The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersRussian Reaction Blog
Paper Review: Crispening CRISPR
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

PAPER REVIEW

Tang, Lichun et al. 2017
CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing in human zygotes using Cas9 protein


Abstract:

Previous works using human tripronuclear zygotes suggested that the clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeat (CRISPR)/Cas9 system could be a tool in correcting disease-causing mutations. However, whether this system was applicable in normal human (dual pronuclear, 2PN) zygotes was unclear. Here we demonstrate that CRISPR/Cas9 is also effective as a gene-editing tool in human 2PN zygotes. By injection of Cas9 protein complexed with the appropriate sgRNAs and homology donors into one-cell human embryos, we demonstrated efficient homologous recombination-mediated correction of point mutations in HBB and G6PD. However, our results also reveal limitations of this correction procedure and highlight the need for further research.

Gwern Branwen’s comments:

Even nicer: another human-embryo CRISPR paper. Some old 2015 work – results: no off-target mutations and efficiencies of 20/50/100% for various edits. (As I predicted, the older papers, Liang et al 2015 / Kang et al 2016 / Komor et al 2016, were not state of the art and would be improved on considerably.)

Back in February 2015, qualia researcher Mike Johnson predicted that dedicated billionaire with scant regard for legalistic regulations could start genetically “spellchecking” their offspring within 5-7 years.

But if anything, he might have overestimated the timeframe.

tang-2017-crispr-cas9

 
• Category: Science • Tags: Crispr, Genetic Load, Paper Review, Transhumanism 
Show 4 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Sad!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. I’m for directed evolution. It can’t be any worse than the current evolutionarily regressive path man is on.

    We are the common ancestor-to-be of augmented man and machine intelligence.

    Exciting times, for sure.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. Many of the “right” blogs on the internet is full of warnings about dysgenics and the coming idiocracy. Yet, many of those same blogs feature commentary that is actually opposed to using bio-engineering to overcome that dysgenics and coming idiocracy. Should not negative attitudes towards bio-engineering on the part of “right” thinking people also be considered an example of that dysgenics and idiocracy?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    I have done what I could to promote this viewpoint amongst the Alt Right, both online and in person, however I suppose it is ultimately up to the Alt Right themselves what to do about it.

    Some are in favor - generally the younger and higher IQ sorts, and some are aghast - generally the more religious/traditionalist wing.

    That said, I am not sure that the Progressive Left is all that more, or at all, ... progressive on these issues. In my experience, they tend to have a very negative view of bioengineering, since they do in fact view it as being similar to eugenics and something which will magnify the gap between the haves and the have nots, the privileged and the unprivileged. This goes against their leveling philosophy.

    In my experience, the most technophilic political faction are libertarians.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. @Abelard Lindsey
    Many of the "right" blogs on the internet is full of warnings about dysgenics and the coming idiocracy. Yet, many of those same blogs feature commentary that is actually opposed to using bio-engineering to overcome that dysgenics and coming idiocracy. Should not negative attitudes towards bio-engineering on the part of "right" thinking people also be considered an example of that dysgenics and idiocracy?

    I have done what I could to promote this viewpoint amongst the Alt Right, both online and in person, however I suppose it is ultimately up to the Alt Right themselves what to do about it.

    Some are in favor – generally the younger and higher IQ sorts, and some are aghast – generally the more religious/traditionalist wing.

    That said, I am not sure that the Progressive Left is all that more, or at all, … progressive on these issues. In my experience, they tend to have a very negative view of bioengineering, since they do in fact view it as being similar to eugenics and something which will magnify the gap between the haves and the have nots, the privileged and the unprivileged. This goes against their leveling philosophy.

    In my experience, the most technophilic political faction are libertarians.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Anatoly Karlin Comments via RSS