Genetic Engineering & NanoBioTechnology
We are rapidly approaching an era when it may not only be possible but also insuppressible that people will be able to modify their genes at low cost.
In decades to come, however much the well meaning worry about the nefarious applications of gene editing, the needs of the sick will continue to drive science and medicine forward - as they should.
Researchers are beginning to understanding how the animals maintain their hundreds of teeth throughout their adult lives. By studying how structures in embryonic fish differentiate into either teeth or taste buds, the researchers hope to one day be able to turn on the tooth regeneration mechanism in humans - which, like other mammals, get only two sets of teeth to last a lifetime.
https://archive.is/LDjBy
Still, today, there are those who fear genetic engineering.
"Genetic alteration is never predictable and can result in oversized embryos, resulting in painful births. It can leave the animals severely affected in a way which is impractical for life. The process also very wasteful."
In reference to the dog study, Hawkins said, "The genetic alteration of animals simply to make them stronger, or to have greater running ability, is completely unacceptable.
https://archive.is/eySjI
Viruses are a more nuanced scalpel – they have an evolutionarily vetted mode of entry and expression. To avoid the unsavory bursting cell scenario, “replication-deficient” viruses have been engineered. Given these strategic advantages, and spurred on by the enhanced editing capabilities enabled by CRISPR-based nucleases, Xiaoyu Chen and Manuel Goncalves at Leiden University Medical Center recently published a review of viral vectors as gene editing tools in Molecular Therapy. They highlight three types of viruses that can do the trick, each with its own strengths and weaknesses.
Lentiviruses have the unique ability to infect non-dividing cells, an important consideration for hosts that aren’t actively growing. Most engineered lentivirus vectors are based on HIV-1 – whose wild type variant is responsible for the global AIDS pandemic – because they can stably insert imported genes into the host’s genome. But that’s not necessarily a good thing for a CRISPR-mediated gene replacement, where a separate DNA strand (one not integrated into the genome) can be used to bridge the CRISPR-Cas-damaged site. With this consideration in mind, an engineered “integrase-deficient” lentivirus that ditches the DNA insertion step is many gene editors’ vector of choice.
Adeno-associated and adenoviral vectors are the other promising options; the former is a minuscule 20 nm across, while the latter can pack particularly large cargos. All three types of viruses can be developed to spec, loaded with a researcher’s specific gene or protein sequences, within a few weeks. Viral delivery of gene editing proteins is actively being investigated for clinical use. After all, nuclease-modified cells are already showing promising results: in one clinical study, immune cells modified in a lab by removing the CCR5 gene (a critical receptor for HIV) were infused into HIV-positive patients. The edited cells outlasted the native cells. If this modification could be made in the body, an effective gene therapy could be within reach.
https://archive.is/4QqF1
Remember the plans to eliminate malaria by using gene alterations and killing the primary hosts?
We can also eliminate pests by gene altered releases of males whose female children die rather than reproducing.
“The goal of this research, and the overall goal of my program, is to try and manage insects more effectively with less environmental impact,” says Shelton. ;;;Without a single pesticide or toxin, the GM moths nearly took out the pest population in as few as two generations.;;; “The Oxitec moths are an improvement on the traditional sterile insect technology, and I think it’s pretty exciting improvement.”
This promising study comes on the heels of another Oxitec success story, a similarly-modified mosquito, which was recently found to reduce populations of dengue-carrying Aedes aegypti in Brazil by 95%. The company is awaiting word from the FDA for trials of GM mosquitos in Florida, but in the meantime, scientists can’t seem to praise their technologies enough. According to Shelton, the GM moths have no downsides. “From an environmental standpoint, we only see benefits.
https://archive.is/51zul