The first human CRISPR trial approved in the United States is finally recruiting the first patient. In the meantime trials have grown to a dozen in China, considering those revealed by the Wall Street Journal inquiry besides the NIH database (check also this npr article for further details). Over 80 Chinese patients are already receiving a CRISPR-based treatment, while US researchers cautiously plan to test the safety of their experimental therapy on a single subject, and, if everything goes right, two more patients will be treated a month later. Is the West losing its genome-editing edge to Beijing? Continue reading →
It is Science but it could be mistaken for The CRISPR Journal. The latest issue indeed runs three papers by three CRISPR aces – David Liu, Jennifer Doudna, and Feng Zhang – about the cutting-edge fields of biological recorders and advanced diagnostic tests. Continue reading →
There is hardly any day without CRISPR news. February starts with researchers correcting abnormalities associated with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (Science Advances) and performing allele-specific editing in blind mice (bioRxiv, forthcoming in The CRISPR Journal). A repechage from January also: how to get pluripotent stem cells by CRISPRing just one gene (Cell Stem Cell).
“Uh Oh. CRISPR might not work on people”. A title like this on the MIT Technology Reviewwebsite is not the best way to kick-start the new year. But wait, our motto still stands: keep calm and crispr on.
Reversing three genetic diseases in the animal model without even changing a single DNA letter. A Salk Institute team did it by bringing together two of biomedicine’s hottest trends. One is the CRISPR technique, which edits target genes through a programmable molecular machine named Cas9. The other is epigenetics, i.e., the study of chemical modifications that switch genes on and off without altering their sequence. It’s called epigenetic editing, because corrections are precise as in manuscript revision and occur at a level that is over (epi- in Greek) genetics. Continue reading →
Choose a word to fill the gap in the sentence. “Gene drives are an ambitious experiment in …”. Genetics? Ecology? Evolution? Obviously, gene drives are all this and more. They may also represent a significant social experiment in risk communication, public engagement, participatory processes. Potential applications of this technology include controlling the transmission of vector-borne diseases and eliminating invasive species from sensitive ecosystems. We do not yet know if these genetic elements, designed to foster the preferential inheritance of a gene of interest with CRISPR’s help, will work in field trials as hoped. To find out, a green light to test this technology out of the labs will have to be negotiated with the public, stakeholders, regulators, and governments of affected countries. A first step in this direction was taken last week with the commitment to respect shared guiding principles in gene drive research and communication published in Science by the technology main sponsors and supporters. Signatory organizations are scattered around the world, from the US to India, with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation at the forefront with its Target Malaria project. Continue reading →
The first patient edited “in vivo” last week is a breaking news story, and zinc finger nuclease ZFN must be credited for the accomplishment. A putatively outdated system stealing the scene from the most celebrated technique for gene editing is a bit like Carl Lewis beating Usain Bolt at the Rio Olympics. Any wonder that tweets by some biotech-enthusiasts had something of a derby atmosphere, while many inattentive readers thought it was CRISPR stuff, as lay people never heard of ZFN before. Continue reading →