SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

CRISPR-Cas9: bridging the gap between aging mechanisms and therapeutic advances in neurodegenerative disorders.

Front Cell Neurosci · 2025-10-16

DOI: 10.3389/fncel.2025.1681891PMID: 41180498

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

Neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, Huntington's, ALS, and spinocerebellar ataxia are becoming more prevalent as populations age, posing major global health challenges. Despite decades of research, effective treatments that halt or reverse these conditions remain elusive. Aging is the most significant risk factor in the development of these diseases, intertwining with molecular processes like DNA damage, mitochondrial dysfunction, and protein aggregation. Recent advances in gene-editing technologies, particularly CRISPR-Cas9, are beginning to shift the therapeutic landscape. This revolutionary tool allows for precise correction of genetic mutations associated with neurodegeneration, offering the potential for disease modification rather than symptom management alone. In this review, we explore how CRISPR-Cas9 is being leveraged to target key genes implicated in various neurodegenerative conditions and how it may overcome barriers posed by aging biology. We also examine the delivery systems and safety challenges that must be addressed before clinical application. With continued progress, CRISPR-Cas9 could mark a turning point in our ability to treat or even prevent age-related neurological decline.

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.