Skip to main content

New technique for in vivo gene modification, more like a CrispR-Cas9 supplement than a replacement

So some are cheerleading a new technique for inducing genetic modification.

The key issue that stands out with this new technique is indicated near the end of that article, it is NOT a permanent process.

First, the claim that the possibility of cancer formation exists with the process of Crispr / Cas9 is true but then the probability of formation is the same for a natural gene silencing operating which are constantly happening over the developmental life cycle of any organism.

That is why it is such an amazing technique to start, the mention of promoter addition as a possible bad thing doesn't make any sense to me (but I may not understand what they mean)...if you want to activate an inserted gene you need a promoter that is the switch activate the inserted gene or by being found in a silencing operation is methylated.

In the final analysis to do all the things we want to do.

1) Repair existing genes in vivo (permanently).
2) Add in new genes in vivo (permanently).
3) Remove existing genes in vivo (of course permanently).

Crispr/Cas9 is a single stop solution that co-opts a robust natural system to employ those actions with risks that are comparable to the same actions being done naturally so there is no real disadvantage when you think of it from that perspective. Also, it stands as a multi prong approach...modulation of the associated protein configuration could radically improve specificity and reduce any possible side effects. A paper linked below details ways to extend the's more a toolkit for gene editing than just a one shot method like TALENS was before it.

I stand by my comment when I first heard of CrispR end of 2012, by 2017 Stockholm is calling Dr. Doudna (one of the principle researchers). It's a done deal.

I compiled a bunch of the seminal papers on the technology in my drive folder for those who haven't done a deep dive:

The article that does an excellent job of explaining what the problems are regarding oncogenesis risk and how those can be prevented (I think some have already been tried since this paper was written) are listed.

:The short summary is that oncogenisis is not an inherent problem of the approach assuming it is applied 100% correctly but more a result of not ensuring uniqueness for the desired region of modulation (addition,removal or silencing). This would make sense as if you are trying to target a short sequence out of a strand of billions you need some way to disambiguate that one sequence from the many similar sequences that an improperly specific Cas9 program would produce. That said the authors (including George Church) indicate ways to get around these problems.

In the folder the paper that presented the use of CrispR with Cas9 to be a gene snipping tool is titled:

"Repurposing Crispr as an RNA guided platform for sequence specific control of gene expression"


Popular posts from this blog

Highly targeted Cpg vaccine immunotherapy for a range of cancer


This will surely go down as a seminal advance in cancer therapy. It reads like magic:

So this new approach looks for the specific proteins that are associated with a given tumors resistance to attack by the body's T cells, it then adjusts those T cells to be hyper sensitive to the specific oncogenic proteins targeted. These cells become essentially The Terminator​ T cells in the specific tumor AND have the multiplied effect of traveling along the immune pathway of spreading that the cancer many have metastasized. This is huge squared because it means you can essentially use targeting one tumor to identify and eliminate distal tumors that you many not even realize exist.

This allows the therapy for treating cancer to, for the first time; end the "wack a mole" problem that has frustrated traditional shot gun methods of treatment involving radiation and chemotherapy ...which by their nature unfortunately damage parts of the body that are not cancer laden but …

Engineers versus Programmers

I have found as more non formally trained people enter the coding space, the quality of code that results varies in an interesting way.

The formalities of learning to code in a structured course at University involve often strong focus on "correctness" and efficiency in the form of big O representations for the algorithms created.

Much less focus tends to be placed on what I'll call practical programming, which is the type of code that engineers (note I didn't use "programmers" on purpose) must learn to write.

Programmers are what Universities create, students that can take a defined development environment and within in write an algorithm for computing some sequence or traversing a tree or encoding and decoding a string. Efficiency and invariant rules are guiding development missions. Execution time for creating the solution is often a week or more depending on the professor and their style of teaching code and giving out problems. This type of coding is devo…

AgilEntity Architecture: Action Oriented Workflow

Permissions, fine grained versus management headache
The usual method for determining which users can perform a given function on a given object in a managed system, employs providing those Users with specific access rights via the use of permissions. Often these permissions are also able to be granted to collections called Groups, to which Users are added. The combination of Permissions and Groups provides the ability to provide as atomic a dissemination of rights across the User space as possible. However, this granularity comes at the price of reduced efficiency for managing the created permissions and more importantly the Groups that collect Users designated to perform sets of actions. Essentially the Groups serve as access control lists in many systems, which for the variable and often changing environment of business applications means a need to constantly update the ACL’s (groups) in order to add or remove individuals based on their ability to perform certain actions. Also, the…