Tag: CRISPR
-
In-vivo gene editing — big pharma bet on the delivery platform, not the editor, and the real bottleneck (hard outcomes) is untouched
Evidence-first notes on bioscience and deep tech, at the edge of the lab and the market. Information only — not investment advice, not medical advice. The 30-second version What. In 2025–26 big pharma bought its way into in-vivo gene editing and in-vivo CAR-T (Eli Lilly–Verve up to $1.3B; AbbVie–Capstan up to $2.1B). But the bet…
-
The real clinical cost of in-vivo gene editing is not potency but irreversibility — reading the MAGNITUDE hepatotoxicity signal, the death, and asymmetric risk by evidence tier
Evidence-first notes on bioscience and deep tech, at the edge of the lab and the market. Information only — not investment advice, and not medical advice. The 30-second version What. Across Parts 0–3 this series showed that in-vivo editing has already matched siRNA/ASO on the headline metric — knockdown depth (PCSK9 −88%, TTR −87%, Z-AAT…
-
Editing modality — nuclease, base, prime — and why the most precise editor is the least clinically mature
Evidence-first notes on bioscience and deep tech, at the edge of the lab and the market. Information only — not investment advice, not medical advice. The 30-second version What. In-vivo gene editing is not one technology but a precision spectrum: nuclease (double-strand break, random indels — a “knockout” tool) → base editing (single-base substitution, no…
-
The in-vivo gene-editing landscape — one-shot, lifelong lipid lowering has arrived at the headline, but delivery, safety and irreversibility are the real bottlenecks
Evidence-first notes on bioscience and deep tech, at the edge of the lab and the market. Information only — not investment advice, not medical advice. All reduction and editing-efficiency figures are attributed to the sponsoring trial or company; many are company press releases or conference presentations rather than peer-reviewed data (noted inline). Safety events are…
Uthando Nethemba 