SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Here we demonstrate safe intravenous and intra-amniotic administration of polymeric nanoparticles to fetal mouse tissues at selected gestational ages with no effect on survival or postnatal growth. In utero introduction of nanoparticles containing peptide nucleic acids (PNAs) and donor DNAs corrects a disease-causing mutation in the β-globin gene in a mouse model of human β-thalassemia, yielding sustained postnatal elevation of blood hemoglobin levels into the normal range, reduced reticulocyte counts, reversal of splenomegaly, and improved survival, with no detected off-target mutations in partially homologous loci.
[...] Unlike gene editing technologies that rely on the activity of exogenously delivered nucleases18,19—such as zinc finger nucleases, TAL effector nucleases, and CRISPR/Cas9—PNA/DNA NPs can be readily administered in vivo and have been shown to have extremely low to undetectable off-target effects in the genome because the PNA editing molecules lack inherent nuclease activity5,6,7.
[...] Unlike other gene editing technologies that rely on activity of exogenous nucleases (CRISPR/Cas, TAL effector nucleases and zinc finger nucleases) that can create extraneous double-stranded breaks, PNA-mediated gene editing makes use of endogenous, high fidelity repair pathways, which reduces the risk of error-prone end-joining causing additional mutations. With continuing concern regarding off-target effects of CRISPR/Cas951 and the finding that Cas9 proteins can illicit an adaptive immune response52, the safety profile of PNA/DNA editing may be particularly attractive, as avoiding off-target mutations is of exceptional importance during fetal development.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04894-2
(Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Tuesday June 26 2018, @09:02PM (5 children)
Are sports superstars having more kids? Are the obese majority not having kids?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 26 2018, @10:55PM (1 child)
It was a lame and easy example.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday June 26 2018, @11:27PM
Well, where's the real example?
One real example is that genetic disorders that lead to almost certain miscarriage are being selected against. As well as massive physical deformities that can lead to people being born without sex organs or dying early (e.g. conjoined twins). Although those may be caused by random epigenetic/cell division problems rather than passed onto offspring.
We're not aggressively selecting for physical prowess or even intelligence. Ugly people can reproduce, although possibly at lower rates than attractive people. Dumb people can reproduce despite the Darwin Awards. You don't have to be smart (capable of building traps and weapons) or athletic in developed countries, because you can go to the supermarket instead of hunting woolly mammoths. Wheelchair-bound people don't need to fear being eaten by lions and can reproduce. People with previously fatal or risky genetic conditions can live much longer lives. Some conditions that were fatal within the initial years of life have been overcome, which could mean those conditions will be showing up more often.
Fertility treatments have enabled people who would have been unlikely to reproduce naturally to have children. A little further down this road lies developments like artificial wombs and genetically engineered humans. At the point when the majority of babies born are genetically engineered, then we can declare natural selection effectively dead. If modern civilization ended, the remaining humans might have to revert to the old ways, but barring that, it's looking like an unnatural, artificial, synthetic, and even computer-generated (RNG and computer code randomly picks genes for your kid) future for the species.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday June 26 2018, @11:25PM (2 children)
An evolutionary advantage needs only a very slight edge to spread. I believe that 0.1% more offspring on the average is considered a huge advantage.
(I'm no specialist. If you want more explicit details on this in a non-technical form, read Dawkins and Gould. I think I got that estimate from an article on the simulated evolution of the eye.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday June 26 2018, @11:29PM (1 child)
We also have to question whether the advantage leads to more reproductive activity.
Taller, smarter, and more attractive humans are likely to be richer in today's world. But being richer usually means having less offspring.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday June 27 2018, @12:36AM
Maybe. That's certainly the myth, but figures often seem to deny that. OTOH, the generation times tend to be shorter, so maybe.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.