Zheng, Y. et al. Precise genome-editing in human diseases: mechanisms, strategies and applications. Signal. Transduct. Target. Ther. 9, 47 (2024).
Google Scholar
Adli, M. The CRISPR tool kit for genome editing and beyond. Nat. Commun. 9, 1911 (2018).
Google Scholar
Pixley, K. V. et al. Genome-edited crops for improved food security of smallholder farmers. Nat. Genet. 54, 364–367 (2022).
Google Scholar
Jinek, M. et al. A programmable dual-RNA-guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity. Science 337, 816–821 (2012).
Google Scholar
Chavez, M., Chen, X., Finn, P. B. & Qi, L. S. Advances in CRISPR therapeutics. Nat. Rev. Nephrol. 19, 9–22 (2023).
Google Scholar
Chen, P. J. & Liu, D. R. Prime editing for precise and highly versatile genome manipulation. Nat. Rev. Genet. 24, 161–177 (2023).
Google Scholar
Villiger, L. et al. CRISPR technologies for genome, epigenome and transcriptome editing. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 25, 464–487 (2024).
Google Scholar
Porto, E. M., Komor, A. C., Slaymaker, I. M. & Yeo, G. W. Base editing: advances and therapeutic opportunities. Nat. Rev. Drug. Discov. 19, 839–859 (2020).
Google Scholar
Urnov, F. D., Rebar, E. J., Holmes, M. C., Zhang, H. S. & Gregory, P. D. Genome editing with engineered zinc finger nucleases. Nat. Rev. Genet. 11, 636–646 (2010).
Google Scholar
Joung, J. K. & Sander, J. D. TALENs: a widely applicable technology for targeted genome editing. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 14, 49–55 (2013).
Google Scholar
Pacesa, M., Pelea, O. & Jinek, M. Past, present, and future of CRISPR genome editing technologies. Cell 187, 1076–1100 (2024).
Google Scholar
Winter, J., Shirguppe, S. & Perez-Pinera, P. Protein engineering technologies for development of next-generation genome editors. Curr. Opin. Biomed. Eng. 28, 100514 (2023).
Google Scholar
Hu, J. H. et al. Evolved Cas9 variants with broad PAM compatibility and high DNA specificity. Nature 556, 57–63 (2018).
Google Scholar
Yoon, P. H. et al. Structure-guided discovery of ancestral CRISPR–Cas13 ribonucleases. Science 385, 538–543 (2024).
Google Scholar
Altae-Tran, H. et al. Uncovering the functional diversity of rare CRISPR–Cas systems with deep terascale clustering. Science 382, eadi1910 (2023).
Google Scholar
Wang, Z. et al. Robust enzyme discovery and engineering with deep learning using CataPro. Nat. Commun. 16, 2736 (2025).
Google Scholar
Senior, A. W. et al. Improved protein structure prediction using potentials from deep learning. Nature 577, 706–710 (2020).
Google Scholar
Jumper, J. et al. Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold. Nature 596, 583–589 (2021).
Google Scholar
Abramson, J. et al. Accurate structure prediction of biomolecular interactions with AlphaFold 3. Nature 630, 493–500 (2024).
Google Scholar
Baek, M. et al. Accurate prediction of protein structures and interactions using a three-track neural network. Science 373, 871–876 (2021).
Google Scholar
Simon, E., Swanson, K. & Zou, J. Language models for biological research: a primer. Nat. Methods 21, 1422–1429 (2024).
Google Scholar
Nambiar, T. S., Baudrier, L., Billon, P. & Ciccia, A. CRISPR-based genome editing through the lens of DNA repair. Mol. Cell 82, 348–388 (2022).
Google Scholar
Li, T. et al. CRISPR/Cas9 therapeutics: progress and prospects. Signal. Transduct. Target. Ther. 8, 36 (2023).
Google Scholar
Zetsche, B. et al. Cpf1 is a single RNA-guided endonuclease of a class 2 CRISPR–Cas system. Cell 163, 759–771 (2015).
Google Scholar
Badon, I. W., Oh, Y., Kim, H. J. & Lee, S. H. Recent application of CRISPR–Cas12 and OMEGA system for genome editing. Mol. Ther. 32, 32–43 (2024).
Google Scholar
Hino, T. et al. An AsCas12f-based compact genome-editing tool derived by deep mutational scanning and structural analysis. Cell 186, 4920–4935.e23 (2023).
Google Scholar
Abudayyeh, O. O. et al. C2c2 is a single-component programmable RNA-guided RNA-targeting CRISPR effector. Science 353, aaf5573 (2016).
Google Scholar
Altae-Tran, H. et al. The widespread IS200/IS605 transposon family encodes diverse programmable RNA-guided endonucleases. Science 374, 57–65 (2021).
Google Scholar
Marquart, K. F. et al. Effective genome editing with an enhanced ISDra2 TnpB system and deep learning-predicted omegaRNAs. Nat. Methods 21, 2084–2093 (2024).
Google Scholar
Karvelis, T. et al. Transposon-associated TnpB is a programmable RNA-guided DNA endonuclease. Nature 599, 692–696 (2021).
Google Scholar
Kannan, S. et al. Evolution-guided protein design of IscB for persistent epigenome editing in vivo. Nat. Biotechnol. (2025).
Google Scholar
Xu, C. et al. Conversion of IscB and Cas9 into RNA-guided RNA editors. Cell 188, 5847–5861.e11 (2025).
Google Scholar
Enache, O. M. et al. Cas9 activates the p53 pathway and selects for p53-inactivating mutations. Nat. Genet. 52, 662–668 (2020).
Google Scholar
Kosicki, M., Tomberg, K. & Bradley, A. Repair of double-strand breaks induced by CRISPR–Cas9 leads to large deletions and complex rearrangements. Nat. Biotechnol. 36, 765–771 (2018).
Google Scholar
Leibowitz, M. L. et al. Chromothripsis as an on-target consequence of CRISPR–Cas9 genome editing. Nat. Genet. 53, 895–905 (2021).
Google Scholar
Komor, A. C., Kim, Y. B., Packer, M. S., Zuris, J. A. & Liu, D. R. Programmable editing of a target base in genomic DNA without double-stranded DNA cleavage. Nature 533, 420–424 (2016).
Google Scholar
Gaudelli, N. M. et al. Programmable base editing of A*T to G*C in genomic DNA without DNA cleavage. Nature 551, 464–471 (2017).
Google Scholar
Xu, F. et al. Breaking genetic shackles: the advance of base editing in genetic disorder treatment. Front. Pharmacol. 15, 1364135 (2024).
Google Scholar
Davies, K., Philippidis, A. & Barrangou, R. Five years of progress in CRISPR clinical trials (2019–2024). CRISPR J. 7, 227–230 (2024).
Google Scholar
Musunuru, K. et al. Patient-specific in vivo gene editing to treat a rare genetic disease. N. Engl. J. Med. 392, 2235–2243 (2025).
Google Scholar
Grunewald, J. et al. Transcriptome-wide off-target RNA editing induced by CRISPR-guided DNA base editors. Nature 569, 433–437 (2019).
Google Scholar
Anzalone, A. V. et al. Search-and-replace genome editing without double-strand breaks or donor DNA. Nature 576, 149–157 (2019).
Google Scholar
Anzalone, A. V. et al. Programmable deletion, replacement, integration and inversion of large DNA sequences with twin prime editing. Nat. Biotechnol. 40, 731–740 (2022).
Google Scholar
Yarnall, M. T. N. et al. Drag-and-drop genome insertion of large sequences without double-strand DNA cleavage using CRISPR-directed integrases. Nat. Biotechnol. 41, 500–512 (2023).
Google Scholar
Pandey, S. et al. Efficient site-specific integration of large genes in mammalian cells via continuously evolved recombinases and prime editing. Nat. Biomed. Eng. 9, 22–39 (2025).
Google Scholar
Doman, J. L., Sousa, A. A., Randolph, P. B., Chen, P. J. & Liu, D. R. Designing and executing prime editing experiments in mammalian cells. Nat. Protoc. 17, 2431–2468 (2022).
Google Scholar
Chen, P. J. et al. Enhanced prime editing systems by manipulating cellular determinants of editing outcomes. Cell 184, 5635–5652.e29 (2021).
Google Scholar
Doman, J. L. et al. Phage-assisted evolution and protein engineering yield compact, efficient prime editors. Cell 186, 3983–4002.e26 (2023).
Google Scholar
Yan, J. et al. Improving prime editing with an endogenous small RNA-binding protein. Nature 628, 639–647 (2024).
Google Scholar
Nelson, J. W. et al. Engineered pegRNAs improve prime editing efficiency. Nat. Biotechnol. 40, 402–410 (2022).
Google Scholar
Li, X. et al. Highly efficient prime editing by introducing same-sense mutations in pegRNA or stabilizing its structure. Nat. Commun. 13, 1669 (2022).
Google Scholar
Fei, J. et al. Mismatch prime editing gRNA increased efficiency and reduced indels. Nat. Commun. 16, 139 (2025).
Google Scholar
Gilbert, L. A. et al. Genome-scale CRISPR-mediated control of gene repression and activation. Cell 159, 647–661 (2014).
Google Scholar
Gilbert, L. ukeA. et al. CRISPR-mediated modular RNA-guided regulation of transcription in eukaryotes. Cell 154, 442–451 (2013).
Google Scholar
Chavez, A. et al. Highly efficient Cas9-mediated transcriptional programming. Nat. Methods 12, 326–328 (2015).
Google Scholar
Nunez, J. K. et al. Genome-wide programmable transcriptional memory by CRISPR-based epigenome editing. Cell 184, 2503–2519.e17 (2021).
Google Scholar
Hilton, I. B. et al. Epigenome editing by a CRISPR–Cas9-based acetyltransferase activates genes from promoters and enhancers. Nat. Biotechnol. 33, 510–517 (2015).
Google Scholar
Li, J. et al. Programmable human histone phosphorylation and gene activation using a CRISPR/Cas9-based chromatin kinase. Nat. Commun. 12, 896 (2021).
Google Scholar
Konstantakos, V., Nentidis, A., Krithara, A. & Paliouras, G. CRISPR–Cas9 gRNA efficiency prediction: an overview of predictive tools and the role of deep learning. Nucleic Acids Res. 50, 3616–3637 (2022).
Google Scholar
Sherkatghanad, Z., Abdar, M., Charlier, J. & Makarenkov, V. Using traditional machine learning and deep learning methods for on- and off-target prediction in CRISPR/Cas9: a review. Brief. Bioinform. 24, bbad131 (2023).
Google Scholar
Dixit, S., Kumar, A., Srinivasan, K., Vincent, P. & Ramu Krishnan, N. Advancing genome editing with artificial intelligence: opportunities, challenges, and future directions. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 11, 1335901 (2023).
Google Scholar
Chari, R., Mali, P., Moosburner, M. & Church, G. M. Unraveling CRISPR–Cas9 genome engineering parameters via a library-on-library approach. Nat. Methods 12, 823–826 (2015).
Google Scholar
Kim, H. K. et al. In vivo high-throughput profiling of CRISPR–Cpf1 activity. Nat. Methods 14, 153–159 (2017).
Google Scholar
Zhang, G., Luo, Y., Dai, X. & Dai, Z. Benchmarking deep learning methods for predicting CRISPR/Cas9 sgRNA on- and off-target activities. Brief. Bioinform. 24, bbad333 (2023).
Google Scholar
Kim, H. K. et al. Deep learning improves prediction of CRISPR–Cpf1 guide RNA activity. Nat. Biotechnol. 36, 239–241 (2018).
Google Scholar
Kim, H. K. et al. SpCas9 activity prediction by DeepSpCas9, a deep learning-based model with high generalization performance. Sci. Adv. 5, eaax9249 (2019).
Google Scholar
Chuai, G. et al. DeepCRISPR: optimized CRISPR guide RNA design by deep learning. Genome Biol. 19, 80 (2018).
Google Scholar
Xiang, X. et al. Enhancing CRISPR–Cas9 gRNA efficiency prediction by data integration and deep learning. Nat. Commun. 12, 3238 (2021).
Google Scholar
Li, C., Zou, Q., Li, J. & Feng, H. Prediction of CRISPR–Cas9 on-target activity based on a hybrid neural network. Comput. Struct. Biotechnol. J. 27, 2098–2106 (2025).
Google Scholar
Hou, Y. et al. Leveraging protein language models for cross-variant CRISPR/Cas9 sgRNA activity prediction. Bioinformatics 41, btaf385 (2025).
Google Scholar
Lin, Z. et al. Evolutionary-scale prediction of atomic-level protein structure with a language model. Science 379, 1123–1130 (2023).
Google Scholar
Elkayam, S., Tziony, I. & Orenstein, Y. DeepCRISTL: deep transfer learning to predict CRISPR/Cas9 on-target editing efficiency in specific cellular contexts. Bioinformatics 40, btae481 (2024).
Google Scholar
Liu, Q., Cheng, X., Liu, G., Li, B. & Liu, X. Deep learning improves the ability of sgRNA off-target propensity prediction. BMC Bioinforma. 21, 51 (2020).
Google Scholar
Chen, Q. et al. Genome-wide CRISPR off-target prediction and optimization using RNA–DNA interaction fingerprints. Nat. Commun. 14, 7521 (2023).
Google Scholar
Ozden, F. & Minary, P. Learning to quantify uncertainty in off-target activity for CRISPR guide RNAs. Nucleic Acids Res. 52, e87 (2024).
Google Scholar
Tahsin, A. et al. CRISPR-Embedding: CRISPR/Cas9 off-target activity prediction using DNA k-mer embedding. Computational Struct. Biotechnol. Rep. 2, 100043 (2025).
Du, W. et al. A versatile CRISPR/Cas9 system off-target prediction tool using language model. Commun. Biol. 8, 882 (2025).
Google Scholar
Cheng, X. et al. Modeling CRISPR–Cas13d on-target and off-target effects using machine learning approaches. Nat. Commun. 14, 752 (2023).
Google Scholar
Wessels, H. H. et al. Prediction of on-target and off-target activity of CRISPR–Cas13d guide RNAs using deep learning. Nat. Biotechnol. 42, 628–637 (2024).
Google Scholar
Shen, M. W. et al. Predictable and precise template-free CRISPR editing of pathogenic variants. Nature 563, 646–651 (2018).
Google Scholar
Chen, W. et al. Massively parallel profiling and predictive modeling of the outcomes of CRISPR/Cas9-mediated double-strand break repair. Nucleic Acids Res. 47, 7989–8003 (2019).
Google Scholar
Allen, F. et al. Predicting the mutations generated by repair of Cas9-induced double-strand breaks. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 64–72 (2019).
Google Scholar
Leenay, R. T. et al. Large dataset enables prediction of repair after CRISPR–Cas9 editing in primary T cells. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 1034–1037 (2019).
Google Scholar
Naert, T. et al. Precise, predictable genome integrations by deep-learning-assisted design of microhomology-based templates. Nat. Biotechnol. (2025).
Google Scholar
Huang, T. P., Newby, G. A. & Liu, D. R. Precision genome editing using cytosine and adenine base editors in mammalian cells. Nat. Protoc. 16, 1089–1128 (2021).
Google Scholar
Arbab, M. et al. Determinants of base editing outcomes from target library analysis and machine learning. Cell 182, 463–480.e30 (2020).
Google Scholar
Song, M. et al. Sequence-specific prediction of the efficiencies of adenine and cytosine base editors. Nat. Biotechnol. 38, 1037–1043 (2020).
Google Scholar
Marquart, K. F. et al. Predicting base editing outcomes with an attention-based deep learning algorithm trained on high-throughput target library screens. Nat. Commun. 12, 5114 (2021).
Google Scholar
Koblan, L. W. et al. Efficient C*G-to-G*C base editors developed using CRISPRi screens, target-library analysis, and machine learning. Nat. Biotechnol. 39, 1414–1425 (2021).
Google Scholar
Kim, N. et al. Deep learning models to predict the editing efficiencies and outcomes of diverse base editors. Nat. Biotechnol. 42, 484–497 (2024).
Google Scholar
Zhou, X. et al. Comprehensive evaluation and prediction of editing outcomes for near-PAMless adenine and cytosine base editors. Commun. Biol. 7, 1389 (2024).
Google Scholar
Walton, R. T., Christie, K. A., Whittaker, M. N. & Kleinstiver, B. P. Unconstrained genome targeting with near-PAMless engineered CRISPR–Cas9 variants. Science 368, 290–296 (2020).
Google Scholar
Yuan, T. et al. Deep learning models incorporating endogenous factors beyond DNA sequences improve the prediction accuracy of base editing outcomes. Cell Discov. 10, 20 (2024).
Google Scholar
Zhang, C. et al. Prediction of base editor off-targets by deep learning. Nat. Commun. 14, 5358 (2023).
Google Scholar
Kim, H. K. et al. Predicting the efficiency of prime editing guide RNAs in human cells. Nat. Biotechnol. 39, 198–206 (2021).
Google Scholar
Li, Y., Chen, J., Tsai, S. Q. & Cheng, Y. Easy-Prime: a machine learning-based prime editor design tool. Genome Biol. 22, 235 (2021).
Google Scholar
Mathis, N. et al. Predicting prime editing efficiency and product purity by deep learning. Nat. Biotechnol. 41, 1151–1159 (2023).
Google Scholar
Yu, G. et al. Prediction of efficiencies for diverse prime editing systems in multiple cell types. Cell 186, 2256–2272 e2223 (2023).
Google Scholar
Mathis, N. et al. Machine learning prediction of prime editing efficiency across diverse chromatin contexts. Nat. Biotechnol. 43, 712–719 (2025).
Google Scholar
Koeppel, J. et al. Prediction of prime editing insertion efficiencies using sequence features and DNA repair determinants. Nat. Biotechnol. 41, 1446–1456 (2023).
Google Scholar
Liu, F. et al. Design of prime-editing guide RNAs with deep transfer learning. Nat. Mach. Intell. 5, 1261 (2023).
Google Scholar
Alipanahi, R., Safari, L. & Khanteymoori, A. DTMP-prime: a deep transformer-based model for predicting prime editing efficiency and pegRNA activity. Mol. Ther. Nucleic Acids 35, 102370 (2024).
Google Scholar
Janssen, S. M. & Lorincz, M. C. Interplay between chromatin marks in development and disease. Nat. Rev. Genet. 23, 137–153 (2022).
Google Scholar
McCutcheon, S. R., Rohm, D., Iglesias, N. & Gersbach, C. A. Epigenome editing technologies for discovery and medicine. Nat. Biotechnol. 42, 1199–1217 (2024).
Google Scholar
Yang, Q. et al. EpiCas-DL: predicting sgRNA activity for CRISPR-mediated epigenome editing by deep learning. Comput. Struct. Biotechnol. J. 21, 202–211 (2023).
Google Scholar
Mu, W. et al. Machine learning methods for predicting guide RNA effects in CRISPR epigenome editing experiments. Preprint at bioRxiv (2024).
Consortium, E. P. An integrated encyclopedia of DNA elements in the human genome. Nature 489, 57–74 (2012).
Google Scholar
Batra, S. S. et al. Predicting the effect of CRISPR–Cas9-based epigenome editing. Preprint at bioRxiv (2025).
Zhao, F. et al. A strategy for Cas13 miniaturization based on the structure and AlphaFold. Nat. Commun. 14, 5545 (2023).
Google Scholar
Pan, L. et al. Optimization of CRISPR/Cas12f1 guide RNAs using AlphaFold3 for enhanced nucleic acid detection. Microchemical J. 212, 113194 (2025).
Google Scholar
Leman, J. K. et al. Macromolecular modeling and design in Rosetta: recent methods and frameworks. Nat. Methods 17, 665–680 (2020).
Google Scholar
Jurtz, V. et al. NetMHCpan-4.0: improved peptide–MHC class I interaction predictions integrating eluted ligand and peptide binding affinity data. J. Immunol. 199, 3360–3368 (2017).
Google Scholar
Raghavan, R. et al. Rational engineering of minimally immunogenic nucleases for gene therapy. Nat. Commun. 16, 105 (2025).
Google Scholar
Watson, J. L. et al. De novo design of protein structure and function with RFdiffusion. Nature 620, 1089–1100 (2023).
Google Scholar
Park, J. C. et al. AI-generated MLH1 small binder improves prime editing efficiency. Cell 188, 5831–5846.e21 (2025).
Google Scholar
Ruffolo, J. A. & Madani, A. Designing proteins with language models. Nat. Biotechnol. 42, 200–202 (2024).
Google Scholar
He, Y. et al. Protein language models-assisted optimization of a uracil-N-glycosylase variant enables programmable T-to-G and T-to-C base editing. Mol. Cell 84, 1257–1270.e6 (2024).
Google Scholar
Perrotta, R. M. et al. Machine learning and directed evolution of base editing enzymes. Preprint at bioRxiv (2024).
Silverstein, R. A. et al. Custom CRISPR–Cas9 PAM variants via scalable engineering and machine learning. Nature 643, 539–550 (2025).
Google Scholar
Chen, K. et al. Lung and liver editing by lipid nanoparticle delivery of a stable CRISPR–Cas9 ribonucleoprotein. Nat. Biotechnol. 43, 1445–1457 (2025).
Google Scholar
Wang, Y. et al. Directed evolution: methodologies and applications. Chem. Rev. 121, 12384–12444 (2021).
Google Scholar
Wittmann, B. J., Johnston, K. E., Wu, Z. & Arnold, F. H. Advances in machine learning for directed evolution. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 69, 11–18 (2021).
Google Scholar
Jiang, K. et al. Rapid in silico directed evolution by a protein language model with EVOLVEpro. Science 387, eadr6006 (2025).
Google Scholar
Raftopoulou, O. & Barrangou, R. Mining microbial organisms to discover and characterize novel CRISPR–Cas systems. Curr. Opin. Biomed. Eng. 27, 100469 (2023).
Google Scholar
Faure, G. et al. TIGR-Tas: a family of modular RNA-guided DNA-targeting systems in prokaryotes and their viruses. Science 388, eadv9789 (2025).
Google Scholar
Saito, M. et al. Fanzor is a eukaryotic programmable RNA-guided endonuclease. Nature 620, 660–668 (2023).
Google Scholar
Jiang, K. et al. Programmable RNA-guided DNA endonucleases are widespread in eukaryotes and their viruses. Sci. Adv. 9, eadk0171 (2023).
Google Scholar
Huang, J. et al. Discovery of deaminase functions by structure-based protein clustering. Cell 186, 3182–3195.e14 (2023).
Google Scholar
Xu, K. et al. Structure-guided discovery of highly efficient cytidine deaminases with sequence-context independence. Nat. Biomed. Eng. 9, 93–108 (2025).
Google Scholar
Li, W. et al. Discovering CRISPR–Cas system with self-processing pre-crRNA capability by foundation models. Nat. Commun. 15, 10024 (2024).
Google Scholar
Nguyen, E. et al. Sequence modeling and design from molecular to genome scale with EVO. Science 386, eado9336 (2024).
Google Scholar
Nijkamp, E., Ruffolo, J. A., Weinstein, E. N., Naik, N. & Madani, A. ProGen2: exploring the boundaries of protein language models. Cell Syst. 14, 968–978.e3 (2023).
Google Scholar
Ruffolo, J. A. et al. Design of highly functional genome editors by modelling CRISPR–Cas sequences. Nature 645, 518–525 (2025).
Google Scholar
Nammi, B. et al. CasGen: a regularized generative model for CRISPR cas protein design with classification and margin-based optimization. Preprint at bioRxiv (2025).
Jiang, J. et al. A review of transformer models in drug discovery and beyond. J. Pharm. Anal. 15, 101081 (2025).
Google Scholar
Chen, Y. et al. All-RNA-mediated targeted gene integration in mammalian cells with rationally engineered R2 retrotransposons. Cell 187, 4674–4689.e18 (2024).
Google Scholar
Fell, C. W. et al. Reprogramming site-specific retrotransposon activity to new DNA sites. Nature 642, 1080–1089 (2025).
Google Scholar
Witte, I. P. et al. Programmable gene insertion in human cells with a laboratory-evolved CRISPR-associated transposase. Science 388, eadt5199 (2025).
Google Scholar
Durrant, M. G. et al. Bridge RNAs direct programmable recombination of target and donor DNA. Nature 630, 984–993 (2024).
Google Scholar
Perry, N. T. et al. Megabase-scale human genome rearrangement with programmable bridge recombinases. Science (2025).
Rood, J. E., Hupalowska, A. & Regev, A. Toward a foundation model of causal cell and tissue biology with a perturbation cell and tissue atlas. Cell 187, 4520–4545 (2024).
Google Scholar
Bunne, C. et al. How to build the virtual cell with artificial intelligence: priorities and opportunities. Cell 187, 7045–7063 (2024).
Google Scholar
Roohani, Y. H. et al. Virtual cell challenge: toward a turing test for the virtual cell. Cell 188, 3370–3374 (2025).
Google Scholar
Cui, H. et al. Towards multimodal foundation models in molecular cell biology. Nature 640, 623–633 (2025).
Google Scholar
Qu, Y. et al. CRISPR-GPT for agentic automation of gene-editing experiments. Nat. Biomed. Eng. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41551-025-01463-z (2025).
Huang, K. et al. Biomni: a general-purpose biomedical AI agent. Preprint at bioRxiv (2025).
Canty, R. B. et al. Science acceleration and accessibility with self-driving labs. Nat. Commun. 16, 3856 (2025).
Google Scholar
Frangoul, H. et al. CRISPR–Cas9 gene editing for sickle cell disease and beta-thalassemia. N. Engl. J. Med. 384, 252–260 (2021).
Google Scholar
Raguram, A., Banskota, S. & Liu, D. R. Therapeutic in vivo delivery of gene editing agents. Cell 185, 2806–2827 (2022).
Google Scholar
Tan, F., Dong, Y., Qi, J., Yu, W. & Chai, R. Artificial intelligence-based approaches for AAV vector engineering. Adv. Sci. 12, e2411062 (2025).
Google Scholar
Laxmi, B., Devi, P. U. M., Thanjavur, N. & Buddolla, V. The applications of artificial intelligence (AI)-driven tools in virus-like particles (VLPs) research. Curr. Microbiol. 81, 234 (2024).
Google Scholar
Cui, H. et al. LUMI-lab: a foundation model-driven autonomous platform enabling discovery of new ionizable lipid designs for mRNA delivery. Preprint at bioRxiv (2025).
Wang, W. et al. Artificial intelligence-driven rational design of ionizable lipids for mRNA delivery. Nat. Commun. 15, 10804 (2024).
Google Scholar
Witten, J. et al. Artificial intelligence-guided design of lipid nanoparticles for pulmonary gene therapy. Nat. Biotechnol. 43, 1790–1799 (2025).
Google Scholar
Xu, Y. et al. AGILE platform: a deep learning powered approach to accelerate LNP development for mRNA delivery. Nat. Commun. 15, 6305 (2024).
Google Scholar
Dorsey, P. J., Lau, C. L., Chang, T. C., Doerschuk, P. C. & D’Addio, S. M. Review of machine learning for lipid nanoparticle formulation and process development. J. Pharm. Sci. 113, 3413–3433 (2024).
Google Scholar
Li, B. et al. Combinatorial design of nanoparticles for pulmonary mRNA delivery and genome editing. Nat. Biotechnol. 41, 1410–1415 (2023).
Google Scholar
Zhang, H. et al. Algorithm for optimized mRNA design improves stability and immunogenicity. Nature 621, 396–403 (2023).
Google Scholar
Chu, Y. et al. A 5\Prime; UTR language model for decoding untranslated regions of mRNA and function predictions. Nat. Mach. Intell. 6, 449–460 (2024).
Google Scholar
Morrow, A. K. et al. ML-driven design of 3′ UTRs for mRNA stability. Preprint at bioRxiv (2024).
Castillo-Hair, S. et al. Optimizing 5′ UTRs for mRNA-delivered gene editing using deep learning. Nat. Commun. 15, 5284 (2024).
Google Scholar
Mao, D. et al. AI-MARRVEL—a knowledge-driven AI system for diagnosing mendelian disorders. NEJM AI (2024).
Avsec, Ž. et al. AlphaGenome: advancing regulatory variant effect prediction with a unified DNA sequence model. Preprint at bioRxiv (2025).
Birgmeier, J. et al. AMELIE speeds mendelian diagnosis by matching patient phenotype and genotype to primary literature. Sci. Transl. Med. 12, eaau9113 (2020).
Google Scholar
Duong, D. & Solomon, B. D. Artificial intelligence in clinical genetics. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 33, 281–288 (2025).
Google Scholar
Teodoro, D., Naderi, N., Yazdani, A., Zhang, B. & Bornet, A. A scoping review of artificial intelligence applications in clinical trial risk assessment. NPJ Digit. Med. 8, 486 (2025).
Google Scholar
Berman, H. M. et al. The Protein Data Bank. Nucleic Acids Res. 28, 235–242 (2000).
Google Scholar
Burley, S. K. et al. Updated resources for exploring experimentally-determined PDB structures and computed structure models at the RCSB Protein Data Bank. Nucleic Acids Res. 53, D564–D574 (2025).
Google Scholar
Abolhasani, M. & Kumacheva, E. The rise of self-driving labs in chemical and materials sciences. Nat. Synth. 2, 483–492 (2023).
Google Scholar
Szymanski, N. J. et al. An autonomous laboratory for the accelerated synthesis of novel materials. Nature 624, 86–91 (2023).
Google Scholar
Greener, J. G., Kandathil, S. M., Moffat, L. & Jones, D. T. A guide to machine learning for biologists. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 23, 40–55 (2022).
Google Scholar
Eraslan, G., Avsec, Z., Gagneur, J. & Theis, F. J. Deep learning: new computational modelling techniques for genomics. Nat. Rev. Genet. 20, 389–403 (2019).
Google Scholar
LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y. & Hinton, G. Deep learning. Nature 521, 436–444 (2015).
Google Scholar
Bommasani, R. et al. On the opportunities and risks of foundation models. Preprint at (2021).
Sengar, S. S., Hasan, A. B., Kumar, S. & Carroll, F. Generative artificial intelligence: a systematic review and applications. Multimed. Tools Appl. 84, 23661–23700 (2025).
Google Scholar
Hayes, T. et al. Simulating 500 million years of evolution with a language model. Science 387, 850–858 (2025).
Google Scholar
Bock, C. et al. High-content CRISPR screening. Nat. Rev. Methods Primers 2, 9 (2022).
Google Scholar
Baysoy, A., Bai, Z., Satija, R. & Fan, R. The technological landscape and applications of single-cell multi-omics. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 24, 695–713 (2023).
Google Scholar
Dixit, A. et al. Perturb-Seq: dissecting molecular circuits with scalable single-cell RNA profiling of pooled genetic screens. Cell 167, 1853–1866.e17 (2016).
Google Scholar
Jaitin, D. A. et al. Dissecting immune circuits by linking CRISPR-pooled screens with single-cell RNA-seq. Cell 167, 1883–1896.e15 (2016).
Google Scholar
Datlinger, P. et al. Pooled CRISPR screening with single-cell transcriptome readout. Nat. Methods 14, 297–301 (2017).
Google Scholar
Roohani, Y., Huang, K. & Leskovec, J. Predicting transcriptional outcomes of novel multigene perturbations with GEARS. Nat. Biotechnol. 42, 927–935 (2024).
Google Scholar
Yu, H., Qian, W., Song, Y. & Welch, J. D. PerturbNet predicts single-cell responses to unseen chemical and genetic perturbations. Mol. Syst. Biol. 21, 960–982 (2025).
Google Scholar
Toneyan, S. & Koo, P. K. Interpreting cis-regulatory interactions from large-scale deep neural networks. Nat. Genet. 56, 2517–2527 (2024).
Google Scholar
Xing, H. & Yau, C. GPerturb: Gaussian process modelling of single-cell perturbation data. Nat. Commun. 16, 5423 (2025).
Google Scholar
Cui, H. et al. scGPT: toward building a foundation model for single-cell multi-omics using generative AI. Nat. Methods 21, 1470–1480 (2024).
Google Scholar
Theodoris, C. V. et al. Transfer learning enables predictions in network biology. Nature 618, 616–624 (2023).
Google Scholar
Adduri, A. K. et al. Predicting cellular responses to perturbation across diverse contexts with State. Preprint at bioRxiv (2025).
Hao, M. et al. Large-scale foundation model on single-cell transcriptomics. Nat. Methods 21, 1481–1491 (2024).
Google Scholar
Zeng, Y. et al. CellFM: a large-scale foundation model pre-trained on transcriptomics of 100 million human cells. Nat. Commun. 16, 4679 (2025).
Google Scholar
Dhainaut, M. et al. Spatial CRISPR genomics identifies regulators of the tumor microenvironment. Cell 185, 1223–1239.e20 (2022).
Google Scholar
Baysoy, A. et al. Spatially resolved in vivo CRISPR screen sequencing via perturb-DBiT. Preprint at bioRxiv (2024).
Saunders, R. A. et al. Perturb-Multimodal: A platform for pooled genetic screens with imaging and sequencing in intact mammalian tissue. Cell 188, 4790–4809.e22 (2025).
Google Scholar
Binan, L. et al. Simultaneous CRISPR screening and spatial transcriptomics reveal intracellular, intercellular, and functional transcriptional circuits. Cell 188, 2141–2158.e18 (2025).
Google Scholar
Megas, S. et al. Celcomen: spatial causal disentanglement for single-cell and tissue perturbation modeling. Preprint at (2024).
Li, Y., Stanojevic, S. & Garmire, L. X. Emerging artificial intelligence applications in spatial transcriptomics analysis. Comput. Struct. Biotechnol. J. 20, 2895–2908 (2022).
Google Scholar
link