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 7

post #61 of 68
Except it still changes on its own, and totally randomly.

My point, though, is that you claim there are more diverse mutations. How do you know? Intentional irradiation to induce mutations does not change the diversity of mutations, it just makes more of them happen more quickly so you get to see more of them. We've used it for a long, long time. The ruby red grapefruit was invented by irradiating grapefruit seeds, and we got a beneficial mutation out of it. That could have happened totally at random by background radiation, too, we just sped up the process.

How do you know that there will be more diversity of mutations, and that that diversity will then lead to more negative results than positive results?
post #62 of 68
because you're adding another vector point that isn't within it's logical mutation paths, e.g. it wouldn't become immune to CRISPR if you didn't introduce CRISPR.
post #63 of 68
"logical" mutation paths?

What?

A mutation caused by a cosmic ray hit could be literally anything. What logic are you expecting, exactly?
post #64 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mand12 View Post

"logical" mutation paths?

What?

A mutation caused by a cosmic ray hit could be literally anything. What logic are you expecting, exactly?

that it wouldn't become immune to CRISPR?

its the same thing as adaptation to an environment, it wouldn't become anything that isn't required within the environment.
Edited by epic1337 - 4/19/17 at 6:35pm
post #65 of 68
Why are you people arguing with someone who bases his irrational fear of technology he doesn't understand on a nonsensical movie plot?
post #66 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpankyMcFlych View Post

Why are you people arguing with someone who bases his irrational fear of technology he doesn't understand on a nonsensical movie plot?

because they misunderstood the running gag as something that should be taken seriously?


i mean, lets break down my first post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by epic1337 View Post

sounds like a source for a zombie outbreak.
this is a running gag, plus its isolated from the two latter points.
Quote:
Originally Posted by epic1337 View Post

breaking up DNA of the bacteria could cause spontaneous mutations.
this is a fact, we already have the HIV-CRISPR example of this, and it only took two weeks for it to happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by epic1337 View Post

and theres even concern whether the host plus the multitudes of symbiotic bacterias are immune to those bacteriophages.
this is a legitimate concern, the first point is with regards to the host (humans in this case) whether the CRISPR won't directly attack, and whether the byproduct won't release harmful toxins.
the latter point is whether other bacterias that are beneficial towards the host would be unaffected, and whether they can be repopulated after.

the issue gets serious if the CRISPR carrier virus can self-propagate, this is advantageous in a sense that you only need one intake for it to take effect indefinitely.
however a self-propagating virus means you'll never be able to repopulate beneficial bacteria within your body, furthermore it could also affect your body's immune system response.

because unlike antibiotics which only weakens the bacteria so that the body's immune system can take it on themselves, a CRISPR based cure causes the bacteria to self-destruct.
this brings up two issues, one is that the immune system won't develop against those bacteria, and that the bacteria which self-destructed can release toxins thats unlike being swallowed by white blood cells.
Edited by epic1337 - 4/19/17 at 9:17pm
post #67 of 68
The real problem of gene editing in general, this apply to gene therapy too, is not the fact to cut the DNA, but the fact that the regions could rearrange hybridizing and produce non wanted recombination.

Obviously this depend witch length the DNA is, more length more chances of recombination, so transposition, so big mutations in a gene or a regulating region.

So in anyway you want to inject DNA modifications, you never know the recombination path it could undergo, since you don't know the genetic background of a person, nor would know is future evolution.

I was doing Crisp/cas9 experiments, even the specificity to cut a specific DNA track is subjective, so even cutting on bacteria DNA, there is always a chance, even small, that it will cut your own DNA.

Its how genetic information work, since mutations and recombination are the fundamental Principe of evolution. There is no way to edit DNA like we do in a program and be sure at 100% that it work without mess.

Viral carrier particles have the same issue, since it could produce rearrangement within previous inserted viral track stored into your DNA. So even you remove the virulent part of the information, nobody tell you at 100% that it will not recontaminate/mutate a dormant viral genes.
Edited by Wimpzilla - 4/20/17 at 1:45am
Gamer
(15 items)
 
   
CPUGraphicsGraphicsRAM
i7 2670QM R9 270 EXP GDC v8.4d mPCI-e 1x 2.0 Gskill Ripjaw 1600Mhz C11 
Hard DriveOther
SSD V-Series 120GO Lenovo Thinkpad T530i 
  hide details  
Reply
Gamer
(15 items)
 
   
CPUGraphicsGraphicsRAM
i7 2670QM R9 270 EXP GDC v8.4d mPCI-e 1x 2.0 Gskill Ripjaw 1600Mhz C11 
Hard DriveOther
SSD V-Series 120GO Lenovo Thinkpad T530i 
  hide details  
Reply
post #68 of 68
I'd like to clarify something here. There seems to be confusion regarding the way that CRISPR behaves in prokaryotic vs. eukaryotic cells, and it's causing a lot of unnecessary back and forth.

In eukaryotic cells, CRISPR can cut a sequence-specific site, at which point the cell recognizes a double strand break and can fix this by either recombination-mediated mechanisms (i.e. I have two copies of my chromosome, so let me use the other copy as a template to fix this break in my DNA) or non-homologous end joining (i.e. here are two free DNA ends, I have no template, but lets just put them together to get rid of this cut in the genome!).

In prokaryotes, which are the subject of this study, CRISPR-mediated cuts to the genome are generally lethal. Double-strand breaks are much more difficult to fix in bacteria since they (usually) don't have the machinery for non-homologous end joining, nor do they have a second copy of their chromosome to work as a template for recombination (again, there are exceptions). This will end up killing the cell, and in the case of the bacteria in your gut, they will probably take up the dead cell matter as usable nutrients.

Another thing regarding CRISPR turning against the host. Bacteriophages, like the vectors used in this study, don't infect eukaryotic cells, unless there's a wild example out there in the scientific literature. Bacteria have either a double membrane or a thick cell wall that requires specialization of the phage in order to inject its nucleic acid payload. Either that, or they're taking advantage of bacteria-specific machinery to internalize their nucleic acids. It's incredibly unlikely that these will ever infect the host organism. Even if the DNA were to somehow get in a host eukaryotic cell, you would need a matching region of DNA for the CRISPR system to act on. This is usually designed as a 30 base long protospacer and a 2-3 base pair protospacer adjacent motif, or PAM region. In other words, that's 32 specific base pairs on the host genome in order to initiate a successful off-target effect. The likelihood of this sequence occurring by chance is 1/4^34, or 1/295147905179352825856.

Lets divide this number by the number of base pairs in the human genome. 295,147,905,179,352,825,856/3,234,830,000 = 91,240,623,210. This is the chance that a given person will have the matching sequence. This is roughly 13 times the population of the entire human race (assuming a population of 7 billion). Mind you, that this the chance ONLY IF the bacteria-infecting virus somehow manages to infect a host eukaryotic cell. I'm also ignoring the fact that all humans have VERY similar genomes, and that the researchers probably designed this system rationally such that the protospacer didn't exist in the human genome.
Edited by PsikyoJebus - 4/20/17 at 8:49am
Ummm....
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX 8320 Gigabyte 990FXA-UD3 Gigabyte GTX 660 Ti Windforce 8G Kingston HyperX DDR3 1600 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Intel 730 Series Samsung Spinpoint F1 Samsung DVD R/RW Corsair H60 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Pro X64 BenQ BL2410 Filco Majestouch Tenkeyless (Browns) Seasonic M12D 850W 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Lian Li PC 7H WX Corsair M65 Corsair cloth pad Edifier S330D 
  hide details  
Reply
Ummm....
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX 8320 Gigabyte 990FXA-UD3 Gigabyte GTX 660 Ti Windforce 8G Kingston HyperX DDR3 1600 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Intel 730 Series Samsung Spinpoint F1 Samsung DVD R/RW Corsair H60 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Pro X64 BenQ BL2410 Filco Majestouch Tenkeyless (Browns) Seasonic M12D 850W 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Lian Li PC 7H WX Corsair M65 Corsair cloth pad Edifier S330D 
  hide details  
Reply
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