SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Gene and RNA Editing: Revolutionary Approaches to Treating Diseases.

MedComm (2020) · 2025-10-13

DOI: 10.1002/mco2.70389PMID: 41090155

Open accessreview-article; Review; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Gene editing and RNA editing technologies are advancing modern medicine by enabling precise manipulation of genetic information at the DNA and RNA levels, respectively. The third-generation gene editing tools, particularly Clustered regularly interspaced shortpalindromic repeats (CRISPR)/CRISPR-associated (Cas) system, have transformed genetic disease treatment with high efficiency, precision, and cost effectiveness, while RNA editing, via adenosine deaminase acting on RNA (ADAR) enzymes and CRISPR-Cas13, offers reversible regulation to avoid genomic integration risks. Despite advancements, challenges persist in delivery efficiency, tissue specificity, and long-term safety, limiting their clinical translation. This review systematically discusses the molecular mechanisms and technological evolution of these tools, focusing on their promising applications in treating nervous system disorders (e.g., Alzheimer's, Parkinson's), immune diseases (e.g., severe combined immunodeficiency, lupus), and cancers. It compares their technical attributes, analyzes ethical and regulatory issues, and highlights synergies between the two technologies. By bridging basic research and clinical translation, this review provides critical insights for advancing precision medicine, reshaping disease diagnosis, prevention, and treatment paradigms.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.