Comment on Least extreme biophysics phd
arrow74@lemm.ee 1 week agoHaving 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.
andros_rex@lemmy.world 1 week ago
What? Even highly effective treatments with ample research backing will not “always be successful.”
Again, as the excerpt I copied in shows, there are also RISKS with CRISPR. Things like mosaicism, things like half of your cells having the modification and half not.
Do you have any background in biology? Can you explain why a gene that only conveys resistance in a homozygous genotype would be magically effective in a heterozygous because it was artificial?
Can you define the terms “homozygous” and “heterozygous” even?
JacksonLamb@lemmy.world 1 week ago
This topic is flushing out some concerning people.
arrow74@lemm.ee 1 week ago
I didn’t say it was magic. Part of the issue is we don’t know what modifications he made in making his artificial version. I won’t pretend like there aren’t a lot of unknowns there. It could alter the effectiveness in numerous ways.
andros_rex@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Yes - exactly. He didn’t know what was going to happen. When you don’t know what is going to happen, you don’t play with lives.