In the next decades, gene editing technologies are expected to be used in the treatment and prevention of human diseases. Yet, the future uses of gene editing in medicine are still unknown, including its applicability and effectiveness to the treatment and prevention of infectious diseases, cancer, and monogenic and polygenic hereditary diseases. This study aims to address this gap by analyzing the views of over 1,000 gene editing-related researchers from all over the world. Some of our survey results show that, in the next 10 years, DNA double-strand breaks are expected to be the main method for gene editing, and CRISPR-Cas systems to be the mainstream programmable nuclease. In the same period, gene editing is expected to have more applicability and effectiveness to treat and prevent infectious diseases and cancer. Off-targeting mutations, reaching therapeutic levels of editing efficiency, difficulties in targeting specific tissues in vivo, and regulatory and ethical challenges are among the most relevant factors that might hamper the use of gene editing in humans. In conclusion, our results suggest that gene editing might become a reality to the treatment and prevention of a variety of human diseases in the coming 10 years. If the future confirms these researchers' expectations, gene editing could change the way medicine, health systems, and public health deal with the treatment and prevention of human diseases.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
DunbarCE, HighKA, JoungJK, et al.Gene therapy comes of age. Science, 2018; 359:1–10.
2.
MiyagiA, LuA, HumphreysBD. Gene editing: powerful new tools for nephrology research and therapy. J Am Soc Nephrol, 2016; 27:2940–2947.
3.
SongM, RamakrishnaS. Genome editing in stem cells for disease therapeutics. Mol Biotechnol, 2018; 60:329–338.
LassouedR, HesselnH, PhillipsPWB, et al.Top plant breeding techniques for improving food security: an expert Delphi survey of the opportunities and challenges. Int J Agric Resour Gov Ecol, 2018; 14:321–337.
6.
PorteusM.Genome editing: A new approach to human therapeutics. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol, 2016; 56:163–190.
7.
MollanooriH, TeimourianS. Therapeutic applications of CRISPR/Cas9 system in gene therapy. Biotechnol Lett, 2018; 40:907–914.
ChadwickAC, MusunuruK. Genome editing for the study of cardiovascular diseases. Curr Cardiol Rep, 2017; 19:1–8.
10.
LiuJ, ShuiS-l. Delivery methods for site-specific nucleases: achieving the full potential of therapeutic gene editing. J Control Release, 2016; 244:83–97.
11.
PellagattiA, DolatshadH, VallettaS, et al.Application of CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing to the study and treatment of disease. Arch Toxicol, 2015; 89:1023–1034.
12.
van HaasterenJ, HydeSC, GillDR. Lessons learned from lung and liver in-vivo gene therapy: implications for the future. Expert Opin Biol Ther, 2018; 18:959–972.
13.
ZhangY, LongC, Bassel-DubyR, et al.Myoediting: toward prevention of muscular dystrophy by therapeutic genome editing. Physiol Rev, 2018; 98:1205–1240.
14.
BengerM, KinaliM, MazarakisND. Autism spectrum disorder: prospects for treatment using gene therapy. Mol Autism, 2018; 9:1–10.
FarrahaM, ChongJJH, KizanaE. Therapeutic prospects of gene therapy for atrial fibrillation. Heart Lung Circ, 2016; 25:808–813.
17.
BangdeP, AtaleS, DeyA, et al.Potential gene therapy towards treating neurodegenerative disea ses employing polymeric nanosystems. Curr Gene Ther, 2017; 17:170–183.
18.
MotaF, BragaL, RochaL, et al.3D and 4D bioprinted human model patenting and the future of drug development. Nat Biotechnol, 2020; 38:689–694.
19.
Pereira CabralB, da Graça Derengowski FonsecaM, Batista MotaF. What is the future of cancer care? A technology foresight assessment of experts' expectations. Econ Innov New Technol, 2019; 28:635–652.
20.
Pereira CabralB, da Graça Derengowski FonsecaM, MotaFB. Long term prevention and vector control of arboviral diseases: what does the future hold?. Int J Infect Dis, 2019; 89:169–174.
21.
AdkarSS, BrungerJM, WillardVP, et al.Genome engineering for personalized arthritis therapeutics. Trends Mol Med, 2017; 23:917–931.
22.
AlbertK, VoutilainenMH, DomanskyiA, et al.AAV vector-mediated gene delivery to substantia nigra dopamine neurons: implications for gene therapy and disease models. Gene, 2017; 8:1–15.
23.
AxelsenTM, WoldbyeDPD. Gene therapy for Parkinson's disease: an update. J Parkinsons Dis, 2018; 8:195–215.
24.
BiagioniA, LaurenzanaA, MargheriF, et al.Delivery systems of CRISPR/Cas9-based cancer gene therapy. J Biol Eng, 2018; 12:1–9.
25.
ChadwickAC, MusunuruK. Treatment of dyslipidemia using CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing. Curr Atheroscler Rep, 2017; 19:1–6.
26.
CrispiV, MatsakasA. Duchenne muscular dystrophy: genome editing gives new hope for treatment. Postgrad Med J, 2018; 94:296–304.
27.
DiCarloJE, MahajanVB, TsangSH. Gene therapy and genome surgery in the retina. J Clin Invest, 2018; 128:2177–2188.
28.
DorrajG, CarrerasJJ, NunezH, et al.Lipid nanoparticles as potential gene therapeutic delivery systems for Oral Administration. Curr Gene Ther, 2017; 17:89–104.
GoswamiD, MinkahNK, KappeSHI. Designer parasites: genetically engineered plasmodium as vaccines to prevent malaria infection. J Immunol, 2019; 202:20–28.
31.
GovindanG, RamalingamS. Programmable site-specific nucleases for targeted genome engineering in higher eukaryotes. J Cell Physiol, 2016; 231:2380–2392.
32.
HussainW, MahmoodT, HussainJ, et al.CRISPR/Cas system: a game changing genome editing technology, to treat human genetic diseases. Gene, 2019; 685:70–75.
33.
IshiiT.The ethics of creating genetically modified children using genome editing. Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes, 2017; 24:418–423.
34.
KennedyEM, CullenBR. Gene editing: A new tool for viral disease. Annu Rev Med, 2017; 68:401–411.
35.
KhademparS, FamilghadakchiS, MotlaghRA, et al.CRISPR-Cas9 in genome editing: its function and medical applications. J Cell Physiol, 2019; 234:5751–5761.
36.
KolliN, LuM, MaitiP, et al.Application of the gene editing tool, CRISPR-Cas9, for treating neurodegenerative diseases. Neurochem Int, 2018; 112:187–196.
37.
KuruvillaJ, SasmitaAO, LingAPK. Therapeutic potential of combined viral transduction and CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing in treating neurodegenerative diseases. Neurol Sci, 2018; 39:1827–1835.
38.
MaD, LiuF. Genome editing and its applications in model organisms. Genom Proteom Bioinf, 2015; 13:336–344.
39.
QuivigerM, GiannakopoulosA, VerhenneS, et al.Improved molecular platform for the gene therapy of rare diseases by liver protein secretion. Eur J Med Genet, 2018; 61:723–728.
40.
RaticanSE, OsborneA, MartinKR. Progress in gene therapy to prevent retinal ganglion cell loss in glaucoma and Leber's Hereditary Optic Neuropathy. Neural Plast, 2018; 2018:1–11.
41.
ShaoM, XuT-R, ChenC-S. The big bang of genome editing technology: development and application of the CRISPR/Cas9 system in disease animal models. Dongwuxue Yanjiu, 2016; 37:191–204.
42.
ShenS, LohTJ, ShenH, et al.CRISPR as a strong gene editing tool. BMB Rep, 2017; 50:20–24.
SmirnikhinaSA, AnuchinaAA, LavrovAV. Ways of improving precise knock-in by genome-editing technologies. Hum Genet, 2019; 138:1–19.
45.
TorrecillaJ, Del Pozo-RodríguezA, Vicente-PascualM, et al.Targeting corneal inflammation by gene therapy: emerging strategies for keratitis. Exp Eye Res, 2018; 176:130–140.
46.
XiongX, ChenM, LimWA, et al.CRISPR/Cas9 for human genome engineering and disease research. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet, 2016; 17:131–154.
47.
AsadAS, Moreno AyalaMA, GottardoMF, et al.Viral gene therapy for breast cancer: progress and challenges. Expert Opin Biol Ther, 2017; 17:945–959.
48.
FanW, YanZ. Factors affecting response rates of the web survey: a systematic review. Comput Human Behav, 2010; 26:132–139.
49.
SisonCP, GlazJ. Simultaneous confidence intervals and sample size determination for multinomial proportions. J Am Stat Assoc, 1995; 90:366–369.
50.
AkogluH.User's guide to correlation coefficients. Turk J Emerg Med, 2018; 18:91–93.
51.
Boone Jr. HN, Boone DA. Analyzing Likert Data. J Extens, 2012; 50:1–5.
52.
CrouxC, DehonC. Influence functions of the Spearman and Kendall correlation measures. Stat Methods Appl, 2010; 19:497–515.
53.
TichyG.The over-optimism among experts in assessment and foresight. Technol Forecast Soc Change, 2004; 71:341–363.
54.
BrandesF.The UK technology foresight programme: an assessment of expert estimates. Technol Forecast Soc Change, 2009; 76:869–879.
55.
MartinBR.The origins of the concept of ‘foresight’ in science and technology: an insider's perspective. Technol Forecast Soc Change, 2010; 77:1438–1447.
WangS, MossJR, HillerJE. Applicability and transferability of interventions in evidence-based public health. Health Promot Int, 2006; 21:76–83.
58.
GartlehnerG, HansenRA, NissmanD, et al.A simple and valid tool distinguished efficacy from effectiveness studies. J Clin Epidemiol, 2006; 59:1040–1048.
59.
AnzaloneAV, RandolphPB, DavisJR, et al.Search-and-replace genome editing without double-strand breaks or donor DNA. Nature, 2019; 576:149–157.
60.
GaudelliNM, KomorAC, ReesHA, et al.Programmable base editing of A•T to G•C in genomic DNA without DNA cleavage. Nature, 2017; 551:464–471.
61.
KimK, RyuS-M, KimS-T, et al.Highly efficient RNA-guided base editing in mouse embryos. Nat Biotechnol, 2017; 35:435–437.
62.
OliynykRT.Future preventive gene therapy of polygenic diseases from a population genetics perspective. Int J Mol Sci, 2019; 20:1–29.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
