Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Tuesday January 09 2018, @06:46PM   Printer-friendly
from the patient-cured-to-death dept.

At first glance, CRISPR gene editing looks like the solution to all the world's ills: it could treat or even cure diseases, improve birth rates and otherwise fix genetic conditions that previously seemed permanent. You might want to keep your expectations low, though. Scientists have published preliminary findings indicating that two variants of CRISPR Cas9 (the most common gene editing technique) might not work for most humans. In a study, between 65 percent and 79 percent of subjects had antibodies that would fight Cas9 proteins.

The potential reaction isn't shocking. Both Cas9 variants are based on common bacteria, S. aureus and S. pyrogenes, that tend to infect humans. However, that could also produce reactions that would be... unpleasant. At the least, they could "hinder the safe and effective use" of CRISPR to treat disease. And in the worst cases, they could result in "significant toxicity" for patients.

It's important to stress that the research hasn't been peer-reviewed yet. Geneticists might not need to go back to the drawing board just yet.

Source: https://www.engadget.com/2018/01/07/crispr-gene-editing-methods-might-not-work-for-most-humans/


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 09 2018, @09:05PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 09 2018, @09:05PM (#620212)

    creepy first line quote: "improve birth rates" - really? Improve birth rates of who? Is improving increasing, decreasing total? Total viable? Total viable to 2y, which in Ye Olde Times was a majority of the infant mortality zone, and still is where infant mortality is high? Total "high quality" birth rates by someone's (whose?) standard?

    CREEPY!

  • (Score: 2) by Kilo110 on Wednesday January 10 2018, @04:26AM

    by Kilo110 (2853) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 10 2018, @04:26AM (#620339)

    We've too many people as it is. How about decreasing the birth rate?

    Market it as a homeopathic weight loss drug and the world would be better off.