The Profluent work highlighted in the report generated novel genome editors and demonstrated DNA editing in human cells in vitro. It connected protein language modeling to experimentally validated function.
Sequence similarity is not biological efficacy. Cell-based experiments establish function under the tested conditions; they do not establish clinical safety or therapeutic effectiveness. AlphaFold 3 claims retain the access and baseline limitations noted in the original report.
Evidence you can use
Historical snapshot: October 2024. Dates and populations are specified per row.
| Measure | Reported value | Definition and source |
|---|---|---|
| CRISPR-Cas Atlas | More than 1M operons | Diverse CRISPR-Cas systems mined for the dataset described in the report.2024 report, slide 50 (PDF page 51) |
| Source genomic data | 26.2 terabases | Assembled microbial genome and metagenome data used to mine the atlas.2024 report, slide 50 (PDF page 51) |
| OpenCRISPR-1 sequence similarity | 71.7% to SpCas9 | Similarity reported for the selected functional editor, not an editing success rate.2024 report, slide 50 (PDF page 51) |
Sequence similarity is not biological efficacy. Cell-based experiments establish function under the tested conditions; they do not establish clinical safety or therapeutic effectiveness. AlphaFold 3 claims retain the access and baseline limitations noted in the original report.
Historical snapshot published October 10, 2024. This web edition was prepared on October 10, 2026 from the online deck and original launch posts. Findings and forecasts retain their original time frame.
Benaich, Nathan. “What did AI-designed genome editors achieve in 2024?.” State of AI Report 2024. Historical report snapshot; web edition prepared 2026-10-10.