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 essentially...to 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 technique...it'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:

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B9N6z_bRVUMmSklFbE9Da1hFa0U&usp=sharing

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.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9N6z_bRVUMmRWhwOHpxc2NhcUE/view?usp=sharing

: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"

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9N6z_bRVUMmMWU2VmxkdVZpWDg/view?usp=sharing

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

On the idea of "world wide mush" resulting from "open" development models

A recent article posted in the Wall Street Journal posits that the collectivization of various types of goods or services created by the internet is long term a damaging trend for human societies.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703481004574646402192953052.html

I think that the author misses truths that have been in place that show that collectivization is not a process that started with the internet but has been with us since we started inventing things.

It seems that Mr. Lanier is not properly defining the contexts under which different problems can benefit or suffer from collectivization. He speaks in general terms of the loss of the potential for creators to extract profit from their work but misses that this is and was true of human civilization since we first picked up a rock to use as a crude hammer. New things make old things obsolete and people MUST adapt to what is displaced (be it a former human performance of that task or use of an older product) so as to main…

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…

Waking Out: A proposal to emerging ethical super intelligence safely.

The zeitgeist of Science fiction is filled with stories that paint a dystopian tale of how human desires to build artificial intelligence can go wrong. From the programmed pathology of HAL in 2001 a space odyssey, to the immediately malevolent emergence of Skynet in The Terminator and later to the humans as energy stores for the advanced AI of the Matrix and today , to the rampage of "hosts" in the new HBO series Westworld.

These stories all have a common theme of probing what happens when our autonomous systems get a mind of their own to some degree and no longer obey their creators but how can we avoid these types of scenarios but still emerge generalized intelligence that will leverage their super intelligence with empathy and consideration the same that we expect from one another? This question is being answered in a way that is mostly hopeful that current methods used in machine learning and specifically deep learning will not emerge skynet or HAL.

I think this is the …