Five big mysteries about CRISPR’s origins
nature.com
nature.com
I'm especially curious how machine learning will play into all of this (the broader genomics community). So much more interesting than the "cyber" stuff I work on now :)
(Glad you're doing well by the way)
"All biowarfare laboratories - and indeed, many ordinary biotech labs – thus represent an ongoing existential threat to humanity whose safety, like that of nuclear materials, cannot ever be guaranteed.
"This was highlighted in early 2016 when James Clapper, U.S. director of national intelligence, issued a warning that even gene editing (such as by the technology known as CRISPR) should be added to the list of weapons of mass destruction, adding that it 'increases the risk of the creation of potentially harmful biological agents or products'. (Regalado 2016). Other scientists warned that genetically modified lifeforms could be used to target specific groups of humans carrying certain genes, or if released in agricultural ‘designer crops’ might result in uncontrollable plagues. They cautioned that gene editing technology is far cheaper and easier to access than nuclear or chemical weapons."
- Surviving the 21st Century, Julian Cribb, Chapter 8 "The Urbanite (Homo urbanus)"
The common flu is a lot more dangerous than CRISPR/cas9.
The CRISPR/cas9 system has potential for existential threat in the same way that AI does (not anytime soon.) This is what happens when you develop a new set of tools.
"And Ye Shall Know the Truth and the Truth Shall Make You Free" is inscribed in the lobby of the CIA, but informally they say "the truth will just make you nervous". :(
The potential dangers from gene editing shouldn't be put in the same light as artificial intelligence or nuclear technologies. Instead it deserves recognition for the nature of its actual danger, that being it's ease of use as mentioned, potential uses (of which I don't believe the tip of the iceberg has been reached), and as far as a risk of existential threat is concerned, it's communicability.
Gene-editing will not be a nuclear arms race nor will it be a speculative threat as AI currently stands. Gene-editing can be put into action by anyone, just as an AI of some sort might be, but has very real consequences, just as nuclear technology does.
Incredible... The scale and probabilities involved in these processes are mind blowing.
In general I liked this article because it posed a few open ended research questions and explained why they were relevant. As someone who barely knows the difference between a bacteria and a virus I felt it was pretty understandable.
That would mean 4 in each gram of soil, if Wikipedia is correct. Bacteria scale is so disproportional to what we deal in daily basis that I'm pretty sure we know almost 0.01% of all existing species, families or any other kind of grouping them you like.
Much of what know comes from a short list of organisms (that can grown in lab conditions). There is a 'model organism' [1] for the simplest organism (that can grown in lab) for each step up the ladder of biological complexity (towards humans).
- bacteria : E coli
- eukaryote : yeast
- multi-cellular : nematode
- plant : arabidopsis
- nervous system : fruit fly
- spinal cord : zebrafish
- mammal : mouse
- primate : monkey
There are definitely others (sorry for leaving out your favorite model...), but in general, we know a lot about these model organisms. And that covers a wide gamut, but still we know very little specifics about everything in between.
Further, because we've been so focused on (funding) human health, we know a lot about how humans work. But what we've missed is all the ancillary tech that could be used to support human health, or human society/technology/industry at large. CRISPR proteins (and its similar tech) which will end up revolutionizing our biological tehcnology come from non-human-like, and otherwise unfundable hobby research. PCR/GFP all came from looking at weird things and saying, "that's cool, how does that work?" not "I want to cure cancer". It's hard to get funding to study how various bacteria battle each other in the soil when you cannot know how it might affect human health...
With regards to your final note: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-down_and_bottom-up_design
Suppose we identified the gene for Huntington's disease and wanted to design a therapy to snip it out and put a benign replacement in its place. Given the human body contains trillions of cells, each carrying the complete set of genes, which cells would be targeted by the therapy? If the CRISPR therapy targeted only cells in a certain organ or region, does this mean the person would have different sets of genes in different parts of their body? What does this mean for any children born post-treatment? Do they inherit the new genes or are they stuck with the old crappy version?
Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeat is the acronym for CRISPR. It is an RNA gene-guided editing platform, which is helping to break a double-stranded DNA at a specific location within the genome by making use of a Protein Coat (Cas9) and a synthetic RNA guide.
In the simple life forms like bacteria and another organism, a simple sequence of CRISPR acts as a crucial component of the Immune System for protecting the organisms health. Viruses are the small infectious agents that invade the bacteria in the cells and attack the bacteria. If viral infection threatens this invaded bacteria, then the CRISPR immune system can attack and destroy the genome of the invading virus. The genome of the virus contains the genetic material for its replication. By destroying the genome, the CRISPR immune system protects the bacteria from viral infections.
Source:http://www.whitedust.net/what-is-crispr-and-how-can-it-edit-...
you can learn more about it and watch the video about CRISPR/Cas9's mechanism and function.
Depends on the disease being treated. Obviously it would be extremely infeasible to edit all cells of all types in an adult human with existing technology.
>If the CRISPR therapy targeted only cells in a certain organ or region, does this mean the person would have different sets of genes in different parts of their body?
Yes that's correct and would be the case in any proposed adult humam crispr treatment.
>What does this mean for any children born post-treatment? Do they inherit the new genes or are they stuck with the old crappy version?
Only if the therapy edited the germline cells (sperm and egg), which would probably be unintentional.
Sounds like, when under mortal threat, grab some DNA. Even if it mostly causes cellular suicide by grabbing its own DNA, if just one bacterium acquires immunity, the group as a whole benefits.
Of course, group selection doesn't seem to work... but maybe the very high probability of death means this low probability last-ditch attempt is worth it for the individual - which then passes on the CRISPA machinery and the specific immunity to its "progeny"... which then have a nicely cleared out environment all to themselves... like eucalyptus after a bushfire.
Desparate times call for desparate measures; and high risk/high reward.