Comment on Least extreme biophysics phd

• andros_rex@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  By all account what he did worked.

  Incorrect.

  Two days after Lulu and Nana were born, their DNA were collected from blood samples of their umbilical cord and placenta. Whole genome sequencing confirmed the mutations.[124] However, available sources indicate that Lulu and Nana are carrying incomplete CCR5 mutations. Lulu carries a mutant CCR5 that has a 15-bp in-frame deletion only in one chromosome 3 (heterozygous allele) while the other chromosome 3 is normal; and Nana carries a homozygous mutant gene with a 4-bp deletion and a single base insertion.[125] He therefore failed to achieve the complete 32-bp deletion.[109] Moreover, Lulu has only heterozygous modification which is not known to prevent HIV infection.[120] Because the babies’ mutations are different from the typical CCR5Δ32 mutation it is not clear whether or not they are prone to infection.[125] There are also concerns about adverse effect called off-target mutation in CRISPR/Cas9 editing and mosaicism, a condition in which many different cells develop in the same embryo.[124] Off-target mutation may cause health hazards, while mosaicism may create HIV susceptible cells.

  source

  • arrow74@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    Per the wikipedia page it states that it is not clear if it effective because they’re not going to intentionally infect the children to test it. But we see the results specifically on the targeted gene. That’s a success and demonstrates the technology works.

    I’d argue the folly was inserting an artificial gene as opposed to the natural gene that we already know works. Either way the technology showed expression on the correct gene, that is a success.

    source

    • andros_rex@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      Read that section I pasted in again.

      “Lulu has only heterozygous modification which is not known to prevent HIV infection.”

      It’s not the results are “banned from every journal” - it’s that doing ad hoc CRISPR experiments is not going to meet peer review. Doing random things because you want to see what happens is not how science works.

      source

      • arrow74@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

        Having a heterozygous deletion is still effecting the right gene. Without knowing both of her parents genetics it’s hard to say if it was natural. What he did could produce either a heterozygous or homozygous result on the gene, but only the homozygous presentation is effective at prevention.

        So 1 was a full success and the other showed activation on the appropriate gene, but not enough to confer resistance. Although it is possible it does since he used an artificial gene. We know the natural one is not effective in a heterozygous presentation. I still think that was his greatest mistake. He should have just used the naturally effective gene.

        You do make a good point with the full backing rigor of the scientific method this procedure would always be successful.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• JacksonLamb@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  By all accounts what he did worked

  What “accounts” are you reading? You need to read more accurate accounts, because what he did didn’t work and the experiment wasn’t very useful.

  source