Loading
Crispr-cas / Polymers and Polymer Based Nanoparticles / Gene Editing · Journal article
Artificial Cells, Nanomedicine, and Biotechnology · July 29, 2026
A consensus or society position rather than new primary data.
This systematic review catalogs in vivo CRISPR delivery strategies—biological (AAV, VLP, SEND) and chemical (LNP)—and characterizes their immunogenicity, half-life, editing efficiency, toxicity, and specificity to guide selection for different editing contexts. The review identifies that existing systems have variable limitations and argues that optimized delivery is key to realizing CRISPR-Cas clinical potential, but does not report comparative efficacy data or head-to-head evidence.
Systematic review. CRISPR-Cas gene editing systems and their delivery requirements across different living target cell environments. Intervention: In vivo CRISPR delivery systems: biological (AAV, VLP, SEND) and chemical (LNP) methods.
Commonly used in vivo delivery strategies include biological methods (AAV, VLP, SEND) and chemical methods (LNP) Existing delivery systems have different extents of limitations in editing efficiency, immunogenicity, and half-life
No quantitative data on editing efficiency, immunogenicity levels, or toxicity across methods
Clinicians and researchers selecting delivery systems for CRISPR applications should use this review to understand comparative characteristics (immunogenicity, toxicity, specificity, half-life) of different methods, though the abstract does not provide quantitative efficacy comparisons or outcome data to directly guide clinical choice.
A systematic review of CRISPR delivery strategies characterizing methods, principles, and comparative limitations to guide selection of delivery systems for different applications.
As stated by the source record.
Clinicians and researchers selecting delivery systems for CRISPR applications should use this review to understand comparative characteristics (immunogenicity, toxicity, specificity, half-life) of different methods, though the abstract does not provide quantitative efficacy comparisons or outcome data to directly guide clinical choice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
What is missing. This record has no reported figures. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
CRISPR technology is a powerful tool for gene editing, in which the efficient delivery of living target cells allows it to show great clinical potential. At present, the commonly used in vivo delivery strategies mainly include biological methods (AAV, VLP, SEND) and chemical methods (LNP), which subtly deliver gene editors to living target cells safely and efficiently from different ways. However, existing delivery systems have different extents of limitations in terms of editing efficiency, immunogenicity, half-life, etc., so developing optimized delivery systems is the key to fully realizing the potential of CRISPR-Cas system for intracellular gene editing. In order to fully understand the advantages of different delivery strategies to maximize the ability to help CRISPR systems choose delivery methods, we conducted a systematic review. In this paper, we introduce the types, principles and characteristics of gene editing systems in order to understand their requirements for delivery tools. We focus on describing the type, principle, load, immunogenicity, specificity, toxicity, etc. of the delivery system, so as to fully analyse its advantages and disadvantages for the selection of different editing environments. This review aims to provide new insights to facilitate appropriate delivery systems or improve the efficacy of existing systems.
Taken from the source record, never inferred. Follow any of these and new work involving them reaches your briefing.