Genome Editing in Apicomplexan Parasites: Current Status, Challenges, and Future Possibilities
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it