Unknown's avatar

About Anna Meldolesi

science writer

Organic farming & CRISPR – the not so odd couple

The New Genomic Techniques (NGTs) such as CRISPR are slowly rearranging the ranks in the debate on plant genetics and GM food. A few stakeholders that have always been hostile to GMOs have decided to open the door to the new opportunities coming from gene editing (in Italy, for example, the powerful farmers’ association Coldiretti has changed its mind). Others (e.g., Greenpeace, despite some isolated and courageous vanguards) have confirmed an ideological/cultural opposition, even in cases where the genetic intervention is so soft that the plants are concretely indistinguishable from those developed by conventional techniques. As for the galaxy of organic farming, it is standing still, yet something is moving. Don’t miss the article published in EUobserver by Lone Andersen and other organic farmers, who are calling on European institutions not to ban the new breeding techniques from their fields in the ongoing regulatory revision. “By encouraging the use of a limited share of the new NGTs in organic agriculture while preserving the non-GM status, the EU can further promote sustainable practices and reinforce its commitment to a greener future,” they write.

The dilemma of the first CRISPR patients: cure or fertility?

Credit Bing Image Creator

The approval of Casgevy, the new CRISPR option for sickle cell disease, is big news for American patients. The list price is high ($2.2 million) although lower than the non-CRISPR gene therapy approved by the FDA for the same pathology the same day. But in addition to economic sustainability, another issue worries scientists, clinicians, and patients: infertility.

Continue reading

Salomon’s patent dilemma and the first CRISPR therapy

In the story from the Bible King Solomon ruled between two women who both claimed to be the mother of a child. In the CRISPR saga the contention is between biotech companies over foundational patents, and the next crucial episode will unveil the consequences for the first CRISPR therapy, Casgevy.

Continue reading

Prime editing set to enter human trials

Credit: Microsoft/Bing

Recently David Liu announced that Prime Medicine will likely submit the first human trial application in 2024. The standard version of CRISPR uses an RNA guide to find the editing site in the genome. Prime editing, on the other hand, also uses the same RNA molecule to direct the correction, in short, to specify what to do as well as where to go.

This insight blossomed in Andrew Anzalone’s mind a few years ago during his PhD at Columbia University. The first practical demonstration came with a paper published in Nature in 2019 after joining the Liu’s Lab at the Broad Institute. Since then, this platform has been used in hundreds of experiments to fix all kinds of mutations in vitro and in animal models.

Meanwhile, the company co-founded by Anzalone and Liu has begun work on 18 treatments, the most advanced for chronic granulomatous disease. To learn more, from the eureka moment to the latest developments, we suggest listening to the Close to the Edge podcast and reading Alex Philippidis’ article in GEN.

Hopes and worries in the CRISPR world

Credit Bing Image Creator

The news of the week is definitely this: the first clinical trial with base editing (the CRISPR platform used to chemically change single DNA letters without double-strand breaks) hit the goal of lowering cholesterol in patients but raised questions about the risks (with two serious adverse events, including one death), as Nature reports.

But we also recommend reading two other articles. Nature Biotechnology takes a look at experiments using CRISPR to eliminate viruses that manage to hide from the immune system, such as HIV and hepatitis. While Genetic Literacy Project publishes an analysis of the problems that could cripple the new regulation on edited plants proposed by the European Commission and delay (even until 2030) the arrival of the first products on the EU market.

CRISPR crops: the devil in the detail of the EU proposal

Image source: “How the EU risks falling behind in the bioeconomy revolution“, a report by the Breakthrough Institute and the Alliance for Science

The scientific community has warmly welcomed the proposal for partial deregulation of new genomic techniques put forward by the European Commission last July. Unfortunately, the legislative process will not be able to make significant progress before the next parliamentary term, which opens with the European elections in June 2024. However, this time will not be wasted if it serves to address a few problematic points and to finalise a few clarifying amendments. The devil is in the details: from the 20-nucleotide threshold proposed to delimit permissible interventions on the genome to the unknowns regarding coexistence with organic farming, not forgetting the stigma against herbicides. This article published in Nature Biotechnology by Belgian and German researchers is useful for going through the still unresolved issues.