The definitive guide to gene editing.
Menu
Home Learn News Ask the Atlas
Explore Technologies Diseases Treatments Clinical Trials Companies Scientists Genes Research Institutions
Beyond medicine Agriculture Ethics Investing World map
Learn & Tools Start here Glossary A–Z Compare technologies Timeline Lists & Rankings AI Agents ★ Saved API
About About us Methodology Data Sources Editorial Policy Contact Disclaimers

🧭 Guided View
New to genetics? We explain every term as you browse, in plain English. Same pages, with the help built in.

⚡ Expert View
You already know the biology. Just the content — clean and compact, no extra explanations. This is the default view.

Interface language
Light mode

Comparison

CRISPR vs Zinc Finger Nucleases

The newcomer against the original — which is compact enough to fit where CRISPR struggles.

The difference in one sentence

Zinc finger nucleases came first and were the first editing tool used in patients, back in 2009. They are hard to design, which is why CRISPR displaced them almost entirely. But they are small — and when the delivery vehicle has a strict size limit, small is worth a great deal.

AspectCRISPR-Cas9Zinc finger nucleases
How it finds the target A short RNA guide Protein modules, each gripping about three DNA letters
Ease of design Trivial Difficult — adjacent fingers influence each other
Size Large — strains AAV capacity Compact — packages comfortably
Sequence restriction Requires a PAM None, in principle
Clinical history From 2016 onwards From 2009 — the first human editing trials
Current use Dominant Where compact size or long safety history matters

Sources

Connected in the Atlas

Every entry on this site is linked to the others it relates to. These connections are part of the record, not a search result.

Technologies

Zinc Finger Nucleases