Study calls out the genes that make cancer cells so hard to kill
Researchers from the University of Toronto published a new map of cancer cells' genetic defenses against treatment.
24 September, 2020
Credit: CI Photos/Shutterstock
<ul class="ee-ul"></ul>
<p class=""><br></p>
<p>There's a great diversity among cancer cells, though many of them share one unfortunate trait: They're often quite adept at resisting the body's immune system. The immune system's T killer cells can theoretically take out cancer cells, and immunotherapies enhance existing T cells' potency. Still, cancer cells are often impervious to them, can mutate to evade them, and worst of all, can acquire "cancer resistance mutations" that cause the disease to worsen in response to T cells. This is especially true of the cells in solid tumors.</p><p>A study from researchers at University of Toronto catalogs the genes in cancer tumors that allow the disease to so effectively resist immunotherapy. Its authors hope that their findings will eventually lead to the development of more successful cancer treatments.</p><p>The study is published in the journal <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2746-2" target="_blank">Nature</a>.</p>
A moving target
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDQzNjQ2Ny9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1MDM3OTA0N30.z4u2eaulqRu8cslqqny8t9G7iaHr_DarbDJSFKLdDwI/img.jpg?width=980" id="21b22" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="aefbbccdf3bb0d25bf14268ab87a821f" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="IV drip" />Credit: Marcelo Leal/Unsplash
<p>Speaking to <a href="https://www.utoronto.ca/news/u-t-researchers-identify-genes-enable-cancer-evade-immune-system" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">U of T News</a>, lead author of the study molecular geneticist <a href="http://www.moleculargenetics.utoronto.ca/faculty/2014/9/30/jason-moffat" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Jason Moffat</a> of the university's <a href="https://ccbr.utoronto.ca/donnelly-centre-cellular-and-biomolecular-research" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Donnelly Centre for Cellular and Biomolecular Research</a> says, "Over the last decade, different forms of immunotherapy have emerged as really potent cancer treatments, but the reality is that they only generate durable responses in a fraction of patients and not for all tumor types."</p><p>There can be a significant degree of heterogeneity between cancer cells from human to human, and even within the same person, making the development of therapies maddeningly difficult. Attempting to address potential cancer-cell vulnerabilities across these variations is a life-or-death game of whack-a-mole.</p><p>"It's an ongoing battle between the immune system and cancer, where the immune system is trying to find and kill the cancer whereas the cancer's job is to evade that killing," says Moffat.</p>Mapping the mechanisms
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDQzNjQ3Ni9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyMjQ1OTM0MX0.HNtivrlU9VBYxcG9JaWKvPJ5RrBsgqd8Fw6ohfSpfh0/img.jpg?width=980" id="0faa6" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="7687cdc5abe93503764c1c0401b65fd4" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />Illustration: genes (red, green, and blue spots within the nuclei of HeLa cells) artificially superimposed on images of multi-well plates.
Credit: National Cancer Institute/Unsplash
<p>Moffat and his colleagues decided to investigate and identify genes within cancer cells that help them defeat treatment. Co-lead author Keith Lawson of Moffat's lab explains that "it's important to not just find genes that can regulate immune evasion in one model of cancer, but what you really want are to find those genes that you can manipulate in cancer cells across many models because those are going to make the best therapeutic targets."</p><p>To accomplish this, the researchers, working with scientists at <a href="https://www.agios.com" target="_blank">Agios Pharmaceuticals</a> in Cambridge, Massachusetts, first exposed cells from breast, colon, kidney and skin cancer tumors to T cells in lab dishes. This established a baseline of their responses to treatment. Next, using CRISPR, the scientists went through the cells, exhaustively turning off one gene at a time to determine its role in immunotherapy resistance by comparing the cells' response to the T cells compared to their original baseline response.</p><p>The team identified 182 "core cancer intrinsic immune evasion genes" that affected the cells' response to T cells. The fact that some of the identified genes were already known to be involved in resistance provided the researchers with some confidence that they were on the right track.</p><p>Still, many of the genes they ID'ed had not been previously implicated. "That was really exciting to see because it means that our dataset was very rich in new biological information," says Lawson.</p>It's complicated
<p>Unfortunately, Moffat's research also makes clear that defeating cancer-cell resistance is not as simple as removing certain genes. It's true that when the team switched off some of the genes they'd identified, the cancer cells became more vulnerable to T cells, but on the other hand, removal of some other genes made the cancer cells more resistant.</p><p>There also appear to be relationships between multiple genes that complicate matters. </p><p>The team explored the manipulation of the genes that allow cancer cells to engage in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autophagy" target="_blank">autophagy</a>, the process by which cells clear out no-longer useful materials to facilitate speedy recovery from damage. Surprisingly, when the researchers deleted certain genes responsible for cancer cells' autophagy, they found the cells' resistance to T cells increased. Apparently, removing one autophagy gene strengthened another mutated autophagy gene.</p><p>"We found this complete inversion of gene dependency," said Moffat. "We did not anticipate this at all. What it shows us is that genetic context — what mutations are present — very much dictates whether the introduction of the second mutation will cause no effect, resistance or sensitivity to therapy."</p><p>There remains a long road ahead when it comes to unraveling cancer cells' resistance to immunotherapy. However, this new study presents a new map that can help scientists navigate what comes next.</p>
Keep reading
Show less
How gene editing a person’s brain cells could be used to curb the opioid epidemic
Is CRISPR the solution?
08 August, 2020
John Moore/Getty Images
Even as the COVID-19 pandemic cripples the economy and kills hundreds of people each day, there is another epidemic that continues to kill tens of thousands of people each year through opioid drug overdose.
<p>Opioid analgesic drugs, like morphine and oxycodone, are the classic double-edged swords. They are the very best drugs to stop severe pain but also the class of drugs most likely to kill the person taking them.
In a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/jnr.24636">recent journal article</a>, I outlined how a combination of state-of-the-art molecular techniques, such as CRISPR gene editing and brain microinjection methods, could be used to blunt one edge of the sword and make opioid drugs safer.</p><p>I am a pharmacologist interested in the way opioid drugs such as morphine and fentanyl can blunt pain. I became fascinated in biology at the time when endorphins – natural opioids made by our bodies – were discovered. I have been intrigued by the way opioid drugs work and their targets in the brain, the opioid receptors, for the last 30 years. In my paper, I propose a way to prevent opioid overdoses by modifying an opioid user's brain cells using advanced technology.</p>
<h2>Opioid receptors stop breathing</h2><p>Opioids kill by stopping a person from breathing (respiratory depression). They do so by acting on a specific set of respiratory nerves, or neurons, found in the lower part of the brain that contain opioid receptors. Opioid receptors are proteins that bind morphine, heroin and other opioid drugs. The binding of an opioid to its receptor triggers a reaction in neurons that reduces their activity. Opioid receptors on pain neurons mediate the pain-killing, or analgesic, effects of opioids. When opioids bind to opioid receptors on respiratory neurons, they slow breathing or, in the case of an opioid overdose, stop it entirely.</p><p>Respiratory neurons are located in the brainstem, the tail-end part of the brain that continues into the spine as the spinal cord. Animal studies show that opioid receptors on respiratory neurons are responsible for <a href="https://doi.org/10.1113/JP270822" target="_blank">opioid-induced respiratory depression</a> – the cause of opioid overdose. Genetically altered mice born without opioid receptors <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/s0169-328x(97)00353-7" target="_blank">do not die from large doses of morphine</a> unlike mice with these receptors present.</p><p>Unlike laboratory mice, humans cannot be altered when embryos to remove all opioid receptors from the brain and elsewhere. Nor would it be a good idea. Humans need opioid receptors to serve as the targets for our natural opioid substances, the endorphins, which are released into the brain during times of high stress and pain.</p><p>Also, a total opioid receptor knockout in humans would leave that person unresponsive to the beneficial pain-killing effects of opioids. In my journal article, I argue that what is needed is a selective receptor removal of the opioid receptors on respiratory neurons. Having reviewed the available technology, I believe this can be done by combining CRISPR gene editing and a new neurosurgical microinjection technique.</p>
<h2>CRISPR to the rescue: Destroying opioid receptors</h2><p>CRISPR, which is an acronym for clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats, is a gene editing method that was <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1225829" target="_blank">discovered in the genome of bacteria</a>. Bacteria get infected by viruses too and CRISPR is a strategy that bacteria evolved to cut-up the viral genes and kill invading pathogens.</p><p>The CRISPR method allows researchers to target specific genes expressed in cell lines, tissues, or whole organisms, to be cut-up and removed – knocked out – or otherwise altered. There is a commercially available <a href="https://www.freethink.com/shows/biohackers/crispr-kit" target="_blank">CRISPR kit</a> which knocks out human opioid receptors produced in cells that are grown in cell cultures in the lab. While this CRISPR kit is formulated for in vitro use, similar conditional opioid receptor knock-out techniques <a href="https://doi.org/10.1113/JP278612" target="_blank">have been demonstrated in live mice</a>.</p><p>To knockout opioid receptors in human respiratory neurons, a sterile solution containing CRISPR gene-editing molecules would be prepared in the laboratory. Besides the gene-editing components, the solution contains chemical reagents that allow the gene-editing machinery to enter the respiratory neurons and make their way into the nucleus and into the neuron's genome.</p><p>How does one get the CRISPR opioid receptor knockout solution into a person's respiratory neurons?</p><p>Enter the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2019.04.081" target="_blank">intracranial microinjection instrument</a> (IMI) developed by <a href="https://www.mcleanhospital.org/profile/miles-cunningham" target="_blank">Miles Cunningham</a> and his colleagues at Harvard. The IMI allows for computer-controlled delivery of small volumes of solution at specific places in the brain by using an extremely thin tube – about twice the diameter of a human hair – that can enter the brain at the base of the skull and thread through brain tissue without damage.</p><p>The computer can direct the robotic placement of the tube as it is fed images of the brain taken before the procedure using MRI. But even better, the IMI also has a recording wire embedded in the tube that allows measurement of neuronal activity to identify the right group of nerve cells.</p><p>Because the brain itself feels no pain, the procedure could be done in a conscious patient using only local anesthetics to numb the skin. Respiratory neurons drive the breathing muscles by firing action potentials which are measured by the recording wire in the tube. When the activity of the respiratory neurons matches the breathing movements by the patients, the proper location of the tube is confirmed and the CRISPR solution injected.</p>
<h2>The call for drastic action</h2><p>Opioid receptors on neurons in the brain have a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/bph.13901" target="_blank">half-life of about 45 minutes</a>. Over a period of several hours, the opioid receptors on respiratory neurons would degrade and the CRISPR gene-editing machinery embedded in the genome would prevent new opioid receptors from appearing. If this works, the patient would be protected from opioid overdose within 24 hours. Because the respiratory neurons do not replenish, the CRISPR opioid receptor knockout should last for life.</p><p>With no opioid receptors on respiratory neurons, the opioid user cannot die from opioid overdose. After proper backing from National Institute on Drug Abuse and leading research and health care institutions, I believe CRISPR treatment could enter clinical trials in between five to 10 years. The total cost of opioid-involved <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/images/The%20Underestimated%20Cost%20of%20the%20Opioid%20Crisis.pdf" target="_blank">overdose deaths is about US$430 billion per year</a>. CRISPR treatment of only 10% of high-risk opioid users in one year would save thousands of lives and $43 billion.</p><p>Intracranial microinjection of CRISPR solutions might seem drastic. But drastic actions that are needed to save human lives from opioid overdoses. A large segment of the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.10046" target="_blank">opioid overdose victims are chronic pain patients</a>. It may be possible that chronic pain patients in a terminal phase of their lives and in hospice care would volunteer in phase I clinical trials for the CRISPR opioid receptor knockout treatment I propose here.</p><p>Making the opioid user impervious to death by opioids is a permanent solution to a horrendous problem that has resisted efforts by prevention, treatment and pharmacological means. Steady and well-funded work to prove the CRISPR method, first with preclinical animal models then in clinical trials, is a moonshot for the present generation of biomedical scientists.</p><p><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/craig-w-stevens-1138523" target="_blank">Craig W. Stevens</a>, Professor of Pharmacology, <em><a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/oklahoma-state-university-2062" target="_blank">Oklahoma State University</a></em></p><p>This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com/" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-gene-editing-a-persons-brain-cells-could-be-used-to-curb-the-opioid-epidemic-143165" target="_blank">original article</a>.</p>
Keep reading
Show less
4 key questions to challenge your views on genetic engineering
New research shows how Americans feel about genetic engineering, human enhancement and automation.
23 February, 2020
Adobe stock.
- A review of Pew Research studies reveals the views of Americans on the role of science in society.
- 4 key questions were asked to gauge feelings on genetic engineering, automation and human enhancement.
- Americans are split in how they view technology and many worry about its growing role.
<p><br></p></div>
<p>The Pew Research Center published a fascinating roundup of studies that revealed the opinions of the U.S. public on a number of key science-related issues. The researchers wanted to find out what people thought overall about the role of science and scientists in society, but also to see more specifically how far modern humans are willing to go with genetic engineering and automation. </p><p>The <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/02/12/key-findings-about-americans-confidence-in-science-and-their-views-on-scientists-role-in-society/" target="_blank">responses show</a> that people are generally not as worried as you'd think about messing with human genetics but when it comes to implanting technology to enhance bodies, doubts proliferate. A strong uneasiness also pervades responses dealing with robots in workplaces. </p><p>Before you know the details of what others thought, however, you have a chance to take the quiz yourself to test your own points of view on these matters.</p>
<p>These first two questions relate to your stance on <strong>genetic engineering. </strong>With the advent of CRISPR gene editing techniques, it now seems possible to edit out mutations and create babies without disease. Wouldn't you want to do it? Or do you see the potential for horrendous accidents, genetic deformities, creation of second-class citizens and forever changing what it means to be human?</p><p><em>1. Changing a baby's genetic characteristics to reduce the risk of a serious illness that could occur over their lifetime is:</em></p><p>- An appropriate use of medical technology </p><p>- Taking medical technology too far</p>
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="49dbf04bfbffc1e18231f69fc529de15"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6tw_JVz_IEc?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
<p>Another key question concerns growing human organs in other animals. Obviously, we have used animals for testing to develop new treatments already amid changing public attitudes about the cruelty involved, so how ethical is it to use animals simply as incubators of spare body parts?</p><p><em>2. Genetic engineering of animals to grow organs / tissues for humans needing a transplant is:</em></p><p>- An appropriate use of medical technology </p><p>- Taking medical technology too far</p>
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="776f6763c8d018c894df1ccf474eef4c"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Yh6rTKNwBJY?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
<p>This next question pertains to <strong>human enhancement. </strong>How comfortable would you be outfitting yourself with digital chips or other prosthetics and modifications? Famously, Elon Musk is spearheading the development of Neuralink technology that would allow human brains to control machines. In a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-vbh3t7WVI&feature=youtu.be" target="_blank">2019 presentation</a>, he described the possibility that such devices would be made to work by first making holes in people's skulls with lasers, followed by feeding flexible electrode threads into the brain. He previously <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smK9dgdTl40&feature=youtu.be" target="_blank">promised</a> that such devices would not only give people additional abilities but can also cure brain illnesses like schizophrenia. Recently, <a href="https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1224195776131272704" target="_blank">he tweeted</a> an "awesome" update to the tech is coming, sharing also that it might be implanted in humans as early as this year.</p><p>Would you put one of these things on? See how you would answer this:</p><p><em>3. I am ____________________ about the possibility of a brain chip implant for a much improved ability to concentrate and process information.</em></p><p>- Very/somewhat worried</p><p>- Not too / not at all worried</p>
Watch Elon Musk’s presentation on Neuralink here:
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="a646a0b439db89b498836659049faf35"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/lA77zsJ31nA?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span><p><span style="background-color: initial;">And now for your thoughts on <strong>automation</strong>. Numerous studies have found that not only is automation coming faster than you think, it's bound to replace <a href="https://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/heres-when-machines-will-take-your-job-predict-ai-gurus" target="_self">the vast majority</a> of human occupations in the next 10-30 years. And it sounds like there's still time left, a <a href="https://go.forrester.com/blogs/predictions-2020-automation/" target="_blank">2020 study</a> by the research company Forrester shows that job loss due to automation is already very much here. They predict that more than <strong>1 million</strong> "</span><span style="background-color: initial;">knowledge-work jobs" will be taken over in 2020 by software robotics, virtual agents, chatbots and decisions based on machine-learning. On the other hand, the firm estimates</span> that <strong>331,500 </strong>net jobs will be added this year to the American workforce alone that are <strong>"human-touch jobs"</strong> utilizing such human qualities as intuition, empathy, and both physical and mental agility. So there's hope humans can adapt and find new things to do once technology takes over.</p><p>Here's your chance to answer for yourself: </p><p><em>4. The automation of jobs through new technology in the workplace has ___________ American workers.</em></p><p>- Mostly helped </p><p>- Mostly hurt</p><p>- Neither helped nor hurt.</p><p>If you're interested what the participants in the Pew Research polls thought, here is the breakdown:</p>
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjc4NDg4My9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY2NjgwNjQxN30.vIChbmZRAm9ILsI5m6elRXiiST6YjzMbH4BYKqKHkgg/img.png?width=980" id="08e31" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="f38d572619db1c08a0742e39d3870600" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
<p>The Pew Research Center, which carried out the <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/02/12/key-findings-about-americans-confidence-in-science-and-their-views-on-scientists-role-in-society/" target="_blank">study</a>, pinpointed a specific theme in the findings, citing "the loss of human control, especially if such developments would be at odds with personal, religious and ethical values" as the key source of hesitancy when people think about future technologies. Proposals that give people more control over tech met with more positive response. </p>
Keep reading
Show less
Chinese scientist gets jail for rogue gene editing
A punishment is handed down for performing shocking research on human embryos.
31 December, 2019
Image source: vchal/arek_malang/Shutterstock/Big Think
- In November 2018, a Chinese scientist claimed he'd flouted ethics and the law to edit genes in human embryos.
- Other Chinese scientists call He Jiankui's research "crazy."
- Three gene-modified babies are now living in China, future uncertain.
<p>The scientific community has been proceeding with caution as it explores the potential of gene editing. The high risk of unintended consequences, both immediate and long-term, has prompted reticence regarding experimentation with humans. And then there's <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He_Jiankui" target="_blank">He Jiankui</a>, who <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/nov/26/worlds-first-gene-edited-babies-created-in-china-claims-scientist" target="_blank">announced in 2018</a> that he'd genetically modified two human embryos, twin sisters, "Lulu" and "Nana," born in October of that year. Last week, a Chinese court sentenced He to three years in jail and a fine of three million Chinese yuan, about $430,000, for engaging in "illegal medical practices." The court also confirmed rumors that He had modified the genome of a <a href="https://futurism.com/neoscope/china-confirms-birth-third-gene-edited-baby" target="_blank">third child</a>, likely born in June or July 2019.</p>
He's experiments
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjI2NTE1Ny9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyNjE0MDI2Mn0.pD6za00yORg0ZH6nk0RJLh3SBOzed7uc1oh9yZDe3tc/img.jpg?width=980" id="98186" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="5a306efb5afbd1a936315f28134a8417" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />He tells the world
Image source: Anthony Wallace/Getty
<p>When He first announced his research in November 2018 at the Second International Summit on Human Genome Editing in Hong Kong, the scientific community was stunned at this deliberate flaunting of scientific consensus and Chinese law. A <a href="https://www.yicai.com/news/100067069.html" target="_blank">statement</a> from 122 Chinese scientists referred to He's work as "crazy" and called it "a huge blow to the global reputation and development of Chinese science."</p><p>He, an associate professor at Southern University of Science and Technology in Shenzhen, China, claimed to have used CRISPR-cas9 in an attempt to provide embryos with immunity to HIV. The DNA in 16 embryos was altered, and 11 of these were used in six implant attempts that eventually led to the successful pregnancy of three infants. </p><p>After the announcement, Julian Savulescu of University of Oxford told <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/nov/26/worlds-first-gene-edited-babies-created-in-china-claims-scientist" target="_blank"><em>The Guardian</em></a>, "If true, this experiment is monstrous," adding that, "There are many effective ways to prevent HIV in healthy individuals: for example, protected sex. And there are effective treatments if one does contract it. This experiment exposes healthy normal children to risks of gene editing for no real necessary benefit." While there <em>are</em> <a href="https://www.avert.org/professionals/hiv-around-world/asia-pacific/china" target="_blank">HIV infections in China</a>, there was no indication that the embryos had been infected.</p><p>In his announcement, He claimed to have inserted a mutated form of the CCR5 gene into the embryos' genome, a particular mutation that makes a small number of people immune to HIV. <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/nov/26/worlds-first-gene-edited-babies-created-in-china-claims-scientist" target="_blank">According to</a> Kiran Musunuru of University of Pennsylvania, though, the mutation has a nasty downside: People who have it are at higher risk of contracting other, non-HIV viruses, and of dying of the flu. So, while potentially shielding his subjects from HIV, He was, in essence, consigning them to a lifetime of enhanced vulnerability to all sorts of more common infections.</p><p>It's likely, however, that He never actually produced or inserted the CCR5 mutation in any event. Excerpts of He's documentation published in <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/s/614764/chinas-crispr-babies-read-exclusive-excerpts-he-jiankui-paper/" target="_blank"><em>MIT Technology Review</em></a> suggest that what He created were some new kinds of CCR5 mutations, as well as unintended gene mutations elsewhere in the genome, and the effect of all of these edits are anyone's guess. After reviewing the excerpts, University of California, Berkeley's Fyodor Urnov <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/nov/26/worlds-first-gene-edited-babies-created-in-china-claims-scientist" target="_blank">concluded</a> He's claim was "a deliberate falsehood."</p>What the court said
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjI2NTU5NS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0MzkyOTExM30.W-iOUnHs0lXu59_5Wqq6ACnLouuscxg4dr-ySfS1pjg/img.jpg?width=980" id="03f5e" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="0ce199d4f8ebb8abea1a6b9b2341146e" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />He Jiankui and his genetic research team
Image source: VCG/Getty
<p>Two of He's colleagues involved in the research were also convicted by the Shenzhen court. According to Chinese news outlet <em>Xinhua</em>, the court found:</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;"><em>"The three accused did not have the proper certification to practice medicine, and in seeking fame and wealth, deliberately violated national regulations in scientific research and medical treatment. They've crossed the bottom line of ethics in scientific research and medical ethics."</em></p><p>The court also ruled that He had forged documents from an ethics review panel.</p><p>The other two researchers found guilty were Zhang Renli, who was sentenced to two years in prison and fined one million yuan (about $143,000), and Qin Jinzhou, whose 18-month sentence came with a two-year reprieve, and a 500,000 yuan ($71,000) fine.</p>
Keep reading
Show less
New CRISPR tools can cut, splice whole chromosomes
Experts are saying it's a "huge step forward for synthetic biology."
30 August, 2019
Pixabay
- Until recently, the gene-editing tool CRISPR has only been able to make changes within single genes.
- The new tools allow scientists to cut and splice larger chunks of genetic material.
- The findings will likely have major implications for a variety of research fields, and also allow researchers to create synthetic species that can produce molecules not made by natural organisms.
<p><br></p></div>
<p>Since 2012, the gene-editing tool CRISPR/Cas9 has enabled scientists to target and modify DNA with remarkable precision. But one constraint of this technique has been that it's only able to make changes within single genes. Now, scientists have developed new tools that allow them to cut and splice large chunks of chromosomes, and to assemble new synthetic genomes from distinct strains.</p><p>The findings, published in a paper on <a href="https://science.sciencemag.org/content/365/6456/922" target="_blank">August 30</a> in <em>Science</em>, likely have major implications for fields such as synthetic biology, computational biology, and biological computing, and could lead to better treatments for a wide array of diseases. </p><p>"This new paper is incredibly exciting and a huge step forward for synthetic biology," Anne Meyer, a synthetic biologist at the University of Rochester in New York who was not involved in the paper, told <em>Science</em>.</p><p>Unlike previous gene-editing tools, the new tools are able to make many precise cuts to long strands of DNA without leaving any scarring.</p><p>The researchers, as Robert F. Service wrote for <a href="https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/08/forget-single-genes-crispr-now-cuts-and-splices-whole-chromosomes?utm_campaign=ScienceNow&utm_source=JHubbard&utm_medium=Facebook" target="_blank"><em>Science</em></a>, also altered "another well-known tool, an enzyme called lambda red recombinase, so it could glue the ends of the original chromosome—minus the removed portion—back together, as well as fuse the ends of the removed portion. Both circular strands of DNA are protected from endonucleases. The technique can create different circular chromosome pairs in other cells, and researchers can then swap chromosomes at will, eventually inserting whatever chunk they choose into the original genome."</p><p>"Now, I can make a series of changes in one segment and then another and combine them together. That's a big deal," Chang Liu, a synthetic biologist at the University of California, Irvine, told <em>Science</em>.</p>
Why CRISPR Gene Editing Gives Its Creator Nightmares
<div class="rm-shortcode" data-media_id="u3sqCd8p" data-player_id="FvQKszTI" data-rm-shortcode-id="70a49da39ebef0046722a15fbd2f9cca"> <div id="botr_u3sqCd8p_FvQKszTI_div" class="jwplayer-media" data-jwplayer-video-src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/u3sqCd8p-FvQKszTI.js"> <img src="https://cdn.jwplayer.com/thumbs/u3sqCd8p-1920.jpg" class="jwplayer-media-preview" /> </div> <script src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/u3sqCd8p-FvQKszTI.js"></script> </div> <p>The new tools will likely open the doors for scientists to explore many novel areas: create synthetic species that can produce molecules not made by natural organisms, write information into DNA for use as a storage device, and drive down the costs of medical research by making it easier to edit bacterial genomes on a larger scale.</p><p>However, using CRISPR to edit large sections of the human genome is unlikely to occur anytime soon, given the regulatory hurdles and <a href="https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/first-genetically-edited-babies" target="_self">ethical complications</a>. After all, scientists aren't fully <a href="https://bigthink.com/design-for-good/new-study-finds-that-crispr-may-cause-hundreds-of-unintended-mutations-into-the-genome" target="_self">aware of the consequences</a> of making small edits to DNA, much less larger cuts.</p><p>"We don't always fully understand the changes we're making," Alan Regenberg, a bioethicist at Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics, told <em><a href="The new tools will likely open the doors for scientists to explore many novel areas: create synthetic species that can produce molecules not made by natural organisms, write information into DNA for use as a storage device, and drive down the costs of medical research by making it easier to edit bacterial genomes on a larger scale. However, using CRISPR to edit large sections of the human genome is unlikely to occur anytime soon, given the regulatory hurdles and ethical complications. After all, scientists aren't fully aware of the consequences of making small edits to DNA, much less larger cuts. "We don't always fully understand the changes we're making," Alan Regenberg, a bioethicist at Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics, told Science News. "Even if we do make the changes we want to make, there's still question about whether it will do what we want and not do things we don't want."" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Science News</a></em>. "Even if we do make the changes we want to make, there's still question about whether it will do what we want and not do things we don't want."</p>
Keep reading
Show less
Popular
