Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Perspective
  • Published:

Genome engineering in biodiversity conservation and restoration

Nature Reviews Biodiversity volume 1, pages 543–555 (2025)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Biodiversity loss resulting from habitat destruction, climate change and other anthropogenic pressures threatens the resilience of ecosystems globally. Traditional conservation methods are critically important for immediate species survival, but they cannot restore genetic diversity that has been lost from the species’ gene pool. Advances in genome engineering offer a transformative solution by enabling the targeted restoration of genetic diversity from historical samples, biobanks and related species. In this Perspective, we explore the integration of genome editing technologies into biodiversity conservation, and discuss the benefits and risks associated with genetic rescue via genome engineering. We highlight case studies demonstrating the potential to reduce genetic load, recover lost adaptive traits, and fortify populations against emerging challenges such as disease and climate change. We also discuss ethical, societal and economic considerations, emphasizing the importance of equitable access and public engagement. When combined with habitat restoration and other traditional conservation actions, genome engineering can make species more resilient against future environmental change in the Anthropocene.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: When to use genome engineering in genetic rescue.
Fig. 2: Genome engineering for genetic rescue.
Fig. 3: Effects of environmental protection and conservation management on population viability.
Fig. 4: The impact of genome engineering on genetic load, diversity and fitness.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Shaw, R. E. et al. Global meta-analysis shows action is needed to halt genetic diversity loss. Nature 638, 704–710 (2025).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Condamine, F. L., Rolland, J. & Morlon, H. Macroevolutionary perspectives to environmental change. Ecol. Lett. 16, 72–85 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Barnosky, A. D. et al. Approaching a state shift in Earth’s biosphere. Nature 486, 52–58 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Femerling, G. et al. Genetic load and adaptive potential of a recovered avian species that narrowly avoided extinction. Mol. Biol. Evol. 40, msad256 (2023).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Kardos, M. et al. The crucial role of genome-wide genetic variation in conservation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2104642118 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Matthews, T. J. et al. The global loss of avian functional and phylogenetic diversity from anthropogenic extinctions. Science 386, 55–60 (2024).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Bolam, F. C. et al. How many bird and mammal extinctions has recent conservation action prevented? Conserv. Letters 14, e12762 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Butchart, S. H. M., Stattersfield, A. J. & Collar, N. J. How many bird extinctions have we prevented? Oryx 40, 266–278 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hoffmann, M. et al. The impact of conservation on the status of the world’s vertebrates. Science 330, 1503–1509 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Prior, K. M., Adams, D. C., Klepzig, K. D. & Hulcr, J. When does invasive species removal lead to ecological recovery? Implications for management success. Biol. Invasions 20, 267–283 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Sutherland, W. J., Newton, I. & Green, R. Bird Ecology and Conservation (Oxford Univ. Press, 2004).

  12. Marx, V. Can stem cells save the animals? Nat. Methods 22, 8–12 (2025).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Yin, K., Chung, M. Y., Lan, B., Du, F. K. & Chung, M. G. Plant conservation in the age of genome editing: opportunities and challenges. Genome Biol. 25, 279–279 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Stelkens, R. B., Brockhurst, M. A., Hurst, G. D. D. & Greig, D. Hybridization facilitates evolutionary rescue. Evol. Appl. 7, 1209–1217 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Burbrink, F. T. & Gehara, M. The biogeography of deep time phylogenetic reticulation. Syst. Biol. 67, 743–755 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Vedder, D. et al. Hybridization may aid evolutionary rescue of an endangered East African passerine. Evol. Appl. 15, 1177–1188 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ongaro, L. & Huerta-Sanchez, E. A history of multiple Denisovan introgression events in modern humans. Nat. Genet. 56, 2612–2622 (2024).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Reilly, P. F., Tjahjadi, A., Miller, S. L., Akey, J. M. & Tucci, S. The contribution of Neanderthal introgression to modern human traits. Curr. Biol. 32, R970–R983 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Brown, R. M. et al. Range expansion and hybridization in round island petrels (Pterodroma spp.): evidence from microsatellite genotypes. Mol. Ecol. 19, 3157–3170 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Brown, R. M. et al. Phylogenetic relationships in Pterodroma petrels are obscured by recent secondary contact and hybridization. PLoS ONE 6, e20350 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Smith, D. et al. Extinct in the wild: the precarious state of Earth’s most threatened group of species. Science 379, eadd2889 (2023).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Lacy, R. C. Achieving true sustainability of zoo populations. Zoo. Biol. 32, 19–26 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hohenlohe, P. A., Funk, W. C. & Rajora, O. P. Population genomics for wildlife conservation and management. Mol. Ecol. 30, 62–82 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Segelbacher, G. et al. New developments in the field of genomic technologies and their relevance to conservation management. Conserv. Genet. 23, 217–242 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Supple, M. A. & Shapiro, B. Conservation of biodiversity in the genomics era. Genome Biol. 19, 131–131 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Theissinger, K. et al. How genomics can help biodiversity conservation. Trends Genet. 39, 545–559 (2023).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Cavill, E. L. et al. When birds of a feather flock together: severe genomic erosion and the implications for genetic rescue in an endangered island passerine. Evol. Appl. 17, e13739–e13739 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hoffmann, A. A., Miller, A. D. & Weeks, A. R. Genetic mixing for population management: from genetic rescue to provenancing. Evol. Appl. 14, 634–652 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Leroy, G. et al. Next-generation metrics for monitoring genetic erosion within populations of conservation concern. Evol. Appl. 11, 1066–1083 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ralls, K., Sunnucks, P., Lacy, R. C. & Frankham, R. Genetic rescue: a critique of the evidence supports maximizing genetic diversity rather than minimizing the introduction of putatively harmful genetic variation. Biol. Conserv. 251, 108784 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Willi, Y., Van Buskirk, J. & Hoffmann, A. A. Limits to the adaptive potential of small populations. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 37, 433–458 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. van Oosterhout, C. Conservation genetics: 50 years and counting. Conserv. Lett. 14, e12789 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. McLaughlin, C. M., Hinshaw, C., Sandoval-Arango, S., Zavala-Paez, M. & Hamilton, J. A. Redlisting genetics: towards inclusion of genetic data in IUCN Red List assessments. Conserv. Genet. 26, 213–223 (2025).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Jackson, H. A. et al. Genomic erosion in a demographically recovered bird species during conservation rescue. Conserv. Biol. 36, e13918 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Pinto, A. V., Hansson, B., Patramanis, I., Morales, H. E. & van Oosterhout, C. The impact of habitat loss and population fragmentation on genomic erosion. Conserv. Genet. 25, 49–57 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Mualim, K. S. et al. Genetic diversity loss in the Anthropocene will continue long after habitat destruction ends. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.10.21.619096 (2024).

  37. Charlesworth, D. & Willis, J. H. The genetics of inbreeding depression. Nat. Rev. Genet. 10, 783–796 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Grossen, C. & Ramakrishnan, U. Genetic load. Curr. Biol. 34, R1216–R1220 (2024).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Dussex, N., Morales, H. E., Grossen, C., Dalén, L. & van Oosterhout, C. Purging and accumulation of genetic load in conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 38, 961–969 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Bertorelle, G. et al. Genetic load: genomic estimates and applications in non-model animals. Nat. Rev. Genet. 23, 492–503 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Adams, P. E. et al. Slow recovery from inbreeding depression generated by the complex genetic architecture of segregating deleterious mutations. Mol. Biol. Evol. 39, msab330 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Fontsere, C. et al. Persistent genomic erosion in whooping cranes despite demographic recovery. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.12.12.628160 (2024).

  43. Speak, S. A. et al. Genomics‐informed captive breeding can reduce inbreeding depression and the genetic load in zoo populations. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 24, e13967 (2024).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Whiteley, A. R., Fitzpatrick, S. W., Funk, W. C. & Tallmon, D. A. Genetic rescue to the rescue. Trends Ecol. Evol. 30, 42–49 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Frankham, R. in Genetic Management of Fragmented Animal and Plant Populations, A1–A6 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2017).

  46. Resende, P. S., Viana–Junior, A. B., Young, R. J. & de Azevedo, C. S. A global review of animal translocation programs. Anim. Biodivers. Conserv. https://doi.org/10.32800/abc.2020.43.0221 (2020).

  47. Ralls, K. et al. Call for a paradigm shift in the genetic management of fragmented populations. Conserv. Lett. 11, e12412 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Frankham, R. et al. Predicting the probability of outbreeding depression. Conserv. Biol. 25, 465–475 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Willi, Y. et al. Conservation genetics as a management tool: the five best-supported paradigms to assist the management of threatened species. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119, e2105076119 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Bolton, R. L. et al. Resurrecting biodiversity: advanced assisted reproductive technologies and biobanking. Reprod. Fertil. 3, R121–R146 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Soulé, M., Gilpin, M., Conway, W. & Foose, T. The millenium ark: how long a voyage, how many staterooms, how many passengers? Zoo. Biol. 5, 101–113 (1986).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Rogers, N. Museum drawers go digital. Science 352, 762–765 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Rohwer, V. G., Rohwer, Y. & Dillman, C. B. Declining growth of natural history collections fails future generations. PLoS Biol. 20, e3001613 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Raxworthy, C. J. & Smith, B. T. Mining museums for historical DNA: advances and challenges in museomics. Trends Ecol. Evol. 36, 1049–1060 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Chemnick, L. G., Houck, M. L. & Ryder, O. A. in Conservation Genetics in the Age of Genomics (eds Amato, G., DeSalle, R., Ryder, O. A. & Rosenbaum, H. C.) 124–130 (Columbia Univ. Press, 2009).

  56. Comizzoli, P. C-29: The pan-Smithsonian cryo-initiative-freezing for the future. Cryobiology 69, 509 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Chaplin-Kramer, R. et al. Wildlife’s contributions to people. Nat. Rev. Biodivers. 1, 68–81 (2025).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Piaggio, A. J. et al. Is it time for synthetic biodiversity conservation? Trends Ecol. Evol. 32, 97–107 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Kosch, T. A. et al. Genetic approaches for increasing fitness in endangered species. Trends Ecol. Evol. 37, 332–345 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Schwartz, M. K. et al. Principles for introducing new genes and species for conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 40, 296–307 (2025).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Phelps, M. P., Seeb, L. W. & Seeb, J. E. Transforming ecology and conservation biology through genome editing. Conserv. Biol. 34, 54–65 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Iverson, E. N. K. Conservation mitonuclear replacement: facilitated mitochondrial adaptation for a changing world. Evol. Appl. 17, e13642 (2024).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Adli, M. The CRISPR tool kit for genome editing and beyond. Nat. Commun. 9, 1911 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Wang, J. Y. & Doudna, J. A. CRISPR technology: a decade of genome editing is only the beginning. Science 379, eadd8643 (2023).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Joung, J. K. & Sander, J. D. TALENs: a widely applicable technology for targeted genome editing. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 14, 49–55 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Urnov, F. D., Rebar, E. J., Holmes, M. C., Zhang, H. S. & Gregory, P. D. Genome editing with engineered zinc finger nucleases. Nat. Rev. Genet. 11, 636–646 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Ishino, Y., Shinagawa, H., Makino, K., Amemura, M. & Nakata, A. Nucleotide sequence of the iap gene, responsible for alkaline phosphatase isozyme conversion in Escherichia coli, and identification of the gene product. J. Bacteriol. 169, 5429–5433 (1987).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Cong, L. et al. Multiplex genome engineering using CRISPR–Cas systems. Science 339, 819–823 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Mali, P. et al. RNA-guided human genome engineering via Cas9. Science 339, 823–826 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Khalil, A. M. The genome editing revolution: review. J. Genet. Eng. Biotechnol. 18, 68 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Anzalone, A. V., Koblan, L. W. & Liu, D. R. Genome editing with CRISPR–Cas nucleases, base editors, transposases and prime editors. Nat. Biotechnol. 38, 824–844 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Pickar-Oliver, A. & Gersbach, C. A. The next generation of CRISPR–Cas technologies and applications. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 20, 490–507 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Bak, R. O., Gomez-Ospina, N. & Porteus, M. H. Gene editing on center stage. Trends Genet. 34, 600–611 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Porto, E. M., Komor, A. C., Slaymaker, I. M. & Yeo, G. W. Base editing: advances and therapeutic opportunities. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 19, 839–859 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Chen, P. J. & Liu, D. R. Prime editing for precise and highly versatile genome manipulation. Nat. Rev. Genet. 24, 161–177 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Yarnall, M. T. N. et al. Drag-and-drop genome insertion of large sequences without double-strand DNA cleavage using CRISPR-directed integrases. Nat. Biotechnol. 41, 500–512 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Van Oosterhout, C. Mitigating the threat of emerging infectious diseases; a coevolutionary perspective. Virulence 12, 1288–1295 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Christmas, M. J. et al. Evolutionary constraint and innovation across hundreds of placental mammals. Science 380, eabn3943 (2023).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. Stiller, J. et al. Complexity of avian evolution revealed by family-level genomes. Nature 629, 851–860 (2024).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. Uffelmann, E. et al. Genome-wide association studies. Nat. Rev. Methods Primers 1, 59 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. Sandler, R. L., Moses, L. & Wisely, S. M. An ethical analysis of cloning for genetic rescue: case study of the black-footed ferret. Biol. Conserv. 257, 109118 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Hildebrandt, T. B. et al. The ART of bringing extinction to a freeze — history and future of species conservation, exemplified by rhinos. Theriogenology 169, 76–88 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. Novak, B. J. et al. Towards practical conservation cloning: understanding the dichotomy between the histories of commercial and conservation cloning. Animals 15, 989 (2025).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Lanza, R. P. et al. Cloning of an endangered species (Bos gaurus) using interspecies nuclear transfer. Cloning 2, 79–90 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  85. Loi, P. et al. Genetic rescue of an endangered mammal by cross-species nuclear transfer using post-mortem somatic cells. Nat. Biotechnol. 19, 962–964 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  86. Gómez, M. C. et al. Birth of African wildcat cloned kittens born from domestic cats. Cloning Stem Cell 6, 247–258 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Kim, M. K. et al. Endangered wolves cloned from adult somatic cells. Cloning Stem Cell 9, 130–137 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  88. Oh, H. J. et al. Cloning endangered gray wolves (Canis lupus) from somatic cells collected postmortem. Theriogenology 70, 638–647 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  89. Gómez, M. C. et al. Nuclear transfer of sand cat cells into enucleated domestic cat oocytes is affected by cryopreservation of donor cells. Cloning Stem Cell 10, 469–484 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Novak, B. J. De-extinction. Genes 9, 548 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. van de Lavoir, M.-C. et al. Germline transmission of genetically modified primordial germ cells. Nature 441, 766–769 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. van de Lavoir, M.-C. et al. Interspecific germline transmission of cultured primordial germ cells. PLoS ONE 7, e35664 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Ballantyne, M. et al. Direct allele introgression into pure chicken breeds using sire dam surrogate (SDS) mating. Nat. Commun. 12, 659 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  94. Powell, W. A., Newhouse, A. E. & Coffey, V. Developing blight-tolerant American chestnut trees. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 11, a034587 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Witek, K. et al. A complex resistance locus in Solanum americanum recognizes a conserved Phytophthora effector. Nat. Plants 7, 198–208 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  96. Zamudio, K. R., McDonald, C. A. & Belasen, A. M. High variability in infection mechanisms and host responses: a review of functional genomic studies of amphibian chytridiomycosis. Herpetologica 76, 189 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Wright, B. et al. Variants in the host genome may inhibit tumour growth in devil facial tumours: evidence from genome-wide association. Sci. Rep. 7, 423 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Silver, L. W. et al. Temporal loss of genome-wide and immunogenetic diversity in a near-extinct Parrot. Mol. Ecol. 34, e17746 (2025).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Calvin, K. et al. IPCC Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report (eds Core Writing Team, Lee, H. & and Romero, J.) https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/ (IPCC, 2023).

  100. Hobman, E. V., Mankad, A., Carter, L. & Ruttley, C. Genetically engineered heat-resistant coral: an initial analysis of public opinion. PLoS ONE 17, e0252739 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  101. van Oppen, M. J. H., Oliver, J. K., Putnam, H. M. & Gates, R. D. Building coral reef resilience through assisted evolution. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 2307–2313 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. van Oppen, M. J. H. et al. Shifting paradigms in restoration of the world’s coral reefs. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 3437–3448 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Smeds, L. & Ellegren, H. From high masked to high realized genetic load in inbred Scandinavian wolves. Mol. Ecol. 32, 1567–1580 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Anzalone, A. V. et al. Search-and-replace genome editing without double-strand breaks or donor DNA. Nature 576, 149–157 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  105. Doudna, J. A. The promise and challenge of therapeutic genome editing. Nature 578, 229–236 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  106. Smith, J. M. & Haigh, J. The hitch-hiking effect of a favourable gene. Genet. Res. 23, 23–35 (1974).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  107. Santiago, E. & Caballero, A. Effective size and polymorphism of linked neutral loci in populations under directional selection. Genetics 149, 2105–2117 (1998).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  108. Charlesworth, B. The effects of deleterious mutations on evolution at linked sites. Genetics 190, 5–22 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  109. Petit, J. D., Needham, M. D. & Howe, G. T. Cognitive and demographic drivers of attitudes toward using genetic engineering to restore American chestnut trees. For. Policy Econ. 125, 102385 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Bennett, J. R. et al. Spending limited resources on de-extinction could lead to net biodiversity loss. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 53 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Donlan, J. De-extinction in a crisis discipline. Front. Biogeogr. 6, 25–28 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. International Union for Conservation of Nature. Genetic Frontiers for Conservation: An Assessment of Synthetic Biology and Biodiversity Conservation: Synthesis and Key Messages (IUCN, 2019).

  113. Gordon, D. R. et al. Responsible governance of gene editing in agriculture and the environment. Nat. Biotechnol. 39, 1055–1057 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  114. Barnhill-Dilling, S. K. & Delborne, J. A. The genetically engineered American chestnut tree as opportunity for reciprocal restoration in Haudenosaunee communities. Biol. Conserv. 232, 1–7 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  115. Sainsbury, A. W. & Vaughan‐Higgins, R. J. Analyzing disease risks associated with translocations. Conserv. Biol. 26, 442–452 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  116. International Union for Conservation of Nature. Genetic Frontiers for Conservation: An Assessment of Synthetic Biology and Biodiversity Conservation: Technical Assessment (IUCN, 2019).

  117. Molhuizen, T., Beumer, K. & Dorresteijn, I. Who to revive? Explaining charismatic species bias in the selection of de-extinction candidate species. Environ. Plan. E Nat. Space 8, 642–659 (2025).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  118. Jones, C. G. in Studies of Mascarene Island Birds (ed. Diamond, A. W.) 208–300 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1987).

  119. Adams, N. E. & Edmands, S. Genomic recovery lags behind demographic recovery in bottlenecked populations of the Channel Island fox, Urocyon littoralis. Mol. Ecol. 32, 4151–4164 (2023).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  120. Feng, Y. et al. Genome sequences and population genomics provide insights into the demographic history, inbreeding, and mutation load of two ‘living fossil’ tree species of Dipteronia. Plant. J. 117, 177–192 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  121. Dehasque, M. et al. Temporal dynamics of woolly mammoth genome erosion prior to extinction. Cell 187, 3531–3540 (2024).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  122. McBride, R. T., McBride, R. T., McBride, R. M. & McBride, C. E. Counting pumas by categorizing physical evidence. Southeast. Naturalist 7, 381–400 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  123. Hedrick, P. W. & Fredrickson, R. Genetic rescue guidelines with examples from Mexican wolves and Florida panthers. Conserv. Genet. 11, 615–626 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  124. Hedrick, P. W. Gene flow and genetic restoration: the Florida panther as a case study. Conserv. Biol. 9, 996–1007 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  125. Onorato, D. P. et al. Multi-generational benefits of genetic rescue. Sci. Rep. 14, 17519 (2024).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  126. Westemeier, R. L., Buhnerkempe, J. E., Edwards, W. R., Brawn, J. D. & Simpson, S. A. Parasitism of greater prairie-chicken nests by ring-necked pheasants. J. Wildl. Manag. 62, 854 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  127. Bouzat, J. L. et al. Beyond the beneficial effects of translocations as an effective tool for the genetic restoration of isolated populations. Conserv. Genet. 10, 191–201 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  128. Liberg, O. et al. Severe inbreeding depression in a wild wolf (Canis lupus) population. Biol. Lett. 1, 17–20 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  129. Vilà, C. et al. Rescue of a severely bottlenecked wolf (Canis lupus) population by a single immigrant. Proc. Biol. Sci. 270, 91–97 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  130. Weeks, A. R. et al. Genetic rescue increases fitness and aids rapid recovery of an endangered marsupial population. Nat. Commun. 8, 1071 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  131. Wisely, S. M., Ryder, O. A., Santymire, R. M., Engelhardt, J. F. & Novak, B. J. A road map for 21st century genetic restoration: gene pool enrichment of the black-footed ferret. J. Hered. 106, 581–592 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  132. Safford, R. The Birds of Africa: The Malagasy Region: Madagascar, Seychelles, Comoros, Mascarenes (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2013).

  133. Korody, M. L. et al. Rewinding extinction in the northern white rhinoceros: genetically diverse induced pluripotent stem cell bank for genetic rescue. Stem Cell Dev. 30, 177–189 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  134. Friedrich Ben-Nun, I. et al. Induced pluripotent stem cells from highly endangered species. Nat. Methods 8, 829–831 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  135. Hildebrandt, T. B. et al. Embryos and embryonic stem cells from the white rhinoceros. Nat. Commun. 9, 2589 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  136. Tunstall, T. et al. Evaluating recovery potential of the northern white rhinoceros from cryopreserved somatic cells. Genome Res. 28, 780–788 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  137. Wilder, A. P. et al. Genetic load and viability of a future restored northern white rhino population. Evolut. Appl. 17, e13683 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge funding from the Royal Society International Collaboration Awards 2020 (no. ICA/R1/201194) and the European Research Council (StG ERODE, 101078303). Views and opinions expressed are, however, those of the authors only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Research Council.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich Research Park, Norwich, UK

    Cock van Oosterhout & Thomas Birley

  2. Colossal Foundation, Dallas, TX, USA

    Megan A. Supple, Leandra Brickson, Matt James & Stephen D. Turner

  3. Globe Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Hernán E. Morales

  4. Mauritian Wildlife Foundation, Vacoas, Mauritius

    Vikash Tatayah & Carl G. Jones

  5. Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust, Jersey, Jersey

    Carl G. Jones, Harriet L. Whitford & Simon Tollington

  6. National Parks and Conservation Service, Ministry of Agro-Industry, Food Security, Blue Economy and Fisheries, Government of Mauritius, Reduit, Mauritius

    Kevin Ruhomaun

  7. Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology, School of Natural Sciences, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK

    Jim J. Groombridge

  8. Colossal Biosciences, Dallas, TX, USA

    Anna L. Keyte, Beth Shapiro, Matt James & Stephen D. Turner

  9. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA, USA

    Beth Shapiro

Authors
  1. Cock van Oosterhout
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Megan A. Supple
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hernán E. Morales
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Thomas Birley
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Vikash Tatayah
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Carl G. Jones
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Harriet L. Whitford
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Simon Tollington
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Kevin Ruhomaun
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Jim J. Groombridge
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Leandra Brickson
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Anna L. Keyte
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Beth Shapiro
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Matt James
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Stephen D. Turner
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

C.v.O., S.D.T., M.A.S. and H.E.M. wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors contributed substantially to discussion of the content. All authors reviewed and edited the manuscript before submission.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Cock van Oosterhout or Stephen D. Turner.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

M.A.S., L.B., A.L.K., B.S., M.J. and S.D.T. hold stock options in Colossal Biosciences. M.A.S. and L.B. are employed by Colossal Foundation. A.L.K., B.S., M.J. and S.D.T. are employed by Colossal Biosciences; B.S. is the Chief Science Officer and M.J. is the Chief Animal Officer. C.v.O. and J.J.G received a donation from the Colossal Foundation for conservation genomics research on the pink pigeon. All authors declare that there are no other competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Reviews Biodiversity thanks Carolyn Hogg and Tiffany A. Kosch for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Related links

Convention on Biological Diversity Nagoya Protocol: https://www.cbd.int/abs/default.shtml

Global Genome Biodiversity Network Standard Material Transfer Agreements: https://absch.cbd.int/api/v2013/documents/2502B904-8ECC-D71D-18F7-335220A73EB2/attachments/203095/GGBN%20MTA_June_2015-Final.pdf

International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species: https://www.iucnredlist.org/

IUCN: Synthetic biology and nature conservation: https://iucn.org/our-work/informing-policy/setting-conservation-priorities/synthetic-biology-and-nature-conservation

Glossary

Advanced assisted reproductive technologies

Includes advanced techniques such as somatic cell nuclear transfer, derivation of induced pluripotent stem cells and in vitro gametogenesis.

Assisted reproductive technologies

Includes reproductive interventions such as artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization.

Drift debt

The continued loss of genetic diversity that occurs even after population size stabilizes or partially recovers, caused by the delayed effects of genetic drift resulting from past population bottlenecks.

Drift load

The genetic load arising from deleterious alleles fixed by genetic drift in small populations.

Effective population size

The number of breeding individuals in an idealized population that would experience the same rate of genetic drift as the actual population.

Evolutionary significant unit

A population of organisms representing an evolutionary lineage that has been reproductively isolated from other such lineages and has a unique evolutionary trajectory within the gene pool of species.

Genetic load

The reduction in population fitness caused by the presence of deleterious mutations (classic definition). The sum of all selection coefficients of harmful mutations (definition used in modern genomics studies).

Genetic rescue

The introduction of new genetic variation into a population to increase diversity and reduce inbreeding depression, traditionally through managed gene flow.

Genome engineering

The deliberate modification of an organism’s genetic material using molecular tools such as CRISPR–Cas9 to achieve specific genetic changes.

Genomic erosion

The gradual loss of genetic diversity over time, particularly in small populations, leading to reduced fitness and adaptive potential.

Hill–Robertson interference

A population genetic phenomenon where linkage between selected loci reduces the efficiency of natural selection.

Masked load

Potential fitness loss due to (partially) recessive deleterious mutations at heterozygous loci. Also known as inbreeding load or potential load.

Outbreeding depression

Reduced fitness in offspring resulting from crosses between distantly related populations due to the disruption of locally adapted gene complexes.

Realized load

Realized fitness loss due to deleterious mutations at homozygous loci, plus the realized loss of fitness caused by the expression of partially recessive deleterious mutations at heterozygous loci.

Selective sweeps

The process through which a beneficial mutation increases in frequency within a population, potentially reducing genetic diversity, particularly in the surrounding genomic region.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

van Oosterhout, C., Supple, M.A., Morales, H.E. et al. Genome engineering in biodiversity conservation and restoration. Nat. Rev. Biodivers. 1, 543–555 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44358-025-00065-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44358-025-00065-6

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing