Comparison of the Feasibility, Efficiency, and Safety of Genome Editing Technologies

Recent advances in programmable nucleases including meganucleases (MNs), zinc finger nucleases (ZFNs), transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALENs), and clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats-Cas (CRISPR-Cas) have propelled genome editing from explorative research to clinical and industrial settings. Each technology, however, features distinct modes of action that unevenly impact their applicability across the entire genome and are often tested under significantly different conditions. While CRISPR-Cas is currently leading the field due to its versatility, quick adoption, and high degree of support, it is not without limitations. Currently, no technology can be regarded as ideal or even applicable to every case as the context dictates the best approach for genetic modification within a target organism. In this review, we implement a four-pillar framework (context, feasibility, efficiency, and safety) to assess the main genome editing platforms, as a basis for rational decision-making by an expanding base of users, regulators, and consumers. Beyond carefully considering their specific use case with the assessment framework proposed here, we urge stakeholders interested in genome editing to independently validate the parameters of their chosen platform prior to commitment. Furthermore, safety across all applications, particularly in clinical settings, is a paramount consideration and comprehensive off-target detection strategies should be incorporated within workflows to address this. Often neglected aspects such as immunogenicity and the inadvertent selection of mutants deficient for DNA repair pathways must also be considered.