Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Technology and Science News › [MIT] Edible CRISPR Could Replace Antibiotics
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[MIT] Edible CRISPR Could Replace Antibiotics - Page 6

post #51 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zen00 View Post

The point was that he was claiming that it would cause random mutations which would result in a super bacteria which would kill you.

thats how superbugs came to be, they interacted with antibiotics often and ended up becoming immune to them.
it would be even worse if the DNA is directly tampered with, the mutations become much more diverse aside from the set mutations which naturally occurs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightbird View Post

More random mutations happen on a sunny day at a beach, so we should avoid those as well lol. Don't get me wrong, this technology can be weaponized to kill a single lineage or race or species, but the chances of it happens by nature is small and those chances are taken billions upon trillions of times every day we exist.

small chances becomes a real threat once you factor in we have billions upon billions of living species on this planet.
simply put, you overrule statistic probability with sheer quantity.
Edited by epic1337 - 4/18/17 at 6:02pm
post #52 of 68
"you overrule statistic probability with sheer quantity" So.. if you buy up all the lottery tickets you'll profit? Nope biggrin.gif

This is good though, the amount of mutations humanity go through each day is more than the drops of water in the oceans, so 1 more mutation ala treatment isn't increasing the risk anymore.
post #53 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightbird View Post

"you overrule statistic probability with sheer quantity" So.. if you buy up all the lottery tickets you'll profit? Nope biggrin.gif
no you don't make a profit, but you do win.

though in this case, profiting or not doesn't matter, all that matters is whether its a jackpot.
the thing thats being weighed is the chances of a new strain causing an epidemic.
Edited by epic1337 - 4/18/17 at 11:13pm
post #54 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by epic1337 View Post

it would be even worse if the DNA is directly tampered with, the mutations become much more diverse aside from the set mutations which naturally occurs.

People often say this, and I've wondered what justification there is for this opinion. At least, what justifications there are beyond science fiction movies.
post #55 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by epic1337 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightbird View Post

"you overrule statistic probability with sheer quantity" So.. if you buy up all the lottery tickets you'll profit? Nope biggrin.gif
no you don't make a profit, but you do win.

Good thing that all the ticket combinations for genome is quite literally infinite right? Again, 1 extra ticket isn't much risk when just by living we're buying trillions of tickets.
post #56 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mand12 View Post

People often say this, and I've wondered what justification there is for this opinion. At least, what justifications there are beyond science fiction movies.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hiv-fights-off-crispr-gene-editing-attack/
Quote:
To some extent, this was not a surprise: HIV has already shown the ability to evolve resistance to all manner of antiviral drugs (as well as the human immune system).
This happens because its genetic material is copied by enzymes that are prone to error. Most mistakes stop the virus working, but occasionally a mutation is beneficial for HIV, allowing it to evade attack.

But Liang thinks that mutations caused by copying errors do not explain HIV’s triumph over CRISPR. Instead, his team contends that the mutations, which involved the insertion or deletion of a few DNA letters, occurred when Cas9 cut the viral DNA.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightbird View Post

Good thing that all the ticket combinations for genome is quite literally infinite right? Again, 1 extra ticket isn't much risk when just by living we're buying trillions of tickets.
its a different story if its going to become the trigger point of an epidemic, much worse if its totally immune to antibacterial or antiviral cures.
adding a chance for an entire local population dying is on a higher level than just having 1extra ticket.
Edited by epic1337 - 4/19/17 at 7:55am
post #57 of 68

Didn't answer my question.
post #58 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mand12 View Post

Didn't answer my question.

this didn't?

edit: missing the latter part.
Quote:
But Liang thinks that mutations caused by copying errors do not explain HIV’s triumph over CRISPR. Instead, his team contends that the mutations, which involved the insertion or deletion of a few DNA letters, occurred when Cas9 cut the viral DNA.

When DNA is cut, its host cell tries to repair the break; in doing so, it sometimes introduces or deletes DNA letters. These ‘indels’ usually inactivate the gene that was cut—which is how CRISPR works. But sometimes this doesn’t happen. Occasionally, Liang thinks, some of the indels made by the T cell’s machinery leave the genome of the invading HIV able to replicate and infect other cells. And worse, the change in sequence means the virus can't be recognized and targeted by T cells with the same machinery—effectively making it resistant to future attack. “We were a bit excited when we found this,” Liang says.

Edited by epic1337 - 4/19/17 at 7:51am
post #59 of 68
No, it didn't. There are lots of ways mutations happen naturally, copying errors are only one. Why is it that direct genetic manipulation is assumed to be inherently more dangerous than any of the other ones?

Any of the cuts made by CRISPR could just as easily be made randomly by ionizing radiation hits. It's much less likely, sure, but there are a lot more ionizing radiation events than there are CRISPR events, globally. Why is it that the human touch must be assumed to be inherently more negative on the results of the mutations? Even if you determine that mutations are more likely, why the assumption that they will be bad for us, and not good?

Seems an extension of the original sin theory, honestly.
post #60 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mand12 View Post

No, it didn't. There are lots of ways mutations happen naturally, copying errors are only one. Why is it that direct genetic manipulation is assumed to be inherently more dangerous than any of the other ones?

Any of the cuts made by CRISPR could just as easily be made randomly by ionizing radiation hits. It's much less likely, sure, but there are a lot more ionizing radiation events than there are CRISPR events, globally. Why is it that the human touch must be assumed to be inherently more negative on the results of the mutations? Even if you determine that mutations are more likely, why the assumption that they will be bad for us, and not good?

Seems an extension of the original sin theory, honestly.

i'm not saying it has to be human intervention, did i even mention humans?
the point i was making that forcibly changing DNA be it through virus or radiation will cause a much more diverse mutations than just simply leaving it alone.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Technology and Science News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Technology and Science News › [MIT] Edible CRISPR Could Replace Antibiotics