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/
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday January 09 2018, @06:49PM (2 children)
This should also hinder lab-escapes from running rampant in the human population....
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 09 2018, @07:35PM (1 child)
You use immunosuppressing drugs while administering treatment, which should only have a few hours/days to operate, then wean them back off when your treatment is finished.
Given that many of the diseases which CAS9 treatments would be intended to treat involve immunocompromised individuals (whether causing an underactive or overactive immune system) the dangers of chemical suppression are likely outweighed by the therapy the treatment would offer.
Doesn't solve issues for doing treatments on healthy individuals without having to compromise them, but they should be in the minority for genetic treatments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 10 2018, @02:02AM
genetic treatments, if thorough, can be a "one pass" so yeah it's fine to lower defenses, do the gene swap/toggle/whatever, then re-enable defenses. As long as every cell type except primordial germ cells, because that's not the treatment subject, but their potential progeny
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 09 2018, @08:02PM
If you are desperate enough to be editing your DNA, it's a small addition to temporarily drug the immune system out of existence.
(Score: 3, Touché) by maxwell demon on Tuesday January 09 2018, @08:09PM (1 child)
On the positive side, this means that code injection attacks might not work on humans. ;-)
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by EvilSS on Tuesday January 09 2018, @08:58PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 09 2018, @09:05PM (1 child)
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
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.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by mobydisk on Tuesday January 09 2018, @11:20PM
Is CRISPR intended to be used on an adult human being, or on a child or embryo who has a known defect. The latter doesn't have a fully developed immune system yet.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 10 2018, @01:59AM
That testable evo-Psych will still be possible, so all of you wanting to edit twins for your pet sadistic theories are still in play