8 ms·
Super-precise new CRISPR tool could tackle a plethora of genetic diseases
- aaavl2821 7y agoThis seems like really cool tech but it is always important to be aware of hype. For a take on the limitations of the paper from a postdoc in another MIT lab: https://twitter.com/circuit_logic/status/1186644783751544832 https://twitter.com/circuit_logic/status/1186644783751544832 The tech has already been licensed to a new company backed by top biotech VCs ARCH, GV, F-Prime and Newpath
- rpmisms 7y agoCRISPR is a bit of a catch-all term, and "could tackle a plethora of genetic diseases" is not informative.
- bryanrasmussen 7y agoI uhm, posted this a while ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21315326 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21315326 on edit: but I guess it's been a while.
- dang 7y agoReposts are fine if a story hasn't had significant attention yet: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html. On HN we try to give good stories multiple cracks at the bat. Eventually we want to implement a karma-sharing system so earlier submissions benefit from reposts that catch on. In the meantime, it's a bit of a lottery—but if you submit enough good stories it evens out over time.
- chrisco255 7y agoWhat are the biggest risks with CRISPR? Seems like a double edged sword to me.
- ebg13 7y ago> What are the biggest risks with CRISPR? So far, that using it causes cancer.
- vikramkr 7y agoI don't recall a clear causal link being drawn beyond some favoring off cells with inhibitions in apoptotic pathways being more likely to successfully undergo crispr knockout- certainly a risk but nothing like what you're suggesting with that strong statement. Can you elaborate on your point? I'd love to learn if there was any more research into that, it's an important question for sure.
- ebg13 7y agoThere may be two different interpretations of "risks" in use here. If your mechanism both causes swathes of unexpected damage and also (because of, perhaps) favors cells with defective p53, certainly there is a reasonable until-it-improves risk of causing cancer.
- aaavl2821 7y agoHere's fairly approachable summary of some of the risks: https://www.synthego.com/blog/crispr-cancer-research-studies https://www.synthego.com/blog/crispr-cancer-research-studies This discusses a few papers showing that CRISRP-Cas9 can cause "off target" mutations in a tumor suppressor gene called p53. If these mutations render p53 non functional it is possible that these cells can become cancerous That is one of the specific risks identified although there are in theory other risks
- LordDragonfang 7y agoSeveral people elsewhere in the thread are discussing the possibility of bioweapons engineered to target specific ethnicities. Wouldn't it be just as feasible to create something similar that would specifically attack cells with a mutated p53?
- 7y ago
- markdown 7y agoWhy do people even share this sort of news anymore. I don't think I've ever read an article about novel medical science that is supposed to treat [bad disease] that eventuated in any actual treatment or cure. The actual cure is perpetually a decade away.
- Majestic121 7y agoThat's because the process to put a novel technology on the market takes approximately 10 years. Clinical trials are long, but new tech do get there
- markdown 7y agoYou didn't answer my question. Yes, of course clinical trials take forever. Why share this article here or anywhere? There is no cure or treatment for anything mentioned in the article. There might be one, but if there is it's a decade away. How is that news? It's like someone writing an article about a few people potentially being President of the USA a decade from now. Except nobody is actually named in the article. Would you share such an article? Is there a lot of money invested in CRISPR? Is this all about building hype for CRISPR? Because I can't think of another motive.
- jfarlow 7y agoIt's also a lot like an announcement of any other tool of great importance: a new programming language, a new rocket engine, a new alloy, a new psychological principle - or any other discovery of import. It's profoundly interesting to watch, understand, and organize those discoveries (as news) - precisely so the more pragmatic downstream affects can be achieved. Those who can put those various discoveries together are those that will be the ones that use those tools in conjunction in order to benefit everyone. But how are they to know about them if the discoveries themselves 'are not news'?
- Bjartr 7y agoThe article couldn't have been shared here simply because the submitter found it interesting and thought others here might feel similarly?
- WaitWaitWha 7y agorecently, seems, many, a lot of, very, completely, appears, most, far more likely, huge, could, some, may... so that's -13 for weaseling +1 doi link provided +1 doi points to the actual article
- dpq 7y agoFor the better or worse, this is the standard language for modern academic writing. Do not blame the authors if this social convention is not to your liking.
- ChuckMcM 7y agoThis is a good advancement on CRISPR, it gets us one step closer to having treatments for disease that is genetically linked. It also gets us one step closer to having a 'genome debugger' which would be a tool for analyzing what every gene does in isolation so that the effect of changes can be more accurately modeled (and predicted). The scary part of that for me is that we get closer to having genomic 'zero days' where an underground lab has figured out how to create a pathogen that has a specific (and negative) targeted effect on a particular gene or gene group. Such a tool in the hands of someone who is looking to do some "ethnic cleansing" is a concern for me.
- Klinky 7y agoWe already have nukes, and you can still do ethnic cleansing most cheaply with conventional weapons and impotent nation states, no need for Super CRISPR.
- toomuchtodo 7y agoBut if one wanted to, bioengineering ethnic cleansing (or whatever section of genome you're targeting) can be done with a couple thousand dollars worth of supplies in a garage, no nuclear or conventional arsenal required. The point of importance is the barrier to entry is so much lower. DEFCON talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKQDSgBHPfY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKQDSgBHPfY (DEF CON 25 - John Sotos - Genetic Diseases to Guide Digital Hacks of the Human Genome) HN thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16349202 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16349202
- ChuckMcM 7y ago> The point of importance is the barrier to entry is so much lower. This is the key point.
- grabbalacious 7y agoNo, the creation of antidotes is feasible for government labs but there's no purely defensive countermeasure against nuclear weapons.
- inciampati 7y agoThe key advance in this work is showing a way to edit without any external inputs to the cell (in the form of DNA templates). This suggests the possibility of in cell feedback systems. I don't get the best vibe from all the rush to market and focus on correcting generic disorders. Is that really what gene editing is for?
- aaavl2821 7y agoI'm not an expert but I believe that one of the key advances here is that this technology can introduce new DNA via more precise mechanisms, breaking just one DNA strand at a time. Current CRISPR tech involves "double stranded breaks": cutting both strands of DNA. The body has a few ways of dealing with and repairing these breaks, one of which scientists can use to insert new DNA of their choosing [0]. However in other cases the cell uses a different repair pathway that can introduce mutations (including insertions or deletions of DNA). These mutations can be harmful especially if for example they mutate a tumor suppressor gene The new approach here apparently has less of a risk of introducing these mutations bc it does not cause double strand breaks, so does not trigger potentially erroneous repairs that cause harmful mutations But I'm not an expert so if this is incorrect or if I'm missing something please chime in [0] https://blog.addgene.org/crispr-101-homology-directed-repair https://blog.addgene.org/crispr-101-homology-directed-repair
- oarabbus_ 7y agoI think it's worth pointing out that this headline pops up every time there's a minor improvement to CRISPR/casX regardless of whether it's a substantial improvement or not.
- EGreg 7y agoDoes CRISPR work on all cells at once? Or we are talking about gametes?
- aaavl2821 7y agoIt does not work on all cells at once. For a cell's genes to be edited, the cell must receive its own copy of CRISPR-Cas9 or whatever other gene editing system. Delivery of gene editing systems to the right cells is a major challenge. At present, most gene editing therapies involve: * extracting blood cells from a patient, editing them ex vivo, optionally selecting for successfully edited cells, and readministering to patients * delivering gene therapy with viral vectors and treating diseases where you don't need to edit 100% of relevant cells for the treatment to be effective, and targeting cells that are easier for the viral vectors to infect (typically motor neurons, the eye, blood cells or the liver) It isn't really possible to edit every or most cells in the body with current technology. It is possible to edit gametes but it is not currently ethical to do so as we don't understand the risks and the potential for abuse is huge
- foobarbecue 7y agoPrime editing is not CRISPR or "a CRISPR tool." It's an alternative to CRISPR.
- dandare 7y agoI understand that CRISPR can change the genome in a specific chromosome, but how do you change the genome in all cells of a body? Or you don't need to change all cells in order to cure genetic disease?
- turbo_fart_box 7y agoFrom what I have seen you just have to keep pumping the person full of CRISPR until it permeates their entire system
- Gatsky 7y agoYes, you can't change the genome in all the cells of a body. Whether this is necessary or not depends on the disease. For example, for certain conditions, it would be enough to edit some bone marrow stem cells, then put them back into the patient, perhaps at the same time as getting rid of most of their existing bone marrow with chemotherapy or radiotherapy. Another example is editing a specific organ only, such as the retina or the liver.
- SuoDuanDao 7y agoIt's difficult. The standard way in frogs is to just keep injecting them until the altered cells outnumber the regular ones. You wouldn't have to change them all though, often genetic diseases are confined to a particular tissue. There are also theories around using a live virus to carry the genetic material, theoretically a virus like that could leave behind the desired mutation as it replicates through the body's cells. Promising mechanism, though I don't know of anyone who's pulled it off.