Slashdot Mirror


Successful Correction of Genetic Problems In Mice Before Birth Raises Hopes of Similar Treatments For Humans (theguardian.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Gene editing to correct faulty DNA in human embryos has taken a step closer to becoming a reality, with scientists showing it is possible to correct genetic problems in mice before they are born. Researchers used a form of the gene-editing tool Crispr-Cas9 to introduce a mutation into a gene that would otherwise cause lethal liver failure in mice. While the approach has previously been shown to work in mice after birth, the latest study showed it was also possible to make the all-important tweak before they were born. Writing in the journal Nature Medicine, a team of researchers in the US report how they conducted a series of experiments to explore the use of gene editing in mouse fetuses using a modified form of Crispr that can alter single "base pairs" -- the molecules that couple up to form the rungs of the DNA double helix -- but only cuts one strand of DNA when making a change.

After showing it was possible to make a change at a particular spot in the DNA of liver cells in mouse fetuses, the team focused on a condition known as hereditary tyrosinemia type 1. This is a genetic disease that prevents the body from breaking down an amino acid called tyrosine as it should, and can cause death if left untreated. The team took mice with a genetic mutation that produced a similar condition to hereditary tyrosinemia type 1 and bred them, with the mothers kept on a drug called nitisione. The team then injected 26 of the fetuses with a virus carrying the genetic instructions for making the gene-editing tool, and 27 of them with the same virus but without information for the tool. After birth the baby mice no longer received the drug, and the team watched what happened. "In the non-treated mice, they all died by 21 days of life," said Dr William Peranteau, a pediatric and fetal surgeon at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia who co-led the study. "However, those that had been treated were able to survive until the end of the study at three months, and looked very similar to another group that had not been injected with anything and were kept on the drug. No gene editing was seen in the mothers who had given birth to the mice.

26 comments

  1. important ... before they were born? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the latest study showed it was also possible to make the all-important tweak before they were born.

    I hope this isn't a dumb question, but why is it so important to be able to fix the gene before the mice are born?

    1. Re:important ... before they were born? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the problem is uncorrected after the incept date, the mice become rats aboard a sinking ship... which subsequently sinks. Still, they burn so very brightly.

    2. Re:important ... before they were born? by RhettLivingston · · Score: 2

      I can think of many reasons. The article stated that they were interested in diseases that may be fatal before or shortly after birth. So waiting longer would certainly be a bit of a problem.

      But many genetic flaws cause the body to grow abnormally. Fixing the genetic flaw won't repair what has already grown incorrectly.

      One genetic flaw that I'm familiar with is Myotonic Muscular Dystrophy. It is an interesting one that has a nearly unique cause that should make it a candidate for being among the first to be corrected. It is caused by the presence of a base pair sequence that is sort of against the rules of properly formed DNA, a CTG sequence. During replication, this sequence can get repeated so that CTG becomes CTGCTG, then CTGCTGCTGCTG, etc. Note that since lengthening of the repeated sequence occurs in replication, this is a genetic issue that gets worse over the generations. Lower numbers of repeats aren't a big problem until later life, but in extreme cases the repeats can get into the thousands and cause problems to manifest before birth. In one case I know, the baby was born at 32 weeks due to congenital-onset Myotonic Muscular Dystrophy.

      As I understand it, all that would be necessary to fix Myotonic Muscular Dystrophy is to recognize and remove all occurrences of CTGCTG. Nothing has to be inserted in its place. Just chop it out and join the ends of the gap back together.

      But, it causes both development issues in many types of body tissues including brain, so you'd want to do it as early in the fetal stages as you can. Otherwise, irreparable harm will be present throughout life despite having fixed the genetic cause.

    3. Re:important ... before they were born? by quenda · · Score: 2

      But wouldn't it be so much easier and safer to *screen* embryos for known genetic defects, rather than patch them with CRISPR?

      The real potential for this technique is to introduce new gene alleles that are not present in the parents.
      Yes that is terrifying, but with proper regulation, imagine the potential!

      If applied broadly, it could raise the socioeconomic status for the children of the most disadvantaged groups, leading to a more equitable society.
      Alternatively, given to those who can pay lots of money, it will increase the divide.

    4. Re: important ... before they were born? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So rather than preserve and improve the lives of a potentially wonderful life , youâ(TM)d rather abort and focus on bioengineered super humans instead? Nothing wrong with both I guess but I like helping people who need it first before we give it over to the butt implant crowd.

    5. Re: important ... before they were born? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The important part you are missing is that we have more than enough people here already... these egotistical people that must have a child in their life should adopt and give an already here child a chance instead of bringing in another clone of themselves...

      How many people need to die of thirst or hunger while we sit there trying to get these experiments to work just so these assholes can stroke their ego!!!

      Just adopt a child that's here and needs help.. these assholes don't need to multiply..
      why are we diluting our gene pool with these offspring that are clearly defective in design... at some point people just need to realise they really should get out of the gene pool before they shit in it, and spoil it for everyone else that doesn't need fixing to be viable!!
      You're all selfish arseholse

    6. Re: important ... before they were born? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No asshole you are missing the point. I have a wonderful child whose life would be significantly improved if therapies like this were available for his condition. But I guess you think I should just kill him and adopt a kid to replace him? Go fuck yourself with the bioengineered superpenis you seem to crave.

    7. Re:important ... before they were born? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Screening certainly helps, but the problem is that by the time there is enough material to take a sample and screen it you are in a position where the only options are carry to term or have an abortion. Having a third option, correction, is highly desirable.

      This of course raises questions about what is considered a defect that needs to be cured. People have abortions for stuff like cleft palette.

      I don't think it will really help socioeconomically disadvantaged children though. It won't help the parents find time to read to their kid, it won't make their local school any better, won't buy them books and computers, won't get the lead out of the paint, and most parents probably wouldn't want the colour of their skin changed either.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re: important ... before they were born? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's abundantly clear that chinese like you don't belong in society. Utterly incapable of understanding why human life is valuable.

    9. Re:important ... before they were born? by avandesande · · Score: 1

      This doesn't help couples that already have genetic defects they will give to their children.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    10. Re: important ... before they were born? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is interesting that as our population has increased, death from thirst and hunger has been on a rapid decrease over the past few decades. At this point, it is a mere distribution problem. There are more than enough resources.

      As technology allows us to start thinking in further dimensions and head both underground and higher up, our impact on the surface area utilized of the planet should start reversing too. I can't find it at the moment, but I even read that the forest coverage has already started increasing again on a worldwide basis. Perhaps the rapid shift of population from rural areas to cities occurring in many countries is driving that.

      In the US, our usage of land would be plummeting now due to years of accumulated efficiency increases if not for the government saving the farmers with the biofuel subsidies. Hopefully the EV movement will override that bad policy in coming decades.

    11. Re: important ... before they were born? by quenda · · Score: 1

      Oh dear AC, no need to be so melodramatic.
      We are talking about pre-implantation screening of embryos, clumps of cells in a petri dish.
      This implies IVF, which has its risks, but easier and safer than in-utero gene editing, surely?

    12. Re:important ... before they were born? by quenda · · Score: 1

      Screening certainly helps, but the problem is that by the time there is enough material to take a sample and screen it you are in a position where the only options are carry to term or have an abortion.

      Not at all. See Preimplantation genetic diagnosis.

      It won't help the parents find time to read to their kid, it won't make their local school any better, won't buy them books and computers,

      Adoption studies show these things are unimportant compared to genetics. One study found that kids with books in the house did better, regardless of whether the parents had time to read them. i.e. a kid does better not because his parents read to him, but because he has the genes of the sort of people who read to their kids. If there are any real parenting effects, they will be reduced in the next generation. We are talking about a multi-generational program here.

  2. Progeny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please forgive my lack of understanding on this subject (and, really, my unwillingness to spend an inordinate amount of time finding an answer when some of you smart people can just answer quickly). In this kind of research is the genetic problem one that would be passed to future generations and if so, does the âoefixâ also correct that? Thanks!

    1. Re:Progeny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Please forgive my lack of understanding on this subject (and, really, my unwillingness to spend an inordinate amount of time finding an answer when some of you smart people can just answer quickly). In this kind of research is the genetic problem one that would be passed to future generations and if so, does the âoefixâ also correct that? Thanks!

      Yes obviously genetic problems are often passed from parents to the child(usually faulty recessive genes) though disorders can form due to other issues but it is mainly hereditary problems(E.G. Asthma, skin problems, etc). However what this could potentially do is stop the disorder in its tracks. If you fix the issues with the child when they are merely a zygote you in turn correct their DNA before they fully form. Not only would this person not have the disorder but this would cause a cascading effect because any children this person would have would also not have the faulty gene(Faulty gene has been permanently erased/replaced).

      The gigantic pitfall however is what happens if you accidentally create a faulty gene or five during the process(CRISPR is not 100% accurate)? The resulting person could have horrifying issues or even pass on a faulty recessive gene even if they do not personally possess the issue themselves. We must be truly cautious.

    2. Re:Progeny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's overwhelmingly likely, as long as Crispr/Cas9 is able to reach the reproductive germ cells of the affected individuals.

  3. Re:Yes but... by wolfheart111 · · Score: 1

    Folks like you gene editing just wont do it. :P

    --
    [($)]
  4. Recursive self-improvement by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

    This is a fantastic development. Humanity has been plagued with genetic health issues that continue to propagate because they aren't significant enough prevent it. This could lead to each generation of humans becoming increasingly healthier. If people want to cry about "playing God," fine by me. However, I would like to see future generations never have the myriad of defects that fundamentally alter their lives. Also no more glasses. :)

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:Recursive self-improvement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah and think about it: no more low IQ negroes or empathy-less Chinese or greedy Jews.

      This is exactly the kind of eugenics Hitler dreamed about.

  5. I see Mike Pence left you alone again, Mr.Prez... by Grog6 · · Score: 1

    Put down the koolaid. :)

    --
    Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
  6. GATTACA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...that is all.