Gene Editing Technologies Market by Technology Platform (CRISPR, Meganuclease, TALEN), Delivery Method (Nonviral, Viral), Disease Indication, Application - Global Forecast 2025-2032
Description
The Gene Editing Technologies Market was valued at USD 18.30 billion in 2024 and is projected to grow to USD 20.59 billion in 2025, with a CAGR of 14.49%, reaching USD 54.08 billion by 2032.
A concise orientation to the evolving gene editing ecosystem that frames technological progress, translational momentum, and strategic considerations for stakeholders
The field of gene editing has progressed from conceptual discovery to a suite of deployable platforms that are reshaping research practice, therapeutic development, and agricultural innovation. Advances in precision, efficiency, and delivery have converged with expanding translational programs to create new pathways for addressing previously intractable biological problems. As academic and commercial actors accelerate applications across human health, agriculture, and industrial biosynthesis, stakeholders must reconcile accelerating technical capabilities with complex regulatory and ethical considerations.
This introduction situates the current landscape by emphasizing the interplay between platform maturity, delivery innovations, and application diversity. It highlights how modularity in editing components, expanding delivery toolkits, and an increasing pipeline of translational programs are collectively reducing barriers to practical adoption. The narrative underscores why decision-makers should closely monitor interoperability across technologies, evolving clinical evidence, and the shifting balance between centralized and distributed R&D models. Ultimately, a clear-eyed understanding of the present moment enables organizations to align investments with realistic timelines and risk tolerances while positioning for the next wave of scientific and commercial inflection points.
How expanding platform diversity, delivery innovations, regulatory maturation, and collaborative development models are collectively accelerating translational progress
Several transformative shifts are reshaping how gene editing technologies are developed, validated, and commercialized. First, platform diversification-moving beyond single-tool dominance-has created parallel innovation streams where CRISPR variants, base editing, prime editing, and protein-based nucleases co-evolve according to use-case demands. This diversification enhances specificity and expands the range of editable targets, while also requiring integrative validation strategies to compare efficacy and safety across modalities.
Second, delivery modality improvements are unlocking applications that were previously constrained by vector tropism or cellular access. Advances in lipid nanoparticles, electroporation protocols, and optimized viral systems are enabling more precise spatiotemporal control, which in turn allows developers to pursue both ex vivo and in vivo programs with greater confidence. Third, regulatory frameworks and ethical norms are maturing, producing clearer pathways for clinical translation but also higher expectations for long-term safety evidence and governance. Finally, collaborative models between academia, biotech, and contract service providers are becoming more strategic and outcome-oriented, shifting toward co-development and shared-risk arrangements. Together, these shifts are accelerating translational throughput while increasing the importance of robust comparative data, adaptive trial design, and scalable manufacturing strategies.
Navigating procurement, supply chain resilience, and operational relocation pressures arising from tariff-driven trade adjustments affecting gene editing research and production
The imposition of tariffs and trade adjustments in 2025 has introduced additional layers of complexity for cross-border research and supply chains supporting gene editing programs. Firms that depend on specialized reagents, reagent kits, and delivery system components face elongated procurement timelines and higher landed costs, prompting some organizations to reassess supplier footprints and inventory strategies. In response, many institutions are prioritizing redundancy in supplier relationships and increasing qualification efforts for alternate vendors to mitigate disruption risks.
These trade adjustments have also influenced decisions around the localization of manufacturing and preclinical operations. Sponsors are weighing the cost and timeline implications of shifting critical reagent sourcing and vector production to nearer-shore facilities against the capital and regulatory overhead of such moves. At the same time, contract research and manufacturing organizations that can demonstrate geographically diversified capacity and robust quality systems have gained strategic importance. The net effect has been a renewed focus on supply chain resilience, a re-evaluation of outsourcing versus in-house capabilities, and more conservative planning around procurement lead times and inventory management to maintain continuity in research and development pipelines.
Comprehensive segmentation-driven insight connecting technology platforms, application priorities, delivery methods, end-user roles, and disease-specific imperatives for strategic clarity
Insightful segmentation illuminates where technical strengths, translational prospects, and user needs intersect across the gene editing landscape. When considering technology platforms, CRISPR remains prominent with submodalities such as base editing, Cas9, and prime editing driving differentiated use cases; base editing itself branches into adenine and cytosine base editors that target fundamentally different nucleotide conversions and therefore suit distinct therapeutic objectives. Complementary nucleases such as meganucleases, TALENs, and ZFNs continue to offer utility in contexts where protein-based recognition confers hybrid advantages, and platform selection increasingly reflects trade-offs among specificity, payload constraints, and development timelines.
Application-driven segmentation highlights an expansive set of end objectives, ranging from agricultural improvements in crops and livestock to industrial outputs like biofuels and bioplastics, and extending to research tools such as assays, cell line engineering, and library screening that underpin discovery pipelines. Therapeutic application pathways bifurcate into ex vivo strategies-employed in immunotherapy and stem cell therapy-and in vivo approaches that raise distinct delivery and safety considerations across germline and somatic editing contexts. End-user perspectives also shape priorities; large biopharmaceutical companies and small-to-medium biopharma organizations calibrate program risk differently, while contract research organizations provide clinical and preclinical services that influence program scalability. Medical centers and hospitals, encompassing clinics and hospitals, drive translational studies and early clinical adoption, and research institutes and academic centers, including academic research groups and government laboratories, supply foundational science and early validation.
Delivery method segmentation further refines development choices, with nonviral approaches such as electroporation, lipid nanoparticles, and microinjection offering transient exposure and reduced immunogenicity, while viral vectors including adeno-associated viruses, lentiviruses, and retroviruses provide durable expression and well-understood tropisms. Disease indication segmentation clarifies therapeutic imperatives, especially in oncology where hematological malignancies and solid tumors require divergent targeting strategies, and in rare genetic disorders such as cystic fibrosis and sickle cell disease where single-gene correction models and cell-based therapies represent realistic curative pathways. Together, these segmentation lenses enable more precise portfolio prioritization by aligning platform capabilities, delivery options, and end-user needs to specific application imperatives.
How regional regulatory nuance, infrastructure investment, and collaborative ecosystems across the Americas, Europe Middle East & Africa, and Asia-Pacific shape program selection and deployment
Regional dynamics exert a powerful influence on research priorities, regulatory expectations, and commercial pathways across the gene editing ecosystem. In the Americas, a concentration of biotech innovation, clinical trial activity, and venture capital support creates a fertile environment for translational programs and early adoption of advanced editing modalities. Regulatory agencies in this region emphasize rigorous clinical evidence and post-market surveillance, which shapes sponsor strategies around trial design and long-term follow-up commitments. Europe, the Middle East & Africa present a heterogeneous regulatory and investment landscape where collaborative networks and public-private partnerships often accelerate translational pipelines despite disparate national frameworks. Policy and ethical debates in this region also influence permissible uses and public acceptance, which in turn affect trial recruitment and adoption timelines.
Asia-Pacific demonstrates rapid capacity building in both basic research and manufacturing capabilities, with several countries actively investing in biomanufacturing infrastructure and clinical development pipelines. Regulatory authorities across the region have shown a mix of proactive frameworks and adaptive guidance intended to balance innovation with patient safety, and local market access strategies often emphasize regional partnerships and technology transfer. Across all regions, cross-border collaborations, regulatory harmonization efforts, and supply chain resilience planning are shaping where and how programs advance from discovery into clinical stages. Organizations are therefore tailoring their geographic strategies to align with regulatory expectations, talent availability, and localized infrastructure while maintaining global coordination for manufacturing, data sharing, and commercialization.
Strategic competitive dynamics where scientific differentiation, operational scalability, and targeted partnerships determine who accelerates development and who enables translation
A competitive and collaborative constellation of companies, academic institutions, and service providers defines the operational fabric of gene editing development. Technology developers focus on differentiating through specificity, delivery innovations, and platform modularity, while service providers expand capabilities to support end-to-end development, from early assays and cell line engineering to vector manufacturing and clinical support. Commercial strategies increasingly favor partnerships that accelerate access to specialized delivery platforms or clinical networks, and many organizations are pursuing targeted collaborations to co-develop indications where complementary strengths reduce technical and regulatory risk.
Investment priorities tend to favor programs with clear therapeutic rationale and demonstrable mechanistic advantage, and companies that can articulate scalable manufacturing approaches and robust quality frameworks typically attract strategic interest. At the same time, academic and government laboratories continue to be essential sources of methodological innovation and early validation, often catalyzing spinouts and licensing arrangements. Contract research and manufacturing organizations that proactively expand geographically distributed capacity and demonstrate regulatory-compliant processes are positioning themselves as critical enablers of program continuity. Overall, competitive dynamics reward clarity of scientific differentiation, operational rigor, and pragmatic partnership models that align incentives across discovery, development, and delivery.
Actionable strategic playbook for leaders to align platform selection, supply resilience, regulatory engagement, and partnership design to accelerate translation
Industry leaders must adopt pragmatic, multidimensional strategies to convert scientific advances into durable programs and sustainable business value. First, invest selectively in platform and delivery combinations that align with the organization’s technical strengths and risk tolerance, while maintaining the flexibility to pivot as comparative data emerge. Second, prioritize supplier diversification and near-shoring options for critical reagents and vector production to mitigate geopolitical and tariff-related risks while balancing cost-to-serve considerations. Third, structure partnerships that share development milestones and align incentives across technology licensors, developers, and clinical sites; these arrangements reduce single-party exposure to translational uncertainty and speed program de-risking.
Leaders should also elevate regulatory and ethical engagement early in program design to preempt evidentiary gaps and to design trials that provide durable safety and efficacy signals. Investing in scalable manufacturing platforms and quality systems pays dividends when transitioning from preclinical to clinical stages. Finally, cultivate talent and cross-functional teams that can translate molecular insights into clinical paradigms, and embed portfolio governance processes that continuously reassess technical, commercial, and regulatory risk. By operationalizing these recommendations, organizations can sustain innovation while improving predictability and operational resilience.
A transparent, multi-source research methodology combining expert interviews, primary literature, regulatory analysis, and cross-validation to underpin strategic insights reliably
This research combines a multi-source evidence approach to ensure robust, reproducible insights and to minimize unexamined assumptions. Primary qualitative inputs include structured interviews with domain experts across academic laboratories, biotech leadership, clinical investigators, and contract service providers, which provide context on technology choices, translational hurdles, and operational constraints. Secondary inputs synthesize peer-reviewed literature, regulatory guidance documents, and company disclosures to validate technological claims and to map historical translational pathways. The methodology also incorporates comparative analysis of delivery modality performance and therapeutic area characteristics to identify where technical advantages most closely align with clinical need.
Analytical procedures include cross-validation of qualitative themes against documented clinical outcomes, triangulation of supplier and capacity trends through procurement and manufacturing disclosures, and sensitivity analyses around operational constraints such as supply chain disruptions and regulatory timelines. Throughout, emphasis was placed on transparent documentation of source provenance, conservative interpretation of emerging data, and explicit acknowledgment of areas where evidence remains limited and monitoring is advisable. This approach yields a pragmatic, evidence-grounded perspective designed to support strategic decision-making without overreaching beyond validated empirical signals.
Balancing scientific promise with operational discipline to navigate the critical path from gene editing discovery through clinical translation and commercial deployment
As gene editing tools and delivery technologies continue to mature, stakeholders face both unprecedented opportunities and persistent complexities. The trajectory from discovery to practical application is increasingly shaped by platform-specific trade-offs, delivery challenges, regulatory expectations, and the need for resilient global supply chains. Organizations that converge scientific excellence with disciplined operational practices and strategic partnerships will be best positioned to translate laboratory breakthroughs into clinical and commercial impact.
Conservative planning that accounts for regulatory scrutiny, long-term safety monitoring, and procurement contingencies will remain essential. At the same time, opportunities to address high-unmet-need diseases, enable sustainable agricultural improvements, and create novel industrial bioproducts are accelerating. Moving forward, success will require a balanced portfolio approach that combines near-term, de-risked programs with longer-term platform investments, underpinned by governance that continuously reassesses scientific and operational assumptions in light of new data and shifting external conditions.
Note: PDF & Excel + Online Access - 1 Year
A concise orientation to the evolving gene editing ecosystem that frames technological progress, translational momentum, and strategic considerations for stakeholders
The field of gene editing has progressed from conceptual discovery to a suite of deployable platforms that are reshaping research practice, therapeutic development, and agricultural innovation. Advances in precision, efficiency, and delivery have converged with expanding translational programs to create new pathways for addressing previously intractable biological problems. As academic and commercial actors accelerate applications across human health, agriculture, and industrial biosynthesis, stakeholders must reconcile accelerating technical capabilities with complex regulatory and ethical considerations.
This introduction situates the current landscape by emphasizing the interplay between platform maturity, delivery innovations, and application diversity. It highlights how modularity in editing components, expanding delivery toolkits, and an increasing pipeline of translational programs are collectively reducing barriers to practical adoption. The narrative underscores why decision-makers should closely monitor interoperability across technologies, evolving clinical evidence, and the shifting balance between centralized and distributed R&D models. Ultimately, a clear-eyed understanding of the present moment enables organizations to align investments with realistic timelines and risk tolerances while positioning for the next wave of scientific and commercial inflection points.
How expanding platform diversity, delivery innovations, regulatory maturation, and collaborative development models are collectively accelerating translational progress
Several transformative shifts are reshaping how gene editing technologies are developed, validated, and commercialized. First, platform diversification-moving beyond single-tool dominance-has created parallel innovation streams where CRISPR variants, base editing, prime editing, and protein-based nucleases co-evolve according to use-case demands. This diversification enhances specificity and expands the range of editable targets, while also requiring integrative validation strategies to compare efficacy and safety across modalities.
Second, delivery modality improvements are unlocking applications that were previously constrained by vector tropism or cellular access. Advances in lipid nanoparticles, electroporation protocols, and optimized viral systems are enabling more precise spatiotemporal control, which in turn allows developers to pursue both ex vivo and in vivo programs with greater confidence. Third, regulatory frameworks and ethical norms are maturing, producing clearer pathways for clinical translation but also higher expectations for long-term safety evidence and governance. Finally, collaborative models between academia, biotech, and contract service providers are becoming more strategic and outcome-oriented, shifting toward co-development and shared-risk arrangements. Together, these shifts are accelerating translational throughput while increasing the importance of robust comparative data, adaptive trial design, and scalable manufacturing strategies.
Navigating procurement, supply chain resilience, and operational relocation pressures arising from tariff-driven trade adjustments affecting gene editing research and production
The imposition of tariffs and trade adjustments in 2025 has introduced additional layers of complexity for cross-border research and supply chains supporting gene editing programs. Firms that depend on specialized reagents, reagent kits, and delivery system components face elongated procurement timelines and higher landed costs, prompting some organizations to reassess supplier footprints and inventory strategies. In response, many institutions are prioritizing redundancy in supplier relationships and increasing qualification efforts for alternate vendors to mitigate disruption risks.
These trade adjustments have also influenced decisions around the localization of manufacturing and preclinical operations. Sponsors are weighing the cost and timeline implications of shifting critical reagent sourcing and vector production to nearer-shore facilities against the capital and regulatory overhead of such moves. At the same time, contract research and manufacturing organizations that can demonstrate geographically diversified capacity and robust quality systems have gained strategic importance. The net effect has been a renewed focus on supply chain resilience, a re-evaluation of outsourcing versus in-house capabilities, and more conservative planning around procurement lead times and inventory management to maintain continuity in research and development pipelines.
Comprehensive segmentation-driven insight connecting technology platforms, application priorities, delivery methods, end-user roles, and disease-specific imperatives for strategic clarity
Insightful segmentation illuminates where technical strengths, translational prospects, and user needs intersect across the gene editing landscape. When considering technology platforms, CRISPR remains prominent with submodalities such as base editing, Cas9, and prime editing driving differentiated use cases; base editing itself branches into adenine and cytosine base editors that target fundamentally different nucleotide conversions and therefore suit distinct therapeutic objectives. Complementary nucleases such as meganucleases, TALENs, and ZFNs continue to offer utility in contexts where protein-based recognition confers hybrid advantages, and platform selection increasingly reflects trade-offs among specificity, payload constraints, and development timelines.
Application-driven segmentation highlights an expansive set of end objectives, ranging from agricultural improvements in crops and livestock to industrial outputs like biofuels and bioplastics, and extending to research tools such as assays, cell line engineering, and library screening that underpin discovery pipelines. Therapeutic application pathways bifurcate into ex vivo strategies-employed in immunotherapy and stem cell therapy-and in vivo approaches that raise distinct delivery and safety considerations across germline and somatic editing contexts. End-user perspectives also shape priorities; large biopharmaceutical companies and small-to-medium biopharma organizations calibrate program risk differently, while contract research organizations provide clinical and preclinical services that influence program scalability. Medical centers and hospitals, encompassing clinics and hospitals, drive translational studies and early clinical adoption, and research institutes and academic centers, including academic research groups and government laboratories, supply foundational science and early validation.
Delivery method segmentation further refines development choices, with nonviral approaches such as electroporation, lipid nanoparticles, and microinjection offering transient exposure and reduced immunogenicity, while viral vectors including adeno-associated viruses, lentiviruses, and retroviruses provide durable expression and well-understood tropisms. Disease indication segmentation clarifies therapeutic imperatives, especially in oncology where hematological malignancies and solid tumors require divergent targeting strategies, and in rare genetic disorders such as cystic fibrosis and sickle cell disease where single-gene correction models and cell-based therapies represent realistic curative pathways. Together, these segmentation lenses enable more precise portfolio prioritization by aligning platform capabilities, delivery options, and end-user needs to specific application imperatives.
How regional regulatory nuance, infrastructure investment, and collaborative ecosystems across the Americas, Europe Middle East & Africa, and Asia-Pacific shape program selection and deployment
Regional dynamics exert a powerful influence on research priorities, regulatory expectations, and commercial pathways across the gene editing ecosystem. In the Americas, a concentration of biotech innovation, clinical trial activity, and venture capital support creates a fertile environment for translational programs and early adoption of advanced editing modalities. Regulatory agencies in this region emphasize rigorous clinical evidence and post-market surveillance, which shapes sponsor strategies around trial design and long-term follow-up commitments. Europe, the Middle East & Africa present a heterogeneous regulatory and investment landscape where collaborative networks and public-private partnerships often accelerate translational pipelines despite disparate national frameworks. Policy and ethical debates in this region also influence permissible uses and public acceptance, which in turn affect trial recruitment and adoption timelines.
Asia-Pacific demonstrates rapid capacity building in both basic research and manufacturing capabilities, with several countries actively investing in biomanufacturing infrastructure and clinical development pipelines. Regulatory authorities across the region have shown a mix of proactive frameworks and adaptive guidance intended to balance innovation with patient safety, and local market access strategies often emphasize regional partnerships and technology transfer. Across all regions, cross-border collaborations, regulatory harmonization efforts, and supply chain resilience planning are shaping where and how programs advance from discovery into clinical stages. Organizations are therefore tailoring their geographic strategies to align with regulatory expectations, talent availability, and localized infrastructure while maintaining global coordination for manufacturing, data sharing, and commercialization.
Strategic competitive dynamics where scientific differentiation, operational scalability, and targeted partnerships determine who accelerates development and who enables translation
A competitive and collaborative constellation of companies, academic institutions, and service providers defines the operational fabric of gene editing development. Technology developers focus on differentiating through specificity, delivery innovations, and platform modularity, while service providers expand capabilities to support end-to-end development, from early assays and cell line engineering to vector manufacturing and clinical support. Commercial strategies increasingly favor partnerships that accelerate access to specialized delivery platforms or clinical networks, and many organizations are pursuing targeted collaborations to co-develop indications where complementary strengths reduce technical and regulatory risk.
Investment priorities tend to favor programs with clear therapeutic rationale and demonstrable mechanistic advantage, and companies that can articulate scalable manufacturing approaches and robust quality frameworks typically attract strategic interest. At the same time, academic and government laboratories continue to be essential sources of methodological innovation and early validation, often catalyzing spinouts and licensing arrangements. Contract research and manufacturing organizations that proactively expand geographically distributed capacity and demonstrate regulatory-compliant processes are positioning themselves as critical enablers of program continuity. Overall, competitive dynamics reward clarity of scientific differentiation, operational rigor, and pragmatic partnership models that align incentives across discovery, development, and delivery.
Actionable strategic playbook for leaders to align platform selection, supply resilience, regulatory engagement, and partnership design to accelerate translation
Industry leaders must adopt pragmatic, multidimensional strategies to convert scientific advances into durable programs and sustainable business value. First, invest selectively in platform and delivery combinations that align with the organization’s technical strengths and risk tolerance, while maintaining the flexibility to pivot as comparative data emerge. Second, prioritize supplier diversification and near-shoring options for critical reagents and vector production to mitigate geopolitical and tariff-related risks while balancing cost-to-serve considerations. Third, structure partnerships that share development milestones and align incentives across technology licensors, developers, and clinical sites; these arrangements reduce single-party exposure to translational uncertainty and speed program de-risking.
Leaders should also elevate regulatory and ethical engagement early in program design to preempt evidentiary gaps and to design trials that provide durable safety and efficacy signals. Investing in scalable manufacturing platforms and quality systems pays dividends when transitioning from preclinical to clinical stages. Finally, cultivate talent and cross-functional teams that can translate molecular insights into clinical paradigms, and embed portfolio governance processes that continuously reassess technical, commercial, and regulatory risk. By operationalizing these recommendations, organizations can sustain innovation while improving predictability and operational resilience.
A transparent, multi-source research methodology combining expert interviews, primary literature, regulatory analysis, and cross-validation to underpin strategic insights reliably
This research combines a multi-source evidence approach to ensure robust, reproducible insights and to minimize unexamined assumptions. Primary qualitative inputs include structured interviews with domain experts across academic laboratories, biotech leadership, clinical investigators, and contract service providers, which provide context on technology choices, translational hurdles, and operational constraints. Secondary inputs synthesize peer-reviewed literature, regulatory guidance documents, and company disclosures to validate technological claims and to map historical translational pathways. The methodology also incorporates comparative analysis of delivery modality performance and therapeutic area characteristics to identify where technical advantages most closely align with clinical need.
Analytical procedures include cross-validation of qualitative themes against documented clinical outcomes, triangulation of supplier and capacity trends through procurement and manufacturing disclosures, and sensitivity analyses around operational constraints such as supply chain disruptions and regulatory timelines. Throughout, emphasis was placed on transparent documentation of source provenance, conservative interpretation of emerging data, and explicit acknowledgment of areas where evidence remains limited and monitoring is advisable. This approach yields a pragmatic, evidence-grounded perspective designed to support strategic decision-making without overreaching beyond validated empirical signals.
Balancing scientific promise with operational discipline to navigate the critical path from gene editing discovery through clinical translation and commercial deployment
As gene editing tools and delivery technologies continue to mature, stakeholders face both unprecedented opportunities and persistent complexities. The trajectory from discovery to practical application is increasingly shaped by platform-specific trade-offs, delivery challenges, regulatory expectations, and the need for resilient global supply chains. Organizations that converge scientific excellence with disciplined operational practices and strategic partnerships will be best positioned to translate laboratory breakthroughs into clinical and commercial impact.
Conservative planning that accounts for regulatory scrutiny, long-term safety monitoring, and procurement contingencies will remain essential. At the same time, opportunities to address high-unmet-need diseases, enable sustainable agricultural improvements, and create novel industrial bioproducts are accelerating. Moving forward, success will require a balanced portfolio approach that combines near-term, de-risked programs with longer-term platform investments, underpinned by governance that continuously reassesses scientific and operational assumptions in light of new data and shifting external conditions.
Note: PDF & Excel + Online Access - 1 Year
Table of Contents
191 Pages
- 1. Preface
- 1.1. Objectives of the Study
- 1.2. Market Segmentation & Coverage
- 1.3. Years Considered for the Study
- 1.4. Currency
- 1.5. Language
- 1.6. Stakeholders
- 2. Research Methodology
- 3. Executive Summary
- 4. Market Overview
- 5. Market Insights
- 5.1. Increasing integration of machine learning algorithms with CRISPR systems to enhance target specificity
- 5.2. Accelerating commercialization of base editing platforms for single nucleotide correction in genetic therapies
- 5.3. Expansion of CRISPR-based diagnostics enabling rapid point-of-care detection of infectious diseases
- 5.4. Development of gene drives for mosquito population control to combat malaria transmission in sub-Saharan Africa
- 5.5. Emergence of epigenome editing tools for reversible regulation of disease-related gene expression profiles
- 5.6. Evolving regulatory frameworks for human germline editing influencing research funding and public acceptance
- 5.7. Collaborations between biotech startups and pharmaceutical companies to advance CAR-T gene editing therapeutics
- 5.8. Adoption of high-fidelity enCas12a variants to minimize off-target mutations in agricultural genome engineering
- 6. Cumulative Impact of United States Tariffs 2025
- 7. Cumulative Impact of Artificial Intelligence 2025
- 8. Gene Editing Technologies Market, by Technology Platform
- 8.1. CRISPR
- 8.1.1. Base Editing
- 8.1.1.1. Adenine Base Editing
- 8.1.1.2. Cytosine Base Editing
- 8.1.2. Cas9
- 8.1.3. Prime Editing
- 8.2. Meganuclease
- 8.3. TALEN
- 8.4. ZFN
- 9. Gene Editing Technologies Market, by Delivery Method
- 9.1. Nonviral
- 9.1.1. Electroporation
- 9.1.2. Lipid Nanoparticle
- 9.1.3. Microinjection
- 9.2. Viral
- 9.2.1. Adeno Associated Virus
- 9.2.2. Lentivirus
- 9.2.3. Retrovirus
- 10. Gene Editing Technologies Market, by Disease Indication
- 10.1. Infectious Diseases
- 10.2. Oncology
- 10.2.1. Hematological Malignancies
- 10.2.2. Solid Tumors
- 10.3. Rare Genetic Disorders
- 10.3.1. Cystic Fibrosis
- 10.3.2. Sickle Cell Disease
- 11. Gene Editing Technologies Market, by Application
- 11.1. Agricultural
- 11.1.1. Crops
- 11.1.2. Livestock
- 11.2. Industrial
- 11.2.1. Biofuels
- 11.2.2. Bioplastics
- 11.3. Research Tools
- 11.3.1. Assays
- 11.3.2. Cell Line Engineering
- 11.3.3. Library Screening
- 11.4. Therapeutic
- 11.4.1. Ex Vivo
- 11.4.1.1. Immunotherapy
- 11.4.1.2. Stem Cell Therapy
- 11.4.2. In Vivo
- 11.4.2.1. Germline Gene Editing
- 11.4.2.2. Somatic Gene Editing
- 12. Gene Editing Technologies Market, by Region
- 12.1. Americas
- 12.1.1. North America
- 12.1.2. Latin America
- 12.2. Europe, Middle East & Africa
- 12.2.1. Europe
- 12.2.2. Middle East
- 12.2.3. Africa
- 12.3. Asia-Pacific
- 13. Gene Editing Technologies Market, by Group
- 13.1. ASEAN
- 13.2. GCC
- 13.3. European Union
- 13.4. BRICS
- 13.5. G7
- 13.6. NATO
- 14. Gene Editing Technologies Market, by Country
- 14.1. United States
- 14.2. Canada
- 14.3. Mexico
- 14.4. Brazil
- 14.5. United Kingdom
- 14.6. Germany
- 14.7. France
- 14.8. Russia
- 14.9. Italy
- 14.10. Spain
- 14.11. China
- 14.12. India
- 14.13. Japan
- 14.14. Australia
- 14.15. South Korea
- 15. Competitive Landscape
- 15.1. Market Share Analysis, 2024
- 15.2. FPNV Positioning Matrix, 2024
- 15.3. Competitive Analysis
- 15.3.1. Horizon Discovery Ltd.
- 15.3.2. Sangamo Therapeutics, Inc.
- 15.3.3. GenScript Biotech Corporation
- 15.3.4. Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc.
- 15.3.5. Precision BioSciences, Inc.
- 15.3.6. Beam Therapeutics Inc.
- 15.3.7. Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc.
- 15.3.8. Takara Bio Inc.
- 15.3.9. Intellia Therapeutics, Inc.
- 15.3.10. CRISPR Therapeutics AG
- 15.3.11. Caribou Biosciences, Inc.
- 15.3.12. Merck Group
- 15.3.13. Agilent Technologies, Inc.
- 15.3.14. Tecan Trading AG
- 15.3.15. Creative Biogene
- 15.3.16. OriGene Technologies, Inc.
- 15.3.17. Inscripta, Inc.
- 15.3.18. Lonza Group Ltd.
- 15.3.19. Editas Medicine, Inc.
- 15.3.20. Cellectis SA
- 15.3.21. AMS Biotechnology Ltd.
- 15.3.22. Synthego Corporation
- 15.3.23. New England Biolabs, Inc.
- 15.3.24. Mammoth Biosciences, Inc.
Pricing
Currency Rates
Questions or Comments?
Our team has the ability to search within reports to verify it suits your needs. We can also help maximize your budget by finding sections of reports you can purchase.
