>"That's extremely far from the truth. The entire CRISPR field is focused heavily on being able to mass edit genes in adults in fact." It doesn't seem so to me

>"That's extremely far from the truth. The entire CRISPR field is focused heavily on being able to mass edit genes in adults in fact." It doesn't seem so to me. I've noticed less and less focus on toxicity lately, as if they've given up on that. For example, I took a look at one of the papers[1] from TFA. All they look at is percent of sequences from surviving cells that contained the A->G mutation. They don't report how many cells died during the process to get there. Also, they see these mutations in the control group too (figure 4 untreated A5 = 99.8), so it seems this may be yet another way to use crispr to select for pre-existing mutants. It's hard to say since no info is provided on the toxicity for this new strategy. On the other hand, the new strategy may be less toxic since it is only supposed to introduce a single strand break rather than double (ie as opposed to cas9). Reviewers should be on this, not sure why they so consistently drop the ball regarding the role of toxicity in these studies. [1] https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaap/ncurrent/full/nature24644.html https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaap/ncurrent/full/nat...