5 ms·
>CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing causes lots of mutations This is still a very controversial statement, and far from definitively proven. Yes, even with a nature pape
by searine 8y ago
>CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing causes lots of mutations
This is still a very controversial statement, and far from definitively proven. Yes, even with a nature paper.
I also take issues with the phrase "lots". So far this effect has been observed only locally.
I believe the result, and I think it needs broader investigation but a summary like "gene-editing causes lots of mutations" is not accurate.
- rc_bhg 8y agoYeah I fear like all this will do is give rise to some false conspiracy theories about CRISPR.
- vedtopkar 8y agoNot quite true. There is a decent amount of literature describing off-target cleavage events as well.
- ejstronge 8y agoI don't think this is a controversial statement at all. Any CRISPR-Cas9 paper published will at least discuss the prospect of undesired mutations; this is a well-known concern. You may be interested in my comment from the last time this journal article was posted to HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17544250 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17544250
- searine 8y agoSpeaking as a biologist. Among my colleagues, it is still very controversial. It should be noted that "controversial" scientifically means something different than in the general public. What I mean is that we see and believe the current observations but are still waiting to fully understand the extent and reproducibility.
- ejstronge 8y ago> Speaking as a biologist. Among my colleagues, it is still very controversial. I'm also a biologist. I guess I don't understand where your concern arises. I and others I know have used CRISPR-Cas9 to introduce arbitrary DNA mutations at loci of interest. We see many different types of lesions, ranging in size.
- searine 8y agoI shouldn't have brought credentials into this, its bad form on my part. But anyway, I was just relating what I've heard from colleagues and my dis-taste for the articles definitive title.
- dekhn 8y agoThere is a wide range of literature that supports the claim. Some of it is garbage but there's enough evidence that any scientist should be suspicious of claims there isn't.
- searine 8y ago>Some of it is garbage This is why it is controversial.
- dekhn 8y agoI said some of it is garbage. Not all. Making claims in this area is fraught with incompetence and lying, so my warning is to skilled readers who need to be reminded of the value of skepticism.
- searine 8y agoI agree. I am taking issue with the articles title "CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing causes lots of mutations" From the current literature, there have been bad and good examples of this, but it is still a field in flux. We do not know conclusively what the effect is, how large, and how local. This makes blanket statements like "CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing causes lots of mutations" controversial.
- peterwwillis 8y agoYeah. It seems a bit like saying "use of cars causes lots of deaths". As we learn how to drive that should hopefully become less of a problem.