is a critical factor that influences the acceptance and ethical deployment of these technologies. Transparent communication about the risks, benefits, and ethical considerations of genome editing is essential to build public trust and foster informed societal dialogue (Rossant, 2018). Misunderstandings and fears about genome editing can lead to public resistance and hinder scientific progress. Therefore, scientists, ethicists, and policymakers must engage with the public through open and honest discussions, addressing concerns and providing clear information about the potential applications and limitations of genome editing (Lanphier et al., 2015). Public dialogue should include diverse stakeholders to ensure that the development and application of genome editing technologies align with societal values and ethical principles (Gyngell et al., 2016; Segers, 2023).

7 Social and Cultural Impacts

7.1 The potential societal implications of genome engineering technologies

Genome engineering technologies, such as CRISPR-Cas9, have the potential to revolutionize medicine, agriculture, and environmental management. These technologies promise to cure genetic diseases, enhance crop resilience, and even reshape ecosystems for the betterment of human societies. However, the societal implications are vast and complex. The ability to edit genomes raises ethical questions about the extent to which humans should interfere with natural processes. There are concerns about the long-term effects on human health, biodiversity, and ecological balance. Moreover, the accessibility and affordability of these technologies could exacerbate existing social inequalities, as only certain populations may benefit from these advancements (Baltimore et al., 2015; Hammer, 2019).

7.2 The role of different cultures and beliefs in shaping public opinion

Public opinion on genome engineering is significantly influenced by cultural and religious beliefs. Different cultures have varying perspectives on the ethical acceptability of modifying genomes. For instance, some cultures may view genome editing as a form of playing God, while others may see it as a scientific advancement that can alleviate suffering. The diversity in cultural beliefs necessitates a nuanced approach to public engagement and policy-making. It is crucial to involve a broad range of stakeholders, including ethicists, religious leaders, and community representatives, to ensure that the development and application of genome engineering technologies are aligned with societal values and ethical standards (Baltimore et al., 2015; Graeff et al., 2019).

7.3 Case examples of public discourse and policy development around genome engineering

Public discourse and policy development around genome engineering have been shaped by various high-profile events and discussions. For example, a meeting in Napa, California, brought together scientists, ethicists, and legal experts to discuss the implications of CRISPR-Cas9 technology. This meeting highlighted the need for open and informed discourse to address the ethical, legal, and social challenges posed by genome engineering. Policies are being developed to ensure that genome editing is conducted safely and ethically, with a focus on transparency, public engagement, and the protection of human and animal welfare (Doudna, 2020).

In another instance, the ethical debate surrounding genome editing in non-human animals has revealed a gap between academic discussions and public opinion. While academics focus on themes such as human health, efficiency, and animal welfare, there is a need for more systematic comparisons of the potential consequences and greater inclusion of public perspectives in the debate. This underscores the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration and public involvement in shaping the future of genome engineering.

8 Future Prospects and Challenges

8.1 The potential for integrating AI and machine learning in genome engineering

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) into genome engineering holds immense potential for advancing the field. AI and ML can significantly enhance the precision and efficiency of genome editing by enabling the analysis of large, complex datasets, such as those generated from whole genome and exome sequencing, RNA-seq, and microarrays. These technologies can assist in predictive diagnostics and personalized medicine by identifying gene variants and expression patterns across diverse populations and diseases (Vadapalli et al., 2022; Libbrecht and Noble, 2015). Moreover, AI/ML approaches can streamline the design and optimization of genome editing tools, potentially reducing the time and cost associated with experimental iterations (Rees-Garbutt et al., 2020). As these technologies continue to evolve, their integration into genome engineering could lead to more accurate and effective therapeutic interventions.

8.2 Addressing the remaining technical challenges

Despite the significant advancements in genome engineering, several technical challenges remain. One of the primary issues is the efficient and safe delivery of genome editing tools to target cells. Current delivery methods, such as viral vectors and nanoparticles, need further optimization to enhance their specificity and minimize off-target effects (Doudna, 2020). Additionally, scaling genome engineering to the gigabase level presents logistical and technical hurdles. Coordinating large-scale projects requires robust data management systems, quality control measures, and legal frameworks to facilitate collaboration and ensure data integrity (Bartley et al., 2020). Safety concerns also persist, particularly regarding unintended genetic modifications and potential long-term effects. Addressing these challenges will be crucial for the successful translation of genome engineering technologies from the laboratory to clinical and industrial applications.

8.3 The need for global collaboration in advancing genome engineering research

The rapid pace of advancements in genome engineering necessitates global collaboration to maximize the potential benefits and address ethical, technical, and regulatory challenges. International cooperation can facilitate the sharing of knowledge, resources, and best practices, thereby accelerating the development and deployment of genome editing technologies. Collaborative efforts can also help establish standardized protocols and ethical guidelines to ensure responsible use of these powerful tools. Furthermore, global partnerships can drive large-scale initiatives, such as the Genome Project-Write, which aims to synthesize entire genomes and develop new technologies for genome-scale engineering (Boeke et al., 2015). By fostering a collaborative environment, the scientific community can more effectively tackle the complex challenges associated with genome engineering and unlock its full potential for improving human health and advancing biological research.

9 Policy and Regulation

9.1 Current state of international policies governing genome engineering

The current landscape of international policies governing genome engineering is characterized by a patchwork of regulations that vary significantly across different jurisdictions. Over 40 countries have enacted laws and policies that range from highly restrictive to more liberal approaches. Despite these efforts, the scope and effectiveness of these regulations are often limited due to narrow jurisdictional reach and the absence of robust enforcement mechanisms (Isasi and Knoppers, 2015). For instance, while some countries have stringent laws against germline modification, others have more permissive or ambiguous regulations, leading to a phenomenon known as “ethics dumping”, where individuals or entities seek out countries with lax regulations to conduct controversial research (Dryzek et al., 2020). This inconsistency in regulatory frameworks poses significant challenges for global governance and the ethical oversight of genome engineering technologies.

9.2 The role of international organizations in setting standards and guidelines

International organizations play a crucial role in setting standards and guidelines for genome engineering. Entities such as the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the Council of Europe, the Human Genome Organization (HUGO), and the International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR) have all taken positions on germline modification. These organizations aim to create normative instruments that reconcile universal principles with specific national contexts, thereby providing a framework for ethical and legal governance. The World Health Organization (WHO) has also been instrumental in developing guidelines for the governance of human genome editing, emphasizing the need for a broader set of values and considerations within the scientific community (Xue and Shang, 2022). Despite these efforts, the adoption and implementation of these international guidelines at the national level remain inconsistent, highlighting the need for more cohesive and enforceable international policies.

9.3 Recommendations for future policy development to address emerging challenges

To address the emerging challenges in genome engineering, several recommendations for future policy development can be made. First, there is a need for more democratic deliberation and inclusive engagement of the global scientific community and the public. This can be achieved through the establishment of global citizens' assemblies that can provide legitimate and effective governance. Second, policies should be flexible and adaptive to keep pace with rapid scientific advancements. This includes creating open-ended frameworks that allow for stakeholder discussion and the incorporation of new scientific and ethical insights (Xue and Shang, 2022). Third, international treaties or conventions with binding legal effects should be pursued to ensure consistent and enforceable regulations across jurisdictions. Finally, national and supranational legislatures should consider evidence-based regulations that balance the potential benefits of genome engineering with the ethical and biosafety concerns it raises (Brokowski and Adli, 2019). These steps are essential to ensure that genome engineering technologies are developed and applied in a manner that is safe, ethical, and beneficial for all of humanity.

10 Concluding Remarks

The future of genome engineering is poised to be transformative, driven by advancements in precision, efficiency, and ethical considerations. Key findings indicate that new gene editing tools like CRISPR-Cas9 have significantly enhanced the precision of genome modifications, allowing for targeted DNA cutting, increased homology-directed repair, and specific delivery to particular cells or tissues. Additionally, the development of non-viral genome engineering methods has enabled the precise insertion of large genes, which holds promise for personalized cell therapies. The evolution of genome engineering platforms, such as BioDesignER, has further improved recombination efficiency and fidelity, facilitating high-throughput genetic modifications. These advancements collectively underscore the potential for genome engineering to revolutionize therapeutic designs, functional genomics, and agricultural biotechnology.

The implications of these advancements are far-reaching. In research, the ability to precisely edit genomes accelerates the discovery of genetic determinants of phenotypes and the development of disease models, thereby enhancing our understanding of fundamental biological processes. For the industry, particularly in biotechnology and pharmaceuticals, these tools offer new avenues for developing gene therapies, improving crop resilience, and creating genetically modified organisms with desirable traits. Societally, the potential benefits include improved healthcare outcomes through personalized medicine, increased agricultural productivity, and the ethical considerations of genome editing. However, these advancements also necessitate robust regulatory frameworks to address potential risks and ethical dilemmas associated with genome manipulation.

Balancing innovation with ethical responsibility is paramount as we advance in genome engineering. While the potential benefits are immense, including the treatment of genetic disorders and enhancement of agricultural practices, the ethical implications cannot be overlooked. Issues such as off-target effects, long-term impacts on ecosystems, and the potential for misuse in human genetic enhancement require careful consideration. It is crucial to establish ethical guidelines and regulatory policies that ensure the responsible use of genome engineering technologies. Engaging with diverse stakeholders, including scientists, ethicists, policymakers, and the public, will be essential in navigating the ethical landscape and ensuring that the advancements in genome engineering are harnessed for the greater good of society.

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to Dr. Dolgin for critically reading the manuscript and providing valuable feedback that improved the clarity of the text.

Conflict of Interest Disclosure

The author affirms that this research was conducted without any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

Baltimore D., Berg P., Botchan M., Carroll D., Charo R., Church G., Corn J., Daley G., Doudna J., Fenner M., Greely H., Jinek M., Martin G., Penhoet E., Puck J., Sternberg S., Weissman J., and Yamamoto K., 2015, A prudent path forward for genomic engineering and germline gene modification, Science, 348: 36 -38.

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aab1028
PMid:25791083 PMCid:PMC4394183

Bartley B., Beal J., Karr J., and Strychalski E., 2020, Organizing genome engineering for the gigabase scale, Nature Communications.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-14314-z
PMid:32019919 PMCid:PMC7000699

Boeke J., Church G., Hessel A., Kelley N., Arkin A., Cai Y., Carlson R., Chakravarti A., Cornish V., Holt L., Isaacs F., Kuiken T., Lajoie M., Lessor T., Lunshof J., Maurano M., Mitchell L., Rine J., Rosser S., Sanjana N., Silver P., Valle D., Wang H., Way J., and Yang L., 2016, The genome project-write, Science, 353: 126-127.

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf6850
PMid:27256881

Brokowski C., and Adli M., 2019 CRISPR ethics: moral considerations for applications of a powerful tool, Journal of Molecular Biology, 431(1): 88-101.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmb.2018.05.044
PMid:29885329 PMCid:PMC6286228

Carroll D., 2014, Precision genome engineering, Current Biology, 24: R102-R103.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2013.11.055
PMid:24502778

Cicalese M., and Aiuti A., 2020, New perspectives in gene therapy for inherited disorders, Pediatric Allergy and Immunology, 31: 5-7.

https://doi.org/10.1111/pai.13149
PMid:32017225

Coller B., 2019, Ethics of human genome editing, Annual Study of Medicine, 70: 289-305.

https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-med-112717-094629
PMid:30691366 PMCid:PMC11299715

Doudna J., 2020, The promise and challenge of therapeutic genome editing, Nature, 578: 229-236.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-1978-5
PMid:32051598 PMCid:PMC8992613

Doudna J., and Charpentier E., 2014, The new frontier of genome engineering with CRISPR-Cas9, Science, 346.

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1258096
PMid:25430774

Dryzek J., Nicol D., Niemeyer S., Pemberton S., Curato N., Bächtiger A., Batterham P., Bedsted B., Burall S., Burgess M., Burgio G., Castelfranchi Y., Chneiweiss H., Church G., Crossley M., Vries J., Farooque M., Hammond M., He B., Mendonça R., Merchant J., Middleton A., Rasko J., Hoyweghen I., and Vergne A., 2020, Global citizen deliberation on genome editing, Science, 369: 1435-1437.

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb5931
PMid:32943515

Dunbar C., High K., Joung J., Kohn D., Ozawa K., and Sadelain M., 2018, Gene therapy comes of age, Science, 359.

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aan4672
PMid:29326244

Gao C., 2021, Genome engineering for crop improvement and future agriculture, Cell, 184: 1621-1635.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2021.01.005
PMid:33581057

Giner G., Ikram S., Herold M., and Papenfuss A., 2023, A systematic study of computational methods for designing efficient guides for CRISPR DNA base editor systems, Briefings in Bioinformatics.

  https://doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbad205
PMid:37287132

Graeff N., Jongsma K., Johnston J., Hartley S., and Bredenoord A., 2019, The ethics of genome editing in non-human animals: a systematic study of reasons reported in the academic literature, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 374.

https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2018.0106
PMid:30905297 PMCid:PMC6452271

Gyngell C., Douglas T., and Savulescu J., 2016, The ethics of germline gene editing. journal of applied philosophy, 34: 498-513.

https://doi.org/10.1111/japp.12249
PMid:28919655 PMCid:PMC5573992

Hammer M., 2019, Beyond the helix: ethical, legal, and social implications in genomics, Seminars in Oncology Nursing, 35(1): 93-106.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soncn.2018.12.007
PMid:30683550

Hilton I., and Gersbach C., 2015, Enabling functional genomics with genome engineering, Genome Research, 25: 1442-1455.

https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.190124.115
PMid:26430154 PMCid:PMC4579329

Horii T., and Hatada I., 2015, Challenges to increasing targeting efficiency in genome engineering, The Journal of Reproduction and Development, 62: 7-9.

https://doi.org/10.1262/jrd.2015-151
PMid:26688299 PMCid:PMC4768773

Hsu P., Lander E., and Zhang F., 2014, Development and applications of CRISPR-Cas9 for genome engineering, Cell, 157: 1262-1278.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2014.05.010
PMid:24906146 PMCid:PMC4343198

Hua K., Han P., and Zhu J., 2021, Improvement of base editors and prime editors advances precision genome engineering in plants, Plant Physiology.

https://doi.org/10.1093/plphys/kiab591
PMid:34962995 PMCid:PMC8968349

Hua K., Tao X., Yuan F., Wang D., and Zhu J., 2018, Precise A·T to G·C base editing in the rice genome, Molecular Plant, 11(4): 627-630.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molp.2018.02.007
PMid:29476916

Huang T., Newby G., and Liu D., 2021, Precision genome editing using cytosine and adenine base editors in mammalian cells, Nature Protocols, 16: 1089-1128.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41596-020-00450-9
PMid:33462442

Isasi R., and Knoppers B., 2015, Oversight of human inheritable genome modification, Nature Biotechnology, 33: 454-455.

https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3231
PMid:25965749

Ishii T., 2015, Germ line genome editing in clinics: the approaches, objectives and global society, Briefings in Functional Genomics, 16: 46-56.

https://doi.org/10.1093/bfgp/elv053
PMid:26615180 PMCid:PMC5291189

Katrekar D., Hu M., and Mali P., 2017, Advances in CRISPR-Cas based genome engineering, Current Opinion in Biomedical Engineering, 1: 78-86.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobme.2017.04.001

Khalil A., 2020, The genome editing revolution: study, Journal of Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology, 18.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s43141-020-00078-y
PMid:33123803 PMCid:PMC7596157

Krishan K., Kanchan T., and Singh B., 2015, Human genome editing and ethical considerations, Science and Engineering Ethics, 22: 597-599.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9675-8
PMid:26154417

Lanphier E., Urnov F., Haecker S., Werner M., and Smolenski J., 2015, Don’t edit the human germ line, Nature, 519: 410-411.

https://doi.org/10.1038/519410a
PMid:25810189

Li C., Brant E., Budak H., and Zhang B., 2021, CRISPR/Cas: a Nobel Prize award-winning precise genome editing technology for gene therapy and crop improvement. Journal of Zhejiang University, Science, B, 22: 253-284.

https://doi.org/10.1631/jzus.B2100009
PMid:33835761 PMCid:PMC8042526

Libbrecht M., and Noble W., 2015, Machine learning applications in genetics and genomics, Nature Studys Genetics, 16: 321-332.

https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg3920
PMid:25948244 PMCid:PMC5204302

Maeder M., and Gersbach C., 2016, Genome-editing technologies for gene and cell therapy, Molecular Therapy, 24: 430-446.

https://doi.org/10.1038/mt.2016.10
PMid:26755333 PMCid:PMC4786923

Maldonado R., Jalil S., and Wartiovaara K., 2020, Curative gene therapies for rare diseases, Journal of Community Genetics, 12: 267-276.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12687-020-00480-6
PMid:32803721 PMCid:PMC8141081

Manghwar H., Li B., Ding X., Hussain A., Lindsey K., Zhang X., and Jin S., 2020, CRISPR/Cas systems in genome editing: methodologies and tools for sgrna design, off‐target evaluation, and strategies to mitigate off‐target effects, Advanced Science, 7.

https://doi.org/10.1002/advs.201902312
PMid:32195078 PMCid:PMC7080517

Manghwar H., Lindsey K., Zhang X., and Jin S., 2019, CRISPR/Cas system: recent advances and future prospects for genome editing, Trends in Plant Science.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2019.09.006
PMid:31727474

Mueller K., Carlson-Stevermer J., and Saha K., 2018, Increasing the precision of gene editing in vitro, ex vivo, and in vivo, Current Opinion in Biomedical Engineering, 7: 83-90.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobme.2018.08.006
PMid:31086832 PMCid:PMC6510258

Nidhi S., Anand U., Olekšák P., Tripathi P., Lal J., Thomas G., Kuča K., and Tripathi V., 2021, Novel CRISPR-Cas systems: an updated study of the current achievements, applications, and future research perspectives, International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 22.

https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22073327
PMid:33805113 PMCid:PMC8036902

Paix A., Folkmann A., Goldman D., Kulaga H., Grzelak M., Rasoloson D., Paidemarry S., Green R., Reed R., and Seydoux G., 2017, Precision genome editing using synthesis-dependent repair of Cas9-induced DNA breaks, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114: E10745-E10754.

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1711979114
PMid:29183983 PMCid:PMC5740635

Porteus M., 2016, Genome editing: a new approach to human therapeutics, Annual Study of Pharmacology and Toxicology, 56: 163-190.

https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-pharmtox-010814-124454
PMid:26566154

Ran F., Hsu P., Wright J., Agarwala V., Agarwala V., Scott D., and Zhang F., 2013, Genome engineering using the CRISPR-Cas9 system, Nature Protocols, 8: 2281-2308.

https://doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2013.143
PMid:24157548 PMCid:PMC3969860

Rees H., and Liu D., 2018, Base editing: precision chemistry on the genome and transcriptome of living cells, Nature Studys Genetics, 19: 770-788.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41576-018-0059-1
PMid:30323312 PMCid:PMC6535181

Rees-Garbutt J., Rightmyer J., Karr J., Grierson C., and Marucci L., 2020, Furthering genome design using models and algorithms, Current Opinion in Systems Biology, 24: 120-126.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coisb.2020.10.007

Rossant J., 2018, Gene editing in human development: ethical concerns and practical applications, Development, 145.

https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.150888
PMid:30045910

Segers S., 2023, Heritable genome editing: ethical aspects of a developing domain, Human Reproduction.

https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dead167
PMid:37581898

Shah S., Rehman A., Nasir H., Asif A., Tufail B., Usama M., and Jabbar B., 2018, Advances in research on genome editing CRISPR-Cas9 technology, Journal of Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad: JAMC, 31(1): 108-122.

Sugarman J., 2015, Ethics and germline gene editing, EMBO Reports, 16.

https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.201540879
PMid:26138102 PMCid:PMC4552475

Tariq M., 2023, CRISPR-Cas9: The future of precision genome engineering, Futuristic Biotechnology.

Tran M., Khalid M., Wang Q., Walker J., Lidgerwood G., Dilworth K., Lisowski L., Pébay A., and Hewitt A., 2020, Engineering domain-inlaid SaCas9 adenine base editors with reduced RNA off-targets and increased on-target DNA editing, Nature Communications, 11.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-18715-y
PMid:32978399 PMCid:PMC7519688

Tycko J., Myer V., and Hsu P., 2016, Methods for optimizing CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing specificity, Molecular cell, 63(3): 355-370.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2016.07.004
PMid:27494557 PMCid:PMC4976696

Vadapalli S., Abdelhalim H., Zeeshan S., and Ahmed Z., 2022, Artificial intelligence and machine learning approaches using gene expression and variant data for personalized medicine, Briefings in Bioinformatics.

https://doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbac191

PMid:35595537 PMCid:PMC10233311

Vassena R., Heindryckx B., Peco R., Pennings G., Raya Á., Sermon K., and Veiga A., 2016, Genome engineering through CRISPR/Cas9 technology in the human germline and pluripotent stem cells, Human Reproduction Update, 22(4): 411-419.

https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmw005
PMid:26932460

Wang F., Raab R., Washabaugh M., and Buckland B., 2000, Gene therapy and metabolic engineering, Metabolic Engineering, 2(2): 126-139.

https://doi.org/10.1006/mben.1999.0144
PMid:10935728

Xue Y., and Shang L., 2022, Governance of heritable human gene editing world-wide and beyond, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19.

https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19116739
PMid:35682323 PMCid:PMC9180052

Yang L., Guell M., Byrne S., Yang J., Angeles A., Mali P., Aach J., Kim-Kiselak C., Briggs A., Rios X., Huang P., Daley G., and Church G., 2013, Optimization of scarless human stem cell genome editing, Nucleic Acids Research, 41: 9049 - 9061.

https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkt555
PMid:23907390 PMCid:PMC3799423