Gene therapy could offer an inclusive cure for cystic fibrosis

Unlocking the potential of CRISPR-Cas9 for cystic fibrosis: A systematic literature review

CRISPR-Cas9 technology has revolutionized genetic engineering, offering precise and efficient genome editing capabilities. This review explores the application of CRISPR-Cas9 for cystic fibrosis (CF), particularly targeting mutations in the CFTR gene. CF is a multiorgan disease primarily affecting the lungs, gastrointestinal system (e.g., CF-related diabetes (CFRD), CF-associated liver disease (CFLD)), bones (CF-bone disease), and the reproductive system. CF, a genetic disorder characterized by defective ion transport leading to thick mucus accumulation, is often caused by mutations like ΔF508 in the CFTR gene. This review employs a systematic methodology, incorporating an extensive literature search across multiple academic databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, and ScienceDirect, to identify 40 high-quality studies focused on CRISPR-Cas9 applications for CFTR gene editing. The data collection process involved predefined inclusion criteria targeting experimental approaches, gene-editing outcomes, delivery methods, and verification techniques. Data analysis synthesized findings on editing efficiency, off-target effects, and delivery system optimization to present a comprehensive overview of the field. The review highlights the historical development of CRISPR-Cas9, its mechanism, and its transformative role in genetic engineering and medicine. A detailed examination of CRISPR-Cas9's application in CFTR gene correction emphasizes the potential for therapeutic interventions while addressing challenges such as off-target effects, delivery efficiency, and ethical considerations. Future directions include optimizing delivery systems, integrating advanced editing tools like prime and base editing, and expanding personalized medicine approaches to improve treatment outcomes. By systematically analyzing the current landscape, this review provides a foundation for advancing CRISPR-Cas9 technologies for cystic fibrosis treatment and related disorders.

Genetic engineering and genome editing in plants, animals and humans: Facts and myths

Human history is inextricably linked to the introduction of desirable heritable traits in plants and animals. Selective breeding (SB) predates our historical period and has been practiced since the advent of agriculture and farming more than ten thousand years ago. Since the 1970s, methods of direct plant and animal genome manipulation are constantly being developed. These are collectively described as "genetic engineering" (GE). Plant GE aims to improve nutritional value, insect resistance and weed control. Animal GE has focused on livestock improvement and disease control. GE applications also involve medical improvements intended to treat human disease. The scientific consensus built around marketed products of GE organisms (GEOs) is usually well established, noting significant benefits and low risks. GEOs are exhaustively scrutinized in the EU and many non-EU countries for their effects on human health and the environment, but scrutiny should be equally applied to all previously untested organisms derived directly from nature or through selective breeding. In fact, there is no evidence to suggest that natural or selectively bred plants and animals are in principle safer to humans than GEOs. Natural and selectively bred strains evolve over time via genetic mutations that can be as risky to humans and the environment as the mutations found in GEOs. Thus, previously untested plant and animal strains aimed for marketing should be proven useful or harmful to humans only upon comparative testing, regardless of their origin. Highlighting the scientific consensus declaring significant benefits and rather manageable risks provided by equitably accessed GEOs, can mitigate negative predispositions by policy makers and the public. Accordingly, we provide an overview of the underlying technologies and the scientific consensus to help resolve popular myths about the safety and usefulness of GEOs.

Discovery and SAR of 4-aminopyrrolidine-2-carboxylic acid correctors of CFTR for the treatment of cystic fibrosis

Cystic fibrosis (CF) is an autosomal recessive disease resulting from mutations on both copies of the CFTR gene. Phenylalanine deletion at position 508 of the CFTR protein (F508del-CFTR) is the most frequent mutation in CF patients. Currently, the most effective treatments of CF use a dual or triple combination of CFTR correctors and potentiators. In triple therapy, two correctors (C1 and C2) and a potentiator are employed. Herein, we describe the identification and exploration of the SAR of a series of 4-aminopyrrolidine-2-carboxylic acid C2 correctors of CFTR to be used in conjunction with our existing C1 corrector series for the treatment of CF.

Future of genetic therapies for rare genetic diseases: what to expect for the next 15 years?

Introduction

Rare genetic diseases affect millions of people worldwide. Most of them are caused by defective genes that impair quality of life and can lead to premature death. As genetic therapies aim to fix or replace defective genes, they are considered the most promising treatment for rare genetic diseases. Yet, as these therapies are still under development, it is still unclear whether they will be successful in treating these diseases. This study aims to address this gap by assessing researchers' opinions on the future of genetic therapies for the treatment of rare genetic diseases.

Methods

We conducted a global cross-sectional web-based survey of researchers who recently authored peer-reviewed articles related to rare genetic diseases.

Results

We assessed the opinions of 1430 researchers with high and good knowledge about genetic therapies for the treatment of rare genetic diseases. Overall, the respondents believed that genetic therapies would be the standard of care for rare genetic diseases before 2036, leading to cures after this period. CRISPR-Cas9 was considered the most likely approach to fixing or replacing defective genes in the next 15 years. The respondents with good knowledge believed that genetic therapies would only have long-lasting effects after 2036, while those with high knowledge were divided on this issue. The respondents with good knowledge on the subject believed that non-viral vectors are more likely to be successful in fixing or replacing defective genes in the next 15 years, while most of the respondents with high knowledge believed viral vectors would be more successful.

Conclusion

Overall, the researchers who participated in this study expect that in the future genetic therapies will greatly benefit the treatment of patients with rare genetic diseases.

Addressing the dark matter of gene therapy: technical and ethical barriers to clinical application

Gene therapies for genetic diseases have been sought for decades, and the relatively recent development of the CRISPR/Cas9 gene-editing system has encouraged a new wave of interest in the field. There have nonetheless been significant setbacks to gene therapy, including unintended biological consequences, ethical scandals, and death. The major focus of research has been on technological problems such as delivery, potential immune responses, and both on and off-target effects in an effort to avoid negative clinical outcomes. While the field has concentrated on how we can better achieve gene therapies and gene editing techniques, there has been less focus on when and why we should use such technology. Here we combine discussion of both the technical and ethical barriers to the widespread clinical application of gene therapy and gene editing, providing a resource for gene therapy experts and novices alike. We discuss ethical problems and solutions, using cystic fibrosis and beta-thalassemia as case studies where gene therapy might be suitable, and provide examples of situations where human germline gene editing may be ethically permissible. Using such examples, we propose criteria to guide researchers and clinicians in deciding whether or not to pursue gene therapy as a treatment. Finally, we summarize how current progress in the field adheres to principles of biomedical ethics and highlight how this approach might fall short of ethical rigour using examples in the bioethics literature. Ultimately by addressing both the technical and ethical aspects of gene therapy and editing, new frameworks can be developed for the fair application of these potentially life-saving treatments.