How CRISPR and Base Editing Are Powering the First In‑Human Gene Therapies

Published:
CRISPR gene editing has rapidly moved from a laboratory tool to the core of the first in-human gene therapies, with base editing and prime editing enabling unprecedented precision while raising new ethical, regulatory, and technical questions about how we alter our DNA. This article explains the current clinical landscape, key technologies, milestones, risks, and the debates shaping the future of gene editing in medicine and beyond.

CRISPR, base editing, and prime editing have shifted from theoretical possibilities to concrete treatments now being tested—and in some cases approved—for real patients. From sickle cell disease to inherited blindness and cholesterol disorders, gene-editing trials are reshaping how we think about “curing” disease at its genetic source. At the same time, these technologies are forcing society to confront profound questions about risk, equity, and what kinds of genetic changes should be allowed.


Scientist working with gene editing samples in a modern laboratory
Figure 1. Molecular biologist preparing samples for gene-editing experiments. Image credit: National Cancer Institute / Unsplash.

Mission Overview: From Gene Discovery to In‑Human Therapies

The central mission of CRISPR-based gene therapy is straightforward but ambitious: correct or neutralize the root genetic causes of disease rather than merely treating symptoms. To achieve this, current clinical programs focus on:

  • Monogenic blood disorders such as sickle cell disease (SCD) and transfusion‑dependent β‑thalassemia.
  • Inherited retinal diseases leading to vision loss.
  • Genetic forms of high cholesterol (e.g., familial hypercholesterolemia).
  • Certain cancers, via engineered immune cells that better recognize and kill tumors.

In late 2023 and 2024, regulators in the UK, US, and other regions authorized the first CRISPR-based therapy for SCD and β‑thalassemia—an ex vivo edit that turns back on fetal hemoglobin. This landmark approval validated more than a decade of preclinical work on CRISPR‑Cas9 safety, delivery, and long‑term efficacy.

“We’re at the threshold of a new era in medicine where, for some diseases, editing DNA could become as routine as taking a pill once was.”
— Paraphrased from commentary in Nature on first CRISPR approvals

Technology: CRISPR‑Cas, Base Editing, and Prime Editing

CRISPR-based therapies rely on programmable nucleases—molecular machines that can be directed to specific DNA sequences by a short RNA guide. The classic CRISPR‑Cas9 system introduces a double‑strand break (DSB) at the target site, which the cell repairs. Next‑generation technologies such as base editors and prime editors refine this approach by changing DNA more gently and precisely.

Classical CRISPR‑Cas9 Gene Editing

In the original CRISPR‑Cas9 paradigm, a Cas9 protein is guided by a single guide RNA (sgRNA) to a matching genomic sequence adjacent to a protospacer adjacent motif (PAM). Once bound, Cas9 cuts both strands of DNA, and the cell’s repair pathways take over:

  1. Non‑homologous end joining (NHEJ) – An error‑prone repair mechanism that often introduces small insertions or deletions (indels), frequently disrupting the target gene.
  2. Homology‑directed repair (HDR) – A more precise pathway that can use a supplied DNA template to introduce specific sequence changes, though this is less efficient in many cell types.

Therapeutically, CRISPR‑Cas9 is used to:

  • Knock out harmful genes, such as disease‑promoting regulators.
  • Rewire regulatory elements, as in SCD therapies that boost fetal hemoglobin.
  • Edit T‑cells or NK cells ex vivo to enhance anti‑cancer activity.

Base Editing: Letter‑Perfect DNA Changes

Base editors, pioneered by David Liu’s lab at the Broad Institute, combine a catalytically impaired or “nickase” Cas protein with a DNA‑modifying enzyme called a deaminase. Instead of cutting both DNA strands, base editors directly convert one DNA base into another:

  • Cytosine base editors (CBEs) convert C•G base pairs into T•A.
  • Adenine base editors (ABEs) convert A•T base pairs into G•C.

Because they generally avoid full double‑strand breaks, base editors can reduce the risk of large deletions, chromosomal rearrangements, or p53‑mediated DNA damage responses. This makes them attractive for diseases caused by single‑nucleotide variants (SNVs).

Prime Editing: Search‑and‑Replace for Genomes

Prime editing extends the concept further by fusing a Cas9 nickase to a reverse transcriptase. A specialized prime editing guide RNA (pegRNA) encodes both targeting information and the desired edit. The system nicks one DNA strand and then “writes” the new sequence directly into the genome.

In principle, prime editing can:

  • Introduce all 12 possible base‑to‑base conversions.
  • Create small insertions or deletions.
  • Correct many pathogenic variants without requiring donor DNA templates or double‑strand breaks.

As of early 2026, prime editing is advancing through preclinical and early clinical development, with first‑in‑human trials exploring inherited diseases such as certain liver and eye disorders.

Figure 2. DNA double helix illustration often used to represent gene-editing concepts. Image credit: National Cancer Institute / Unsplash.

Clinical Landscape: First In‑Human CRISPR and Base‑Editing Therapies

The first wave of in‑human gene-editing trials is dominated by ex vivo approaches—editing cells outside the body, then reinfusing them. This gives clinicians more control over editing outcomes and safety monitoring before patient exposure.

Ex Vivo CRISPR for Blood Disorders

For SCD and β‑thalassemia, CRISPR‑based therapies edit hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells (HSPCs). A typical workflow includes:

  1. Collecting a patient’s HSPCs via bone marrow harvest or mobilized peripheral blood.
  2. Applying CRISPR‑Cas9 to disrupt a regulatory gene (e.g., BCL11A) that represses fetal hemoglobin.
  3. Expanding the edited cells in culture and verifying edit efficiency and safety.
  4. Conditioning the patient with chemotherapy to clear space in the bone marrow.
  5. Reinfusing the edited cells, which then reconstitute the blood system with high fetal hemoglobin levels.

Long‑term follow‑up from clinical trials shows many participants becoming free from vaso‑occlusive crises and transfusion dependence, with durable gene edits persisting in blood cells for years.

In Vivo Editing: Direct Delivery to the Body

In vivo gene editing delivers CRISPR components directly into the patient, often via viral vectors or lipid nanoparticles (LNPs). Notable examples include:

  • CRISPR‑based therapies targeting the TTR gene in the liver for transthyretin amyloidosis.
  • In vivo CRISPR editing in the eye for certain inherited retinal dystrophies.

Early data from these trials suggest that liver‑targeted CRISPR editing can produce substantial and long‑lasting reductions in disease‑causing proteins after a single dose. However, long‑term surveillance is still required to rule out late‑emerging effects.

Base Editing in the Clinic

Base editors have begun entering human trials. Examples include:

  • Base‑edited T‑cells engineered to better recognize cancer cells while reducing graft‑versus‑host risks.
  • Liver‑targeted base editing to permanently lower LDL cholesterol by disrupting PCSK9 or ANGPTL3.
“Base editing lets us think about cardiovascular disease prevention in an entirely new way: a one‑time intervention with life‑long benefit.”
— Summary of commentary from cardiovascular geneticists in The New England Journal of Medicine

Scientific Significance: Genetics, Evolution, and Human Health

CRISPR and its derivatives sit at the intersection of molecular genetics, evolution, and medicine. Their impact extends far beyond any single therapy.

Rewriting the Natural History of Genetic Disease

For conditions historically managed only with supportive care—like SCD, β‑thalassemia, or certain forms of inherited blindness—gene editing offers the possibility of fundamentally changing disease trajectories. Key implications include:

  • Functional cures rather than lifelong symptomatic treatment.
  • Reduced healthcare burden from chronic transfusions, hospitalizations, and complications.
  • New clinical endpoints that focus on molecular correction and durable remission.

Tools for Studying Evolution and Gene Function

Gene editing also accelerates basic research in evolutionary biology and genetics:

  • Rapid creation of knock‑in and knock‑out models to test gene function in cells and animals.
  • Functional dissection of regulatory elements controlling gene expression and development.
  • Exploration of how specific mutations shape traits, fitness, and disease risk.

With high‑throughput CRISPR screens, scientists can perturb thousands of genes or regulatory elements in parallel, revealing complex genetic networks that underlie traits ranging from cancer metastasis to immune responses.

Figure 3. Human cells under the microscope, commonly used to validate gene-editing outcomes. Image credit: National Cancer Institute / Unsplash.

Somatic vs. Germline Editing: Ethics, Policy, and Public Trust

Most current clinical work focuses on somatic editing—changes made in non‑reproductive cells that are not passed to offspring. This is widely viewed as ethically permissible when risks are balanced against serious disease burden and patients provide informed consent.

Germline Editing and the Global Backlash

By contrast, germline editing alters eggs, sperm, or embryos so that edits are heritable. The controversial case of CRISPR‑edited babies announced in China in 2018 triggered intense global criticism, moratoria, and calls for stronger governance.

Major scientific bodies and ethicists generally agree that clinical germline editing is currently unacceptable due to:

  • Insufficient safety data about off‑target effects and mosaicism.
  • Lack of consensus on what constitutes acceptable indications (therapy vs. enhancement).
  • Concerns about consent, equity, and social justice for future generations who cannot consent to modifications.
“Heritable genome editing is not ready to be tried safely in humans, and society has not yet agreed on if or when it should be.”
— International Commission on the Clinical Use of Human Germline Genome Editing

Regulation and Global Governance

Regulatory agencies and international organizations are converging on several principles:

  • Transparency in clinical trial design, endpoints, and safety reporting.
  • Independent oversight via institutional review boards (IRBs) and ethics committees.
  • Public engagement to incorporate diverse perspectives and maintain trust.
  • Equitable access to prevent gene-editing therapies from exacerbating health disparities.

Ongoing policy discussions can be followed through organizations like the WHO Expert Advisory Committee on Genome Editing and the US National Academies’ initiatives on human gene editing.


Beyond Medicine: Agriculture, Ecology, and Gene Drives

While human health applications dominate headlines, CRISPR is transforming other fields as well.

Agricultural and Industrial Biotechnology

In crops and livestock, researchers are using gene editing to:

  • Enhance drought and heat tolerance.
  • Improve nutritional profiles and shelf life.
  • Reduce reliance on pesticides and antibiotics.

Many of these edits could, in principle, be achieved by traditional breeding but at far slower timescales. Regulatory regimes differ by region, with some distinguishing between transgenic GMOs and gene‑edited organisms that lack foreign DNA.

Gene Drives and Ecological Interventions

CRISPR‑based gene drives can bias inheritance to spread a particular genetic trait through a population, such as rendering mosquitoes unable to transmit malaria. While potentially powerful for disease control and conservation, gene drives raise ecological and ethical questions:

  • Could a gene drive spread beyond intended geographic or species boundaries?
  • What unintended impacts might occur in complex ecosystems?
  • Who gets to decide whether an entire species is genetically altered or suppressed?

Consequently, most gene drive work remains in controlled laboratory or contained field studies, with strong emphasis on reversibility, safeguards, and community consultation.


Methodology and Delivery: How Gene Editing Reaches Cells

A major practical challenge is delivering gene‑editing machinery to the right cells at the right time with minimal toxicity and off‑target activity.

Common Delivery Platforms

  • Lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) – Non‑viral particles that encapsulate mRNA and guide RNAs; widely used for liver targeting and inspired by mRNA vaccine technology.
  • Adeno‑associated viruses (AAV) – Viral vectors with strong tropism for certain tissues (eye, liver, muscle), though limited cargo size and potential immunogenicity are concerns.
  • Electroporation ex vivo – Electrical pulses transiently permeabilize cell membranes to admit CRISPR RNP complexes into harvested cells.
  • Non‑viral polymers and nanoparticles – Emerging platforms designed to reduce repeat‑dose immune reactions.

Measuring Safety and Off‑Target Effects

Developers apply multiple layers of analysis to assess safety:

  • In silico prediction of potential off‑target sites based on sequence similarity.
  • Biochemical assays (e.g., GUIDE‑seq, DISCOVER‑seq) to empirically map cut sites.
  • Long‑read sequencing to identify structural variants or large deletions.
  • Functional genomics to monitor gene expression changes and cellular stress responses.

Regulators increasingly expect thorough off‑target characterization, especially for edits intended to be permanent and systemic.


Milestones: From Discovery to First Approvals

The journey from basic discovery to approved CRISPR therapies spans just over a decade—a remarkably short timeline by biomedical standards.

Key Historical Milestones

  1. 2012–2013 – Foundational CRISPR‑Cas9 genome editing papers by Jennifer Doudna, Emmanuelle Charpentier, and collaborators.
  2. 2013–2016 – Rapid adoption in model organisms; start of intensive safety and off‑target studies.
  3. 2016–2019 – First in‑human CRISPR trials for cancer and blindness; emergence of base editing and prime editing tools.
  4. 2018 – Germline editing controversy sparks global governance discussions.
  5. 2020 – Nobel Prize in Chemistry awarded to Doudna and Charpentier for CRISPR‑Cas9.
  6. 2023–2024 – First regulatory approvals of CRISPR‑based therapies for SCD and β‑thalassemia; acceleration of base‑editing trials.

These milestones reflect not only technical progress but also evolving norms around how disruptive biotechnologies should be evaluated, monitored, and deployed.

Technician operating advanced sequencing and genomic analysis equipment
Figure 4. High-throughput DNA sequencing platforms underpin safety, off-target, and efficacy measurements for gene-editing therapies. Image credit: National Cancer Institute / Unsplash.

Challenges: Risks, Access, and Public Perception

Despite spectacular scientific progress, major obstacles remain before CRISPR, base editing, and prime editing can become mainstream clinical tools.

Biological and Technical Risks

  • Off‑target edits that could activate oncogenes or disrupt tumor suppressors.
  • On‑target complexities like large deletions, inversions, or unexpected rearrangements.
  • Immune responses against Cas proteins or viral vectors, limiting repeat dosing.
  • Mosaicism where not all cells are edited uniformly, especially relevant for in vivo applications.

Cost and Scalability

Many first‑generation gene therapies are extremely expensive, reflecting complex manufacturing and individualized workflows. Without new models for funding and distribution, CRISPR-based cures risk being available only to a small subset of patients.

Key questions include:

  • Can manufacturing be standardized enough to lower costs?
  • Will payers support outcomes‑based pricing for one‑time cures?
  • How can low‑ and middle‑income countries access these therapies?

Public Understanding and Misinformation

Headlines sometimes blur the line between realistic short‑term potential and speculative future applications. Building accurate public understanding is essential to:

  • Prevent overhyped expectations or unwarranted fear.
  • Engage communities affected by target diseases in trial design and consent.
  • Resist the spread of unsafe DIY practices that could harm individuals or ecosystems.

Learning More: Books, Courses, and Tools for Enthusiasts

For students, clinicians, and technologists who want to go deeper, a range of resources provide accessible yet rigorous introductions to gene editing.

Books and Educational Material

Online Courses and Lectures

Following Experts and Organizations

To track fast‑moving developments, many researchers maintain active profiles on platforms like X (Twitter) and LinkedIn. Useful starting points include:


Conclusion: The First Wave—and What Comes Next

The first regulatory approvals of CRISPR‑based therapies mark the beginning of a new therapeutic era, not its culmination. Base editing, prime editing, and future tools will further expand what is medically and scientifically possible, but each advance must be matched by rigorous safety science, ethical reflection, and policies that prioritize equitable access.

Over the next decade, expect to see:

  • Broader indications beyond rare monogenic diseases toward more common conditions with strong genetic components.
  • Improved delivery systems that can reach tissues like brain, heart, and muscle more effectively.
  • Refined control systems—such as inducible or reversible edits—to increase safety and flexibility.
  • Deeper integration with AI‑driven design tools for guide RNAs, proteins, and delivery vehicles.

Balancing promise and risk will require scientists, clinicians, patients, policymakers, and the public to stay engaged. The genome is no longer a static blueprint; it is becoming an editable system. How we choose to use that power will shape medicine—and society—for generations.


References / Sources

For further reading and verification, see these representative sources:


Additional Considerations for Readers and Practitioners

If you are a patient or caregiver exploring gene-editing trials, focus on:

  • Understanding inclusion/exclusion criteria and potential alternatives.
  • Clarifying long‑term follow‑up commitments (often 10–15 years).
  • Asking about data sharing, privacy, and how your genomic data will be protected.

For technologists and data scientists, gene editing is also a rich domain for:

  • Designing machine‑learning models to predict on‑ and off‑target effects.
  • Developing tools for large‑scale genomic and phenotypic data integration.
  • Building secure, interoperable infrastructures for clinical genomics.

Staying informed—through reputable journals, expert interviews, and cautious interpretation of breaking news—is the best way to appreciate both the transformative potential and the real‑world constraints of CRISPR, base editing, and the first wave of in‑human gene therapies.

Tags:

You might like

View all
Previous Post Next Post
Share to other apps
Copy Post Link