Nutrigenetics and Precision Diagnostics for G6PD Deficiency: CRISPR-Based Detection Combined with Fermented-Food Bioactives for Malaria-Endemic Populations

This project is a scoping review titled "Nutrigenetics and Precision Diagnostics for G6PD Deficiency: CRISPR-Based Detection Combined with Fermented-Food Bioactives for Malaria-Endemic Populations." It maps the published evidence at the intersection of glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency, malaria treatment, and precision nutrition, in order to locate the gaps that an integrated precision-diagnostics-and-nutrition framework would need to address. The review is conducted and reported in accordance with the JBI methodology for scoping reviews and the PRISMA-ScR reporting guideline. It addresses four questions: (1) which molecular and point-of-care technologies, including CRISPR- and isothermal-amplification-based platforms, have been evaluated for detecting G6PD deficiency, and with what performance; (2) what evidence exists on oxidative drug and food triggers of haemolysis (notably the 8-aminoquinolines primaquine and tafenoquine, and favism) in G6PD-deficient individuals in malaria-endemic settings; (3) what is known of fermented-food and other dietary bioactives in relation to G6PD status, oxidative tone, and immune modulation; and (4) where the evidence gaps lie. These three concept domains are read against the epidemiological backdrop of G6PD prevalence, variant epidemiology, and gene–malaria interaction. Eligibility follows a PECOS framework covering human, animal, and in-vitro studies of G6PD status determination, oxidative pharmacological or dietary triggers, and fermented-food bioactives, restricted to peer-reviewed, English-language, full-text reports published from 2015 onward. Two bibliographic databases (MEDLINE via PubMed, and Scopus) are searched using five conceptual strands anchored on G6PD. Records are de-duplicated and screened in two stages (title/abstract, then full text) independently and in duplicate by the author-reviewers, with disagreements resolved by discussion or a third reviewer. Data are charted using an a priori form (bibliographic details, design, region, population, index test or exposure, reference standard, and outcomes), and findings are synthesised descriptively with a domain-by-design gap analysis. Consistent with scoping-review methodology, no formal risk-of-bias appraisal is undertaken.