Precision Gene Editing 128
mpthompson writes "NewScientist.com is reporting that scientists at Sangamo Biosciences have developed a method of editing DNA mutations with unprecedented precision without weaving in potentially harmful foreign genetic material. Different combinations of amino acids are designed to latch on and cut the DNA at exactly the place where the mutated gene lies. This triggers the body's natural repair process which corrects the gene where the DNA was cut. The technique will be used to target diseases caused by single-gene mutations such as combined immune deficiency (X-SCID) - or bubble boy disease - and sickle cell anaemia."
Precision genetic engineering? (Score:4, Interesting)
Clarification (Score:3, Interesting)
--
Fairfax Underground: Fairfax County message board and public records [fairfaxunderground.com]
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous; (Score:5, Interesting)
-- Alfred North Whitehead, 1927
That never stopped anybody... (Score:4, Interesting)
Homologous Recombination (Score:3, Interesting)
Precise Gene Editing = Hex Editor (Score:5, Interesting)
Until we have a better handle on Gene Expression [wikipedia.org] and how to actually interpret the genetic code we should proceed cautiously.
To quote Dr. J. Craig Venter, Time's Scientist of the year (2000).
"We know far less than one per cent of what will be known about biology, human physiology, and medicine.
My view of biology is 'We dont know shit.' "
If any am being overcautious or am ill-informed please feel free to correct me. I try to live by the motto, "Just because we can do something, doesn't mean we should." This applies to System Administration as much as it does to gene-hacking.
Re:That never stopped anybody... (Score:1, Interesting)
Jack.
Re:In the case of specific genetic diseases (Score:3, Interesting)
"Genes exist in networks, interactive networks which have a logic of their own. The [gene] technology point of view does not deal with these networks. It simply addresses genes in isolation. But genes do not exist in isolation. And the fact that the [biotech] industry folks don't deal with these networks is what makes their science incomplete and dangerous."
Dr. Richard Strohman, Professor Emeritus of Molecular and Cell Biology at University of California, Berkeley. From his article "Crisis position". [EL]
So does this mean that until we understand the environmental interactions between, you won't fully understand how the organism will express its genes. This is similar to programming, since a program may run differently based on the environment in which it is run.
Re:with a PhD in Genetic engineering (Score:3, Interesting)
And their current results of the 18% corrected rate, as they point out, is therapeutically effective.
Plus, their recognition system using zinc fingers may have a higher recognition rate for the targeted sequence, and the corrections are applied to only a small area of DNA - so the overall error rate of DNA replication/repair is spread out over the cells they are treating.
If I had a disease of the blood requiring gene therapy, I'd rather have this treatment than gene therapy using an adenoviral vector - that method is just asking for trouble with near random genomic insertion.
It's a clever idea - hope to see it developed further
Re:Mutations... (Score:2, Interesting)
programs similar to automata programs that currently run with simple sets of rules. each data set is a discrete genome. recombine over generations, tag all genomes that have disease preconditions and allow them to "evolve" that way.
it's interesting, because computing is ridiculously cheap and so is data storage. This can even be run as a distributed project. people volunteer their genomes anonymously and the entire simulation is run across the net.
the reason this is interesting is that we can see maybe a number of generations down the line... se how current trends in gene distribution occurred and possibly predict future trends.