Crispr Isn’t Enough Any More. Get Ready for Gene Editing 2.0 - Sensationalist Headlines

[URL]https://www.wired.com/story/whats-next-for-crispr/[/URL] [QUOTE]n fewer than five years, the gene-editing technology known as [URL="https://www.wired.com/tag/crispr/"]Crispr[/URL] has revolutionized the face and pace of modern biology. Since its ability to find, remove, and replace genetic material was first reported in 2012, scientists have published more than 5,000 papers mentioning Crispr. Biomedical researchers are embracing it to create better models of disease. And countless companies have spun up to commercialize new drugs, therapies, foods, chemicals, and materials based on the technology. But like the Model T, Crispr Classic is somewhat clunky, unreliable, and a bit dangerous. It can’t bind to just any place in the genome. It sometimes [URL="https://www.wired.com/2017/06/crispr-mutations/"]cuts in the wrong places.[/URL] And it has no off-switch. If the Model T was prone to overheating, Crispr Classic is prone to overeating. Even with these limitations, Crispr Classic will continue to be a workhorse for science in 2018 and beyond. But this year, newer, flashier gene editing tools began rolling off the production line, promising to outshine their first-generation cousin. So if you were just getting your head around Crispr, buckle up. Because gene-editing 2.0 is here.[/QUOTE] again from the firefox tab page, :johnnymo1:

Wrong summon button, did you mean to press the [I]Headhumpy[/I] button instead?

[QUOTE=EE 20 D0;53012123]Wrong summon button, did you mean to press the [I]Headhumpy[/I] button instead?[/QUOTE] Don't see that one in the smilie list, also didn't know there was another user people turned to so much they made a thing for it lol.

[QUOTE=TheBorealis;53012135]Don't see that one in the smilie list, also didn't know there was another user people turned to so much they made a thing for it lol.[/QUOTE] No smiley for that but it's the closest user to biology-JohnnyMo i could think of iirc.

[QUOTE=EE 20 D0;53012158]No smiley for that but it's the closest user to biology-JohnnyMo i could think of iirc.[/QUOTE] I think I remember seeing JohnnyMo saying some things about how a biology paper was bad or something, anyway neat.

Crispr classic sounds like a fucking energy drink

[QUOTE=_Maverick_;53012220]Crispr classic sounds like a fucking energy drink[/QUOTE] Sounds mote like a dating app for people that like grilled food

How long until we have to worry about b.o.w.s?

Would it be too 9/11-truthy to worry about companies creating awful diseases just to inflate the prices of the drugs used to cure them?

[QUOTE=KingKombat;53012390]Would it be too 9/11-truthy to worry about companies creating awful diseases just to inflate the prices of the drugs used to cure them?[/QUOTE] Someone once asked the CEO of Coca-Cola about the theory that Coca Cola had introduced New Coke knowing it would be poorly received in order to boost sales/public Goodwill when they reintroduced Coke Classic. He said "We're not that smart and we're not that stupid." In that line of thought, though, check out the book "The Windup Girl". Set in the 23rd century after Monsanto-esque companies start engineering superdeadly plant diseases that only their GMO plants are immune to, which they then release into the wild.

[QUOTE=DinoJesus;53012306]How long until we have to worry about b.o.w.s?[/QUOTE] Glory to the first nation that gets mechagodzilla to stand in its capital and sing their national anthem.

More than anything else, CRISPR-Cas9 has allowed us to realize that it's method of gene editing isn't even that unique in the bacterium world, and we've used it's discovery and usage to find out even more impressive systems in both eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells. At first it was just finding CRISPR systems for different bacteria to fill in the gaps of stuff we could edit, but it's gone well beyond that now. It was just the precursor to a much, much more impressive technology. [editline]28th December 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=KingKombat;53012390]Would it be too 9/11-truthy to worry about companies creating awful diseases just to inflate the prices of the drugs used to cure them?[/QUOTE] The consequence of being found out isn't just losing a few million dollars like when they commit fraud - which could also easily gain them tons of money - it's death. Even CEOs aren't that dumb or evil enough to choose such an absurdly risky option versus the easy and low risk options available to them. Now, different countries sneaking in new diseases using this technology? That's a dangerous but real possibility. [editline]28th December 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Harbie;53012407]Someone once asked the CEO of Coca-Cola about the theory that Coca Cola had introduced New Coke knowing it would be poorly received in order to boost sales/public Goodwill when they reintroduced Coke Classic. He said "We're not that smart and we're not that stupid." In that line of thought, though, check out the book "The Windup Girl". Set in the 23rd century after Monsanto-esque companies start engineering superdeadly plant diseases that only their GMO plants are immune to, which they then release into the wild.[/QUOTE] Not sure what's worse, creating new diseases to get people sick for a profit, or daring to touch the US's food security. At that point you might as well be picking a fight with the military.

[QUOTE=TheBorealis;53012135]Don't see that one in the smilie list, also didn't know there was another user people turned to so much they made a thing for it lol.[/QUOTE] it's mostly because pop science has a tendency to put way too much stock into crispr's abilities, and headhumpy is pretty good at debunking a lot of the misinformation that surrounds gene editing

[QUOTE=Harbie;53012407]Someone once asked the CEO of Coca-Cola about the theory that Coca Cola had introduced New Coke knowing it would be poorly received in order to boost sales/public Goodwill when they reintroduced Coke Classic. He said "We're not that smart and we're not that stupid." In that line of thought, though, check out the book "The Windup Girl". Set in the 23rd century after Monsanto-esque companies start engineering superdeadly plant diseases that only their GMO plants are immune to, which they then release into the wild.[/QUOTE] You don't even need to look that far. The bugs become resistant to Monsanto pesticides absolutely trash normal pesticides and thus means that local fauna are eaten alive including strains of grains and other local agricultural staples are threatened with extinction. This also ignores the fact that due to gene editing, all these plants are basically the same one meaning if a single species of fungus or weed develops an immunity or even an incredibly virulent parasitic attitude, we'd basically have to edit the plant all over again but the current crop would be wiped out which can lead to wide spread famine. And we haven't discussed the national security risks, such as government designed crop killers that can poison entire stocks of food during war time. GMOs are good on paper but in practice they've created a whole host of issues. [editline]29th December 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=ilikecorn;53012514]Countries making new diseases? Possible, but highly unlikely. Unleashing biological weapons is grounds for thermonuclear assault, MAD applies to all WMD's.[/QUOTE] The issue becomes if we get sophisticated enough, how will you be able to tell?

Crispst

CRISPR stands for [B]c[/B]lustered [B]r[/B]egularly [B]i[/B]nterspaced [B]s[/B]hort [B]p[/B]alindromic [B]r[/B]epeat, a word stew that simply means "we noticed this pattern of DNA sequences in a lot of bacteria so it's gotta do something". We later found out that these sequences were part of a bacterial immune system that destroys foreign DNA, and the proteins involved in this system were known [B]C[/B]RISPR [B]a[/B]ssociated [B]s[/B]ystem proteins, or Cas for short. You'll notice that biologists aren't very good at naming things. The CRISPR/Cas system does two things. First, when foreign DNA is introduced into the cell (for example, by viruses attempting to infect the bacterium), it is broken up by one set of Cas proteins and integrated into the bacterial genome. The region where these sequences are integrated is the CRISPR array itself: short stretches of foreign DNA sequences [I]interspaced[/I] by [I]short palindromic repeats[/I]. The second part of the system involves using these sequences to defend against foreign DNA. The entire CRISPR array is first transcribed into RNA, then other Cas proteins process that RNA further. The end result is a Cas protein associated with a piece of RNA that is complementary to previously-encountered foreign DNA. When the Cas protein encounters DNA sequences that match this RNA, it quickly cuts the DNA, preventing it from doing whatever it wanted to do in the cell. It is the second part of the CRISPR/Cas system that researchers are really interested in. By taking the Cas protein and giving it a piece of RNA with a specific sequence, then stuffing the whole doodad into a cell, we can get it to cut the DNA in the cell at a specific point. A large variety of Cas proteins have been identified so far, but the first to be extensively studied and engineered for genome editing was Cas9. So, when CRISPR is mentioned in the news, it's really CRISPR/Cas9 that we're talking about. However, as this article points out, there are many other Cas proteins, all with different functions. Some cut DNA in a different way, while others cut RNA instead of DNA. Very recently, researchers discovered viral proteins that are able to inhibit the activity of Cas9. These systems are a lot less well-characterised than CRISPR/Cas9, which is why they haven't really gained traction yet. It's only a matter of time before we gain a better understanding of them and are able to use them for our own purposes. EDIT: Just a caveat, I'm actually a chemist by training so I might get some things wrong, so don't take my word as gospel.

[QUOTE=KingKombat;53012390]Would it be too 9/11-truthy to worry about companies creating awful diseases just to inflate the prices of the drugs used to cure them?[/QUOTE] It'd probably be easier to just do something like this: [video=youtube;plVk4NVIUh8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plVk4NVIUh8[/video] Instead of doing Crispr. Vira and bacteria are already pretty good at developing resistance, probably better than a lab trying to figure out which gene to alter and in what way. So yes, yes it would be.

[QUOTE=SunsetTable;53012703]You don't even need to look that far. The bugs become resistant to Monsanto pesticides absolutely trash normal pesticides and thus means that local fauna are eaten alive including strains of grains and other local agricultural staples are threatened with extinction. This also ignores the fact that due to gene editing, all these plants are basically the same one meaning if a single species of fungus or weed develops an immunity or even an incredibly virulent parasitic attitude, we'd basically have to edit the plant all over again but the current crop would be wiped out which can lead to wide spread famine. And we haven't discussed the national security risks, such as government designed crop killers that can poison entire stocks of food during war time. GMOs are good on paper but in practice they've created a whole host of issues.[/QUOTE] I'm generally pro-GMO food, but your comment really makes me reconsider at least some aspects of that. Well done! Usually people just say "but it's not biologiiiical"

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53012514]Countries making new diseases? Possible, but highly unlikely. Unleashing biological weapons is grounds for thermonuclear assault, MAD applies to all WMD's.[/QUOTE] And yet so many countries developed and are developing nuclear weapons? Hmmm. It's also easier to conceal biological weaponry development than nuclear.

[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;53013259]And yet so many countries developed and are developing nuclear weapons? Hmmm. It's also easier to conceal biological weaponry development than nuclear.[/QUOTE] No ones really developing nukes still. Nukes are probably easier to make anyway since countries are already mining uranium for other things and since MAD already exists if you make more nukes no ones going to think you're really going to use them, if it gets out you're developing Hyper-Ebolaids you're turning into a supervillain overnight.

[QUOTE=SunsetTable;53012703]You don't even need to look that far. The bugs become resistant to Monsanto pesticides absolutely trash normal pesticides and thus means that local fauna are eaten alive including strains of grains and other local agricultural staples are threatened with extinction. This also ignores the fact that due to gene editing, all these plants are basically the same one meaning if a single species of fungus or weed develops an immunity or even an incredibly virulent parasitic attitude, we'd basically have to edit the plant all over again but the current crop would be wiped out which can lead to wide spread famine. And we haven't discussed the national security risks, such as government designed crop killers that can poison entire stocks of food during war time. GMOs are good on paper but in practice they've created a whole host of issues. [editline]29th December 2017[/editline] The issue becomes if we get sophisticated enough, how will you be able to tell?[/QUOTE] The curious thing is that GMO tech gives solutions to a lot of these issues such as being able to fast track resistence against diseases. Habitat destruction already occurs with agriculture and GMO tech can to help limit the land of landed needed. If GMOs are responsible for the end of civilization then we can conclusively say they were not good for us. But like all tech, it is up to how we use it.

So for a person with basic understanding about the subject, how is this exsactly applicable in modern-day healthcare? Does this new breakthrough make it easier for scientists to isolate specific parts of a persons dna that, and please tell me this is an upcomming thing, allow your self to identify things such as canser as a disease? I've read some articles about this but for a person that has limited knowlage about the subject its hard to understand what exsactly the purpoce if this is for ( appart from creating catgirls of course :p )

[QUOTE=Mattheus;53014725]So for a person with basic understanding about the subject, how is this exsactly applicable in modern-day healthcare? Does this new breakthrough make it easier for scientists to isolate specific parts of a persons dna that, and please tell me this is an upcomming thing, allow your self to identify things such as canser as a disease? I've read some articles about this but for a person that has limited knowlage about the subject its hard to understand what exsactly the purpoce if this is for ( appart from creating catgirls of course :p )[/QUOTE] The fastest and most validated thing that CRISPR and similar gene-modification techniques have done is really increased the rate at which we can test the effect of genes by speeding up to process to make genetically modified animals and cells. Want to see what gene QWERTY does? Breed a mouse that doesn't have it and see what happens. Instead of taking months, selecting the right mice, it's faster. If you want to have cells that produce the gene then that's now faster too. Basically, early medical research just becomes so much faster. In terms of current or treatments that will soon be released; new therapies such as the modification of one's own immune system cells to target cancer can also be speed up which easier ways to modify mammalian cells. This could lower the threshold for developing new treatments based on this. Gene therapy might also be made more efficacious but the current road blocks are in other areas. While the ethics of modifying human embyros is still being worked out, there is the possibility of being able to remove certain genetics disorders that would be guaranteed to cause major issues. I think eventually, the benefit will be so great that people will reluctantly (or not so reluctantly) accept this. BASICALLY, modifying DNA reliably gives us the ability to cure a lot of diseases where we had no chance at all. While we could and did do DNA modification, CRISPR allows us to do it faster and more reliably than before - especially on mammalian cells. It's not perfect but it's also relatively new and is constantly being improved.

[QUOTE=Jabberwocky;53014196]The curious thing is that GMO tech gives solutions to a lot of these issues such as being able to fast track resistence against diseases. Habitat destruction already occurs with agriculture and GMO tech can to help limit the land of landed needed. If GMOs are responsible for the end of civilization then we can conclusively say they were not good for us. But like all tech, it is up to how we use it.[/QUOTE] This is a fair point, however with the planet going tits up faster than anticipated, newer solutions may not come in time to deal with new problems and ontop of this there is an upper limit to where most of the strains we use can survive. The real tragedy is that we've lost a lot of important cultural palletes and flavors that used to expressly require different variations of the same strain of plant. A lot of old Southern Recipies just don't and won't taste the same due to a highly sweet form of string beans and peas overtaking the old local variants. And again, this doesn't protect against biological weapons grade attacks nor does your solution help wild fauna which is the whole point of GMOs, to maximize our land use which also has the side affect of making super bugs that wild fauna cannot compete with and thus aggravates an already fucked ecosystem. [editline]29th December 2017[/editline] Just because we have solutions doesn't mean they're the best or can be used wantonly, GMOs are being abused right now. We haven't deployed them in intelligent ways. [editline]29th December 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Jabberwocky;53014941]The fastest and most validated thing that CRISPR and similar gene-modification techniques have done is really increased the rate at which we can test the effect of genes by speeding up to process to make genetically modified animals and cells. Want to see what gene QWERTY does? Breed a mouse that doesn't have it and see what happens. Instead of taking months, selecting the right mice, it's faster. If you want to have cells that produce the gene then that's now faster too. Basically, early medical research just becomes so much faster. In terms of current or treatments that will soon be released; new therapies such as the modification of one's own immune system cells to target cancer can also be speed up which easier ways to modify mammalian cells. This could lower the threshold for developing new treatments based on this. Gene therapy might also be made more efficacious but the current road blocks are in other areas. While the ethics of modifying human embyros is still being worked out, there is the possibility of being able to remove certain genetics disorders that would be guaranteed to cause major issues. I think eventually, the benefit will be so great that people will reluctantly (or not so reluctantly) accept this. BASICALLY, modifying DNA reliably gives us the ability to cure a lot of diseases where we had no chance at all. While we could and did do DNA modification, CRISPR allows us to do it faster and more reliably than before - especially on mammalian cells. It's not perfect but it's also relatively new and is constantly being improved.[/QUOTE] There is however caveats, such as the fact that because its new we haven't seen the long term impacts that gene editting can have. We can plan for things like making them in such a way that they cannot be sent to offspring but we just do not have the experience or knowledge to accurately say that these will not have negative repurcussions. Long Term Data is needed, so careful deployment is needed.

[QUOTE=TheBorealis;53012086][URL]https://www.wired.com/story/whats-next-for-crispr/[/URL] again from the firefox tab page, :johnnymo1:[/QUOTE] the fuck this got to do with me, lol [QUOTE=EE 20 D0;53012158]No smiley for that but it's the closest user to biology-JohnnyMo i could think of iirc.[/QUOTE] was it [url=http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/17/2/152]this hilarious paper[/url] that we all like to laugh about from time to time where the person published the trapezoidal rule? The 2000 year old integration method that we teach high school students in their first calc course?

[QUOTE=SunsetTable;53014952]This is a fair point, however with the planet going tits up faster than anticipated, newer solutions may not come in time to deal with new problems and ontop of this there is an upper limit to where most of the strains we use can survive. The real tragedy is that we've lost a lot of important cultural palletes and flavors that used to expressly require different variations of the same strain of plant. A lot of old Southern Recipies just don't and won't taste the same due to a highly sweet form of string beans and peas overtaking the old local variants. And again, this doesn't protect against biological weapons grade attacks nor does your solution help wild fauna which is the whole point of GMOs, to maximize our land use which also has the side affect of making super bugs that wild fauna cannot compete with and thus aggravates an already fucked ecosystem. [editline]29th December 2017[/editline] Just because we have solutions doesn't mean they're the best or can be used wantonly, GMOs are being abused right now. We haven't deployed them in intelligent ways. [editline]29th December 2017[/editline] There is however caveats, such as the fact that because its new we haven't seen the long term impacts that gene editting can have. We can plan for things like making them in such a way that they cannot be sent to offspring but we just do not have the experience or knowledge to accurately say that these will not have negative repurcussions. Long Term Data is needed, so careful deployment is needed.[/QUOTE] I can attempt to address the specific risks you mention but I don't feel confident enough and anything I say will just be speculative. But I will speculate this: To say that long term data is needed is nice and all but there is an opportunity cost. Let me explain with a comparison. We could test a potential new drug for longer and longer periods. The longer we tests, the more likely we'll be able to catch something that could be potentially disastrous, if it was there. But while we test, more and more people that could have benefited from the drug miss out. And if we find nothing, was it worth. Even if we find a side effect that seriously harms 1 in 1,000,000 people, is it worth it when many people missed out? While the details are missing for GMOs, the core idea remains the same. Many people can be saved with GMO crops/treatments/etc. How long do we wait? There are already many precautions to prevent many issues that people bring up. Even if the destruction of biodiversity the is uniquely caused by GMOs holds true, if we can save billions of people, is it worth it?

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;53015017]the fuck this got to do with me, lol was it [URL="http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/17/2/152"]this hilarious paper[/URL] that we all like to laugh about from time to time where the person published the trapezoidal rule? The 2000 year old integration method that we teach high school students in their first calc course?[/QUOTE] I think it was from two or three months ago, on the videos section, not sure. Anyway I just thought people did the summon for anything complex and scientific. edit: that's possibly when the thing I was talking about earlier happened. probably not even related to biology lol.

[QUOTE=TheBorealis;53015030]I think it was from two or three months ago, on the videos section, not sure. Anyway I just thought people did the summon for anything complex and scientific.[/QUOTE] I can make something technobabbly up, hang on "Sure, but Crispr seems great, but have the creators considered whether the Higgs mechanism might cause a tachyonic condensation if it's used improperly? Genes have notoriously dangerous Yang-Mills instantons which could precipitate a vacuum metastability event."

[QUOTE=Jabberwocky;53015021]I can attempt to address the specific risks you mention but I don't feel confident enough and anything I say will just be speculative. But I will speculate this: To say that long term data is needed is nice and all but there is an opportunity cost. Let me explain with a comparison. We could test a potential new drug for longer and longer periods. The longer we tests, the more likely we'll be able to catch something that could be potentially disastrous, if it was there. But while we test, more and more people that could have benefited from the drug miss out. And if we find nothing, was it worth. Even if we find a side effect that seriously harms 1 in 1,000,000 people, is it worth it when many people missed out? While the details are missing for GMOs, the core idea remains the same. Many people can be saved with GMO crops/treatments/etc. How long do we wait? There are already many precautions to prevent many issues that people bring up. Even if the destruction of biodiversity the is uniquely caused by GMOs holds true, if we can save billions of people, is it worth it?[/QUOTE] Actually, Kruzesegat spoke about this and it looks like the Genetics Community agrees that we need proper long term studies to see how edited genes mutate between offspring. [editline]29th December 2017[/editline] And for human genome testing, there aren't really even [B]guidelines[/B] that begun to even written down yet.