Human Germline Genome Editing 2/9/2018
Most Valuable citations:
Biologist Explains One Concept in 5 Levels of Difficulty CRISPR 2/7/2018
Here is the video for those who want to watch it.
Neville Sanjana. “Biologist Explains One Concept in 5 Levels of Difficulty CRISPR.” Youtube, uploaded by WIRED, May 24, 2017, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sweN8d4_MUg.
In this video Neville Sanjana, a Biologist from New York University and the New York Genome Center, explains CRISPR in five levels of difficulty; easy to understand to complex. At level one, Sanjana explains CRISPR to a five-year-old and a teenager who has no idea what CRISPR is. He then talks to a college student and grad student who sort of know what CRISPR is and are able to have a conversation about it. At level 5, Sanjana talks to a “CRISPR expert” and they fully discuss what crisper is and the problems with it.
Most valuable citations:
The video doesn’t site information in a way an article would. The first person he talks to is a 7-year old a 14-year old, a college student, a grad student, and the “CRISPR expert,” Dr. Matthew Canver, a post-doctoral research fellow at Harvard Medical School.
I think that this video has helped me understand who really understand CRISPR-Cas9 and the conversation around the use of it. I learned how CRISPR is used in the lab and some of the topics in conversation; for example, CRISPR is in the early stage of research. I already knew that there are a lot of problems that need to be fixed before it should even be considered for use in humans. This video is very helpful in helping spread/explain what CRISPR is and how it is used.
- “It holds a lot of potentials and it can get there but there are a lot of issues and concerns that need to be worked out” (Canver)
- “CRISPR-Cas9 has a lot of potentials to do things that are kind of out of the box…” (Canver)
Embryo Gene-Editing Experiment Reignites Ethical Debate 2/5/2018
Fine Maron, Dina. “Embryo Gene-Editing Experiment Reignites Ethical Debate.” Scientific American, 2 August 2017, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/embryo-gene-editing-experiment-reignites-ethical-debate. Accessed February 31, 2018.
This article is mainly about the discussion about recent successes using CRISPR-Cas9 to alter early-stage, viable human embryos. Dina Fine Maron writes about the conversations taking place within the scientific community regarding the use of the enzyme Cas9. Scientists state there are positives and negatives; further research is needed.
Most Valuable Citations:
“Today, biologists from Oregon report in Nature that they have had unprecedented successes using that gene-editing technology to alter early-stage, viable human embryos,” (Author didn’t list citation; I couldn’t find it on google either).
I didn’t know that recently scientists have been having success using CRISPR to edit out a mutation that causes heart disease. The major problem the use of CRISPR has is the repair method; there needs to be father research. The article was an evaluation of the use of CRISPR-Cas9; It provided me with more scientist/sources to look “into” to expand the conversation of my paper.
- “The gene-editing success appears to be largely due to one procedural change: The researchers introduced the editing system—the enzyme Cas9 and a guide RNA sequence that helps the editing machinery find its target—at the same time they injected the mutation-laden sperm into a healthy egg in the lab.”
- “Moreover, this CRISPR technique may eventually be an important intervention in situations where parents want to have a genetically related child but have a homozygous condition—say both parents have two copies of a disease-causing mutation like that which causes sickle cell—which would result in all embryos being affected by the disorder.”
- “In fact, the Mitalipov group found that cellular repair mechanisms, at least in their experiments, did not respond very well to the introduction of a synthetic repair template added by the researchers. According to Doudna, that suggests future homozygous work will be challenging—maybe far more so than scientists have expected.”
Crispr’s Next Big Debate: How Messy Is Too Messy?
Megan Molteni. “Crisp’s Next Big Debate: How Messy Is Too Messy?” Weird, June 4, 2017, https://www.wired.com/2017/06/crispr-mutations/. Accessed February 31, 2018.
Molteni’s article is mainly about an evaluation on a “recent” published a one-page letter using CRISPR and its high chance for unintended mutations. There are many scientists who agree with the result because its common for a high mutation rate but there are some scientists who were very negative about it.
Most Valuable Citations:
- “A lot, it turned out. With their method, the researchers observed close to 2,000 unintended mutations throughout each mouse’s genome, a rate more than 10 times higher than anyone had previously reported.”
- “Saying Crispr is 100 percent accurate or grossly inaccurate isn’t helpful. What scientists need to understand is which sites are being cut, what rules govern which sites get cut, and how to emphasize only cutting at sites you want”
- “While some experts decried the paper as unnewsworthy (everyone’s known about Crispr off-target mutations forever!) the majority of threads ticked off the experiment’s flaws: Tiny sample size! Insufficient controls! Weird Crispr delivery! Out of date/inefficient version of Crispr! The list goes on.”
- “Taliaferro is aware that his initial reactions were colored by some of the Twitter threads he’d already absorbed before tracking down the paper himself. “I think the data is perfectly fine,” he says. “It’s just the interpretation of it that to me seems odd.” Namely, that every Crispr application is deeply flawed.”
- “No one should presume a standalone study can predict the future of an entire technique.”
- ““Crispr definitely has off-targets. But a lot of people use it assuming no other mutations get introduced during the process,” he says. “So getting people to talk about the need for controls is a good outcome of this whole thing.””