2 ms·
This is somewhat old news in the field, but it's nice to see some mainstream coverage of science. I'm glad that they mentioned to off target effects. I think th
by mbreese 13y ago
This is somewhat old news in the field, but it's nice to see some mainstream coverage of science. I'm glad that they mentioned to off target effects. I think that editing with Crisprs is supposed to be somewhat noisy, so any uses outside of the lab (eg clinical) will probably be limited. But, I haven't worked with them, so who knows where this will be in 5 years.
- naterator 13y ago> Crisprs is supposed to be somewhat noisy Since you seem knowledgeable: Do you know how they compare to other kinds of methods for cutting/splicing new genes into DNA, such as Zinc fingers or homing endonucleases? Specificity (non-noisy) seems like it would be the most important feature of something like this. Although I guess we don't really know, I could imagine "noise" turning into other horrible diseases, loss of viability, etc. Edit: And now I notice that they discuss this further down in the article. Nevermind.
- dnautics 13y agowill probably be really good for engineering organs (for clinical use) or organisms where you can afford to throw away mistakes.
- FD3SA 13y agoThe noise factor can be remedied with clever tweaking of the Cas9 protein, as mentioned in the article. This research is currently underway. The key is, optimizing the Cas9 protein is much easier than optimizing an infinite number of designer proteins targeting individual sequences, which is what previous methods required.