Genome Editing in Apicomplexan Parasites: Current Status, Challenges, and Future Possibilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)–CRISPR-associated protein (Cas) technology has revolutionized genome editing across various biological systems, including the Apicomplexa phylum. This review describes the status, challenges, and applications of CRISPR–Cas9 editing technology in apicomplexan parasites, such as Plasmodium , Toxoplasma , Theileria , Babesia , and Cryptosporidium . The discussion encompasses successfully implemented CRISPR–Cas9-based techniques in these parasites, highlighting the achieved milestones, from precise gene modifications to genome-wide screening. In addition, the review addresses the challenges hampering efficient genome editing, including the parasites’ complex life cycles, multiple intracellular stages, and the lack of robust genetic tools. It further explores the ethical and policy considerations surrounding genome editing and the future perspectives of CRISPR–Cas applications in apicomplexan parasites.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".