Tag Archives: Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR)

CRISPR-like system found in animals

Leave a reply

I trust the eukaryotes will not be suing for intellectual property rights. (For anyone who’s interested in CRISPR [clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats) and associated intellectual property (specifically, patent) issues, see my March 15, 2017 posting “CRISPR patent decision: Harvard’s and MIT’s Broad Institute victorious—for now.” It’s not up-to-date but as far as I know there haven’t been any major intellectual property developments since. If I’m wrong, please let me know in the Comments section of this posting.)

A june 28, 2023 news item on phys.org announces research suggesting there are naturally occurring CRISPR-like capabilities in some species,

A team of researchers led by Feng Zhang at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard and the McGovern Institute for Brain Research at MIT [Massachusetts Institute of Technology] has uncovered the first programmable RNA-guided system in eukaryotes—organisms that include fungi, plants, and animals.

In a study in Nature, the team describes how the system is based on a protein called Fanzor. They showed that Fanzor proteins use RNA as a guide to target DNA precisely, and that Fanzors can be reprogrammed to edit the genome of human cells. The compact Fanzor systems have the potential to be more easily delivered to cells and tissues as therapeutics than CRISPR/Cas systems, and further refinements to improve their targeting efficiency could make them a valuable new technology for human genome editing

…

A june 28, 2023 Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard news release by Leah Eisenstadt (also on EurekAlert), which originated the news item, provides more context for the research,

CRISPR/Cas was first discovered in prokaryotes (bacteria and other single-cell organisms that lack nuclei) and scientists including Zhang’s lab have long wondered whether similar systems exist in eukaryotes. The new study demonstrates that RNA-guided DNA-cutting mechanisms are present across all kingdoms of life.

“CRISPR-based systems are widely used and powerful because they can be easily reprogrammed to target different sites in the genome,” said Zhang, senior author on the study and a core institute member at the Broad, an investigator at MIT’s McGovern Institute, the James and Patricia Poitras Professor of Neuroscience at MIT, and a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator. “This new system is another way to make precise changes in human cells, complementing the genome editing tools we already have.”

Searching the domains of life

A major aim of the Zhang lab is to develop genetic medicines using systems that can modulate human cells by targeting specific genes and processes. “A number of years ago, we started to ask, ‘What is there beyond CRISPR, and are there other RNA-programmable systems out there in nature?’” said Zhang.

Two years ago, Zhang lab members discovered a class of RNA-programmable systems in prokaryotes called OMEGAs, which are often linked with transposable elements, or “jumping genes”, in bacterial genomes and likely gave rise to CRISPR/Cas systems. That work also highlighted similarities between prokaryotic OMEGA systems and Fanzor proteins in eukaryotes, suggesting that the Fanzor enzymes might also use an RNA-guided mechanism to target and cut DNA.

In the new study, the researchers continued their study of RNA-guided systems by isolating Fanzors from fungi, algae, and amoeba species, in addition to a clam known as the Northern Quahog. Co-first author Makoto Saito of the Zhang lab led the biochemical characterization of the Fanzor proteins, showing that they are DNA-cutting endonuclease enzymes that use nearby non-coding RNAs known as ωRNAs to target particular sites in the genome. It is the first time this mechanism has been found in eukaryotes, such as animals.

Unlike CRISPR proteins, Fanzor enzymes are encoded in the eukaryotic genome within transposable elements and the team’s phylogenetic analysis suggests that the Fanzor genes have migrated from bacteria to eukaryotes through so-called horizontal gene transfer.

“These OMEGA systems are more ancestral to CRISPR and they are among the most abundant proteins on the planet, so it makes sense that they have been able to hop back and forth between prokaryotes and eukaryotes,” said Saito.

To explore Fanzor’s potential as a genome editing tool, the researchers demonstrated that it can generate insertions and deletions at targeted genome sites within human cells. The researchers found the Fanzor system to initially be less efficient at snipping DNA than CRISPR/Cas systems, but by systematic engineering, they introduced a combination of mutations into the protein that increased its activity 10-fold. Additionally, unlike some CRISPR systems and the OMEGA protein TnpB, the team found that a fungal-derived Fanzor protein did not exhibit “collateral activity,” where an RNA-guided enzyme cleaves its DNA target as well as degrading nearby DNA or RNA. The results suggest that Fanzors could potentially be developed as efficient genome editors.

Co-first author Peiyu Xu led an effort to analyze the molecular structure of the Fanzor/ωRNA complex and illustrate how it latches onto DNA to cut it. Fanzor shares structural similarities with its prokaryotic counterpart CRISPR-Cas12 protein, but the interaction between the ωRNA and the catalytic domains of Fanzor is more extensive, suggesting that the ωRNA might play a role in the catalytic reactions. “We are excited about these structural insights for helping us further engineer and optimize Fanzor for improved efficiency and precision as a genome editor,” said Xu.

Like CRISPR-based systems, the Fanzor system can be easily reprogrammed to target specific genome sites, and Zhang said it could one day be developed into a powerful new genome editing technology for research and therapeutic applications. The abundance of RNA-guided endonucleases like Fanzors further expands the number of OMEGA systems known across kingdoms of life and suggests that there are more yet to be found.

“Nature is amazing. There’s so much diversity,” said Zhang. “There are probably more RNA-programmable systems out there, and we’re continuing to explore and will hopefully discover more.”

The paper’s other authors include Guilhem Faure, Samantha Maguire, Soumya Kannan, Han Altae-Tran, Sam Vo, AnAn Desimone, and Rhiannon Macrae.

…

About Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard
Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard was launched in 2004 to empower this generation of creative scientists to transform medicine. The Broad Institute seeks to describe the molecular components of life and their connections; discover the molecular basis of major human diseases; develop effective new approaches to diagnostics and therapeutics; and disseminate discoveries, tools, methods and data openly to the entire scientific community.

Founded by MIT, Harvard, Harvard-affiliated hospitals, and the visionary Los Angeles philanthropists Eli and Edythe L. Broad, the Broad Institute includes faculty, professional staff and students from throughout the MIT and Harvard biomedical research communities and beyond, with collaborations spanning over a hundred private and public institutions in more than 40 countries worldwide.

About McGovern Institute for Brain Research at MIT
The McGovern Institute is an inclusive and collaborative community of MIT scientists, engineers, and support staff who work together to unravel the mysteries of the brain. Our researchers are committed to meeting two of the greatest challenges of modern science: understanding how the brain works and discovering new ways to prevent or treat brain disorders. To address this scientific challenge, we study the brain at many levels and collaborate with academic, clinical, and industry partners around the world.

The McGovern Institute was established in 2000 by technology entrepreneur Lore Harp McGovern and the late Patrick J. McGovern, former chairman of International Data Group (IDG). Our director is Robert Desimone, the Doris and Don Berkey Professor of Neuroscience at MIT and former head of intramural research at the National Institute of Mental Health. The McGovern Institute has grown from six founding faculty members to more than 20 distinguished investigators including one Nobel laureate and six members of the National Academy of Sciences.

.

Here’s a link to and a citation for the paper,

Fanzor is a eukaryotic programmable RNA-guided endonuclease by Makoto Saito, Peiyu Xu, Guilhem Faure, Samantha Maguire, Soumya Kannan, Han Altae-Tran, Sam Vo, AnAn Desimone, Rhiannon K. Macrae & Feng Zhang. Nature (2023) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06356-2 Published: 28 June 2023

This paper is behind a paywall.

Gene-edited food: better tasting and/or allergen-free?

Leave a reply

I have two items about gene-edited food. One is from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) and the other is from Hiroshima University (Japan).

Better tasting food?

Cherries without pits do not fit my definition of better tasting food but it’s just one of the touted ‘improvements’.

https://i.cbc.ca/1.6513602.1684353993!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/16x9_780/a-little-dirt-never-hurt-01.jpg
Can you imagine eating cherries without having to deal with its pits? That could be a reality thanks to gene-editing tools like CRISPR. (Ben Nelms/CBC)

A May 18, 2023 article by Mouhamad Rachini for CBC’s radio programme, The Current, features information from a radio segment on gene-edited food,

When Michael Wolf tried a new type of mustard green that had been gene-edited to taste less bitter, he came away impressed.

“I don’t necessarily like my food very bitter, so I appreciated it,” Wolf, founder of the food tech publication The Spoon, told The Current’s Matt Galloway.

Food scientists are starting to use gene-editing technology, called CRISPR [clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats], to change certain features of some Canadians’ favourite fruits and vegetables. For example, scientists told Wolf that the technology could be used to create cherries without a pit.

Pairwise, a North Carolina-based gene-editing startup, recently rolled out a mustard green engineered to be less bitter than the original plant. It’s the first CRISPR-edited food to hit the U.S. market. 

Although the gene-edited mustard greens haven’t appeared in Canada yet, the process could find a home here very soon.

Earlier this month, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Marie-Claude Bibeau announced that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) seed guidelines now allow for some modified plants.

The updated rules now allow seeds created through gene-editing without an independent safety assessment by the government, as long as they aren’t spliced with DNA from other types of fruits or vegetables, or altered to make them pesticide-resistant. [emphasis mine]

Wolf explained further that gene-editing with CRISPR has some key differences from other types of genetic modification for food, which has been around for some time.

“[With genetic modification], you’re maybe inserting a foreign DNA into a molecule. But with CRISPR, what it’s essentially doing is just cutting out undesirable traits,” he said. [emphasis mine]

“So you’re not really inserting something that might be foreign to the organism. So it’s something that is a bit, I guess, less concerning for a lot of people who are worried about GMO because that takes away that concern.” [emphasis mine]

…

“Removing bitterness in a vegetable, I believe, is doing a disservice to our palate,” Dionisia Roman-Osicki of Virden, Man., wrote to The Current. “You can’t be a foodie without recognizing the value of bitterness in food.”

Organic farmer Antony John said there are already “cultural methods” to sweeten the taste and nutritional values of certain foods without genetic modification, such as carrots.

“The cold temperatures causes the carrots to provide an antifreeze, and that antifreeze is sugar,” said John, co-owner of the Soiled Reputation farm in Sebringville, Ont. “So they convert the starch in their roots into sugars. So letting your carrots grow when it’s cold and when there’s subzero temperatures will enhance the sugar in it.”

…

The radio segment embedded in Rachini’s May 18, 2023 article is 13 mins. 14 secs.

Allergen-free eggs

Over at Hiroshima University, a May 17, 2023 press release (also on EurekAlert but published May 16, 2023) announces research into making eggs safer for people who have allergies, Note 1: The researchers have used a different kind of gene-editing (or genome-editing) technique Note 2: Links have been removed,

Researchers have developed a chicken egg that may be safe for people with egg white allergies. Chicken egg allergies are one of the most common allergies in children. Though most children outgrow this allergy by age 16, some will still have an egg allergy into adulthood. Egg white allergies can cause a variety of symptoms, including vomiting, stomach cramps, breathing problems, hives, and swelling and some people with egg white allergies are unable to receive certain flu vaccines.

Using genome editing technology, researchers have produced an egg without the protein that causes egg white allergies. This protein, called ovomucoid, accounts for approximately 11% of all the protein in egg whites.

Research detailing the food safety profile of this modified egg, called the OVM-knockout, was detailed in a paper published in Food and Chemical Toxicology in April 2023.

“To use OVM-knockout chicken eggs as food, it is important to evaluate its safety as food. In this study, we examined the presence or absence of mutant protein expression, vector sequence insertion, and off-target effects in chickens knocked out with OVM by platinum transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALENs),” said Ryo Ezaki, an assistant professor at the Graduate School of Integrated Sciences for Life at Hiroshima University in Hiroshima, Japan. TALENs are restriction enzymes that recognize specific DNA sequences and break or cut them.

In order to develop the OVM-knockout eggs, researchers needed to detect and eliminate the ovomucoid protein in the egg whites. TALENs were engineered to target a piece of RNA called exon 1, which codes for specific proteins. The eggs produced from this technique were then tested to ensure there was no ovomucoid protein, mutant ovomucoid protein, or other off-target effects. The eggs had the desired frameshift mutation, which is a mutation created by inserting or deleting nucleotide bases in a gene, and none of them expressed mature ovomucoid proteins. Anti-ovomucoid and anti-mutant ovomucoid antibodies were used to detect any traces of the protein, but there was no evidence of ovomucoid in the eggs. This means that mutant ovomucoids could not create new allergens. This is an important step in determining the safety profile of the eggs.

Other gene editing tools, such as CRISPR, tend to have off-target mutagenesis effects. This means that new mutations are prompted by the gene editing process. However, whole genome sequencing of the altered egg whites showed mutations, which were possibly off-target effects, were not localized to the protein-coding regions.

“The eggs laid by homozygous OVM-knockout hens showed no evident abnormalities. The albumen contained neither the mature OVM nor the OVM-truncated variant,” said Ezaki. “The potential TALEN-induced off-target effects in OVM-knockout chickens were localized in the intergenic and intron regions. Plasmid vectors used for genome editing were only transiently present and did not integrate into the genome of edited chickens. These results indicate the importance of safety evaluations and reveal that the eggs laid by this OVM knockout chicken solve the allergy problem in food and vaccines.”

Looking ahead, researchers will continue to verify the safety profile of the OVM-knockout eggs. Because some people are highly allergic to this specific protein, even small amounts of ovomucoid can cause a reaction. Researchers will need to perform additional immunological and clinical studies to determine the safety of the OVM-knockout eggs. At this time, researchers have determined that OVM-knockout eggs are less allergenic than standard eggs and can be safely used in heat-processed foods that patients with egg allergies can eat. “The next phase of research will be to evaluate the physical properties and processing suitability of OVM-knockout eggs, and to confirm their efficacy through clinical trials,” said Ezaki. “We will continue to conduct further research toward the practical application of allergy-reduced eggs.”

Here’s a link to and a citation for the paper,

Transcription activator-like effector nuclease-mediated deletion safely eliminates the major egg allergen ovomucoid in chickens by Ryo Ezaki, Tetsushi Sakuma, Daisuke Kodama, Ryou Sasahara, Taichi Shiraogawa, Kennosuke Ichikawa, Mei Matsuzaki, Akihiro Handa, Takashi Yamamoto & Hiroyuki Horiuchi. Food and Chemical Toxicology Volume 175, May 2023, 113703 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2023.113703

This paper is open access.

A new lipid nanoparticle (LNP) delivery system for CRISPR-Cas9) gene editing

Leave a reply

The first time lipid nanoparticles were mentioned here as a delivery system for CRISPR-Cas9 editing was in a January 26, 2018 posting featuring work at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). This latest research on the topic comes from Japan according to a March 2, 2023 news item on phys.org,

Gene therapy is a potential mode of treatment for a wide variety of diseases caused by genetic mutations. While it has been an area of diverse and intense research, historically, only a very few patients have been treated using gene therapy—and fewer still cured. The advent of the genetic modification technique called CRISPR-Cas9 in 2012 has revolutionized gene therapy—as well as biology as a whole—and it has recently entered clinical trials for the treatment of some diseases in humans.

Haruno Onuma, Yusuke Sato and Hideyoshi Harashima at Hokkaido University have developed a new delivery system for CRISPR-Cas9, based on lipid nanoparticles (LNPs), that could greatly increases the efficiency of in vivo gene therapy. Their findings were published in the Journal of Controlled Release.

…

A March 2, 2023 Hokkaido University press release (also on EurekAlert), which originated the news item, provides details about the researchers’ new technique,

“There are broadly two ways of treating diseases with gene therapy,” Sato explained, “ex vivo, where cells are subjected to the desired modifications in the laboratory and then introduced into the patient, and in vivo, where the treatment is administered to the patient to change the cells in their body. Safe and effective in vivo treatment is the ultimate aspiration of gene therapy, as it would be a straightforward process for patients and healthcare providers. LNPs can function as a vehicle for the safe and effective delivery of such therapies.”

CRISPR-Cas9 consists of a large molecule composed of the Cas9 protein and guide RNA. The guide RNA binds to a specific, complementary DNA sequence, and the Cas9 protein cuts that sequence, allowing it to be modified. The guide RNA can be altered to target specific DNA sequences to be modified.

“In a previous study, we discovered that additional DNA molecules, called ssODNs, ensure that the CRISPR-Cas9 molecule is loaded into the LNPs (CRISPR-LNPs),” Harashima elucidated. “In this study,  we again used ssODNs, but they were carefully designed so that they would not inhibit the function of the guide RNA.” 

Using a guide RNA targeting the expression of a protein called transthyretin, they evaluated the effectiveness of the CRISPR-LNPs in mice models. CRISPR-LNPs with ssODNs that dissociated from the guide RNA at room temperature were most effective at reducing serum transthyretin: two consecutive doses, one day apart, reduced it by 80%.

“We have demonstrated the optimal ssODN sequence affinity that ensures the loading and the release of CRISPR-Cas9 at the target location; and that this system can be used to edit cells in vivo,” concluded Onuma. “We will continue to improve the design of ssODNs, as well as to develop optimal lipid formulations to increase the effectiveness of delivery.” 

The image and caption helped me with better understanding the technique described in the press release,

The RNP-ssODN is designed to ensure the CRISPR-Cas9 molecule is encapsulated by the LNP. Once inside the cells, the ssODN dissociates and CRISPR-Cas9 can carry out its effect. (Haruno Onuma, Yusuke Sato, Hideyoshi Harashima. Journal of Controlled Release. February 10, 2023).

Here’s a link to and a citation for the paper,

Lipid nanoparticle-based ribonucleoprotein delivery for in vivo genome editing by Haruno Onuma, Yusuke Sato, Hideyoshi Harashima. Journal of Controlled Release Volume 355, March 2023, Pages 406-416 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconrel.2023.02.008

This paper is behind a paywall.

Gene editing the lungs with nanoparticles

Leave a reply

The nanoparticles in question are lipid nanoparticles designed for delivery to the lungs and they are somewhat similar to the ones in some of the COVID-19 vaccines (mRNA vaccines). From a March 30, 2023 news item on Nanowerk,

Engineers at MIT [Massachusetts Institute of Technology] and the University of Massachusetts Medical School have designed a new type of nanoparticle that can be administered to the lungs, where it can deliver messenger RNA encoding useful proteins.

With further development, these particles could offer an inhalable treatment for cystic fibrosis and other diseases of the lung, the researchers say.

“This is the first demonstration of highly efficient delivery of RNA to the lungs in mice. We are hopeful that it can be used to treat or repair a range of genetic diseases, including cystic fibrosis,” says Daniel Anderson, a professor in MIT’s Department of Chemical Engineering and a member of MIT’s Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research and Institute for Medical Engineering and Science (IMES).

In a study of mice, Anderson and his colleagues used the particles to deliver mRNA encoding the machinery needed for CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing. That could open the door to designing therapeutic nanoparticles that can snip out and replace disease-causing genes.

Engineers at MIT and the University of Massachusetts Medical School have designed a new type of nanoparticle that can be administered to the lungs, where it can deliver messenger RNA encoding useful proteins. Credits: Image: iStock, edited by MIT News

A March 30, 2023 MIT news release, also on EurekAlert, which originated the news item, describes the research in more detail,

…

Targeting the lungs

Messenger RNA holds great potential as a therapeutic for treating a variety of diseases caused by faulty genes. One obstacle to its deployment thus far has been difficulty in delivering it to the right part of the body, without off-target effects. Injected nanoparticles often accumulate in the liver, so several clinical trials evaluating potential mRNA treatments for diseases of the liver are now underway. RNA-based Covid-19 vaccines, which are injected directly into muscle tissue, have also proven effective. In many of those cases, mRNA is encapsulated in a lipid nanoparticle — a fatty sphere that protects mRNA from being broken down prematurely and helps it enter target cells. 

Several years ago, Anderson’s lab set out to design particles that would be better able to transfect the epithelial cells that make up most of the lining of the lungs. In 2019, his lab created nanoparticles that could deliver mRNA encoding a bioluminescent protein to lung cells. Those particles were made from polymers instead of lipids, which made them easier to aerosolize for inhalation into the lungs. However, more work is needed on those particles to increase their potency and maximize their usefulness. 

In their new study, the researchers set out to develop lipid nanoparticles that could target the lungs. The particles are made up of molecules that contain two parts: a positively charged headgroup and a long lipid tail. The positive charge of the headgroup helps the particles to interact with negatively charged mRNA, and it also help mRNA to escape from the cellular structures that engulf the particles once they enter cells. 

The lipid tail structure, meanwhile, helps the particles to pass through the cell membrane. The researchers came up with 10 different chemical structures for the lipid tails, along with 72 different headgroups. By screening different combinations of these structures in mice, the researchers were able to identify those that were most likely to reach the lungs. 

Efficient delivery

In further tests in mice, the researchers showed that they could use the particles to deliver mRNA encoding CRISPR/Cas9 components designed to cut out a stop signal that was genetically encoded into the animals’ lung cells. When that stop signal is removed, a gene for a fluorescent protein turns on. Measuring this fluorescent signal allows the researchers to determine what percentage of the cells successfully expressed the mRNA.

After one dose of mRNA, about 40 percent of lung epithelial cells were transfected, the researchers found. Two doses brought the level to more than 50 percent, and three doses up to 60 percent. The most important targets for treating lung disease are two types of epithelial cells called club cells and ciliated cells, and each of these was transfected at about 15 percent. 

“This means that the cells we were able to edit are really the cells of interest for lung disease,” Li says. “This lipid can enable us to deliver mRNA to the lung much more efficiently than any other delivery system that has been reported so far.”

The new particles also break down quickly, allowing them to be cleared from the lung within a few days and reducing the risk of inflammation. The particles could also be delivered multiple times to the same patient if repeat doses are needed. This gives them an advantage over another approach to delivering mRNA, which uses a modified version of harmless adenoviruses. Those viruses are very effective at delivering RNA but can’t be given repeatedly because they induce an immune response in the host.

To deliver the particles in this study, the researchers used a method called intratracheal instillation, which is often used as a way to model delivery of medication to the lungs. They are now working on making their nanoparticles more stable, so they could be aerosolized and inhaled using a nebulizer. 

The researchers also plan to test the particles to deliver mRNA that could correct the genetic mutation found in the gene that causes cystic fibrosis, in a mouse model of the disease. They also hope to develop treatments for other lung diseases, such as idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, as well as mRNA vaccines that could be delivered directly to the lungs.

Here’s a link to and a citation from the paper,

Combinatorial design of nanoparticles for pulmonary mRNA delivery and genome editing by Bowen Li, Rajith Singh Manan, Shun-Qing Liang, Akiva Gordon, Allen Jiang, Andrew Varley, Guangping Gao, Robert Langer, Wen Xue & Daniel Anderson. Nature Biotechnology (2023) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-023-01679-x Published 30 March 2023

This paper is behind a paywall.

Even a ‘good’ gene edit can go wrong

Leave a reply

An October 24, 2022 news item on ScienceDaily highlights research into better understanding problems with ‘good’ CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats) gene editing,

A Rice University lab is leading the effort to reveal potential threats to the efficacy and safety of therapies based on CRISPR-Cas9, the Nobel Prize-winning gene editing technique, even when it appears to be working as planned.

Bioengineer Gang Bao of Rice’s George R. Brown School of Engineering and his team point out in a paper published in Science Advances that while off-target edits to DNA have long been a cause for concern, unseen changes that accompany on-target edits also need to be recognized — and quantified.

Bao noted a 2018 Nature Biotechnology paper indicated the presence of large deletions. “That’s when we started looking into what we can do to quantify them, due to CRISPR-Cas9 systems designed for treating sickle cell disease,” he said.

…

An October 24, 2022 Rice University news release (also on EurekAlert), which originated the news item, details the concerns (Note: Links have been removed),

Bao has been a strong proponent of CRISPR-Cas9 as a tool to treat sickle cell disease, a quest that has brought him and his colleagues ever closer to a cure. Now the researchers fear that large deletions or other undetected changes due to gene editing could persist in stem cells as they divide and differentiate, thus have long-term implications for health.

“We do not have a good understanding of why a few thousand bases of DNA at the Cas9 cut site can go missing and the DNA double-strand breaks can still be rejoined efficiently,” Bao said. “That’s the first question, and we have some hypotheses. The second is, what are the biological consequences? Large deletions (LDs) can reach to nearby genes and disrupt the expression of both the target gene and the nearby genes. It is unclear if LDs could result in the expression of truncated proteins. 

“You could also have proteins that misfold, or proteins with an extra domain because of large insertions,” he said. “All kinds of things could happen, and the cells could die or have abnormal functions.”

His lab developed a procedure that uses single-molecule, real-time (SMRT) sequencing with dual unique molecular identifiers (UMI) to find and quantify unintended LDs along with large insertions and local chromosomal rearrangements that accompany small insertions/deletions (INDELs) at a Cas9 on-target cut site. 

“To quantify large gene modifications, we need to perform long-range PCR, but that could induce artifacts during DNA amplification,” Bao said. “So we used UMIs of 18 bases as a kind of barcode.”

“We add them to the DNA molecules we want to amplify to identify specific DNA molecules as a way to reduce or eliminate artifacts due to long-range PCR,” he said. “We also developed a bioinformatics pipeline to analyze SMRT sequencing data and quantified the LDs and large insertions.”

The Bao lab’s tool, called LongAmp-seq (for long-amplicon sequencing), accurately quantifies both small INDELs and large LDs. Unlike SMRT-seq, which requires the use of a long-read sequencer often only available at a core facility, LongAmp-seq can be performed using a short-read sequencer.

To test the strategy, the lab team led by Rice alumna Julie Park, now an assistant research professor of bioengineering, used Streptococcus pyogenes Cas9 to edit beta-globin (HBB), gamma-globin (HBG) and B-cell lymphoma/leukemia 11A (BCL11A) enhancers in hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells (HSPC) from patients with sickle cell disease, and the PD-1 gene in primary T-cells.  

They found large deletions of up to several thousand bases occurred at high frequency in HSPCs: up to 35.4% in HBB, 14.3% in HBG and 15.2% in BCL11A genes, as well as on the PD-1 (15.2%) gene in T-cells. 

Since two of the specific CRISPR guide RNAs tested by the Bao lab are being used in clinical trials to treat sickle cell disease, he said it’s important to determine the biological consequences of large gene modifications due to Cas9-induced double-strand breaks. 

Bao said the Rice team is currently looking downstream to analyze the consequences of long deletions on messenger RNA, the mediator that carries code for ribosomes to make proteins. “Then we’ll move on to the protein level,” Bao said. “We want to know if these large deletions and insertions persist after the gene-edited HSPCs are transplantation into mice and patients.”  

Co-authors of the study from Rice are graduate students Mingming Cao and Yilei Fu, alumni Yidan Pan and Timothy Davis, research specialist Lavanya Saxena, microscopist/bioinstrumentation specialist Harshavardhan Deshmukh and Todd Treangen, an assistant professor of computer science, and Emory University’s Vivien Sheehan, an associate professor of pediatrics. 

Bao is the department chair and Foyt Family Professor of Bioengineering, a professor of chemistry, materials science and nanoengineering, and mechanical engineering, and a CPRIT Scholar in Cancer Research.

The National Institutes of Health (R01HL152314, OT2HL154977) supported the research.

Here’s a link to and a citation for the latest paper,

Comprehensive analysis and accurate quantification of unintended large gene modifications induced by CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing by So Hyun Park, Mingming Cao, Yidan Pan, Timothy H. Davis, Lavanya Saxena, Harshavardhan Deshmukh, Yilei Fu, Todd Treangen, Vivien A. Sheehan, and Gang Bao. Science Advances Vol 8, Issue 42 DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.abo7676 First published online: 21 Oct 2022 Published in print: March 3, 2023

This paper is behind a paywall.

A CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats) anniversary

Leave a reply

June 2022 was the 10th anniversary of the publication of a study the paved the way for CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing and Sophie Fessl’s June 28, 2022 article for The Scientist offers a brief history (Note: Links have been removed),

Ten years ago, Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer Doudna published the study that paved the way for a new kind of genome editing: the suite of technologies now known as CRISPR. Writing in [the journal] Science, they adapted an RNA-mediated bacterial immune defense into a targeted DNA-altering system. “Our study . . . highlights the potential to exploit the system for RNA-programmable genome editing,” they conclude in the abstract of their paper—a potential that, in the intervening years, transformed the life sciences. 

From gene drives to screens, and diagnostics to therapeutics, CRISPR nucleic acids and the Cas enzymes with which they’re frequently paired have revolutionized how scientists tinker with DNA and RNA. … altering the code of life with CRISPR has been marred by ethical concerns. Perhaps the most prominent example was when Chinese scientist He Jiankui created the first gene edited babies using CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing. Doudna condemned Jiankui’s work, for which he was jailed, as “risky and medically unnecessary” and a “shocking reminder of the scientific and ethical challenges raised by this powerful technology.” 

There’s also the fact that legal battles over who gets to claim ownership of the system’s many applications have persisted almost as long as the technology has been around. Both Doudna and Charpentier’s teams from the University of California, Berkeley, and the University of Vienna and a team led by the Broad Institute’s Feng Zhang claim to be the first to have adapted CRISPR-Cas9 for gene editing in complex cells (eukaryotes). Patent offices in different countries have reached varying decisions, but in the US, the latest rulings say that the Broad Institute of MIT [Massachusetts Institute of Technology] and Harvard retains intellectual property of using CRISPR-Cas9 in eukaryotes, while Emmanuelle Charpentier, the University of California, and the University of Vienna maintain their original patent over using CRISPR-Cas9 for editing in vitro and in prokaryotes. 

Still, despite the controversies, the technique continues to be explored academically and commercially for everything from gene therapy to crop improvement. Here’s a look at seven different ways scientists have utilized CRISPR.

…

Fessl goes on to give a brief overview of CRISPR and gene drives, genetic screens, diagnostics, including COVID-19 tests, gene therapy, therapeutics, crop and livestock improvement, and basic research.

For anyone interested in the ethical issues (with an in depth look at the Dr. He Jiankui story), I suggest reading either or both Eben Kirksey’s 2020 book, “The Mutant Project; Inside the Global Race to Genetically Modify Humans,”

An anthropologist visits the frontiers of genetics, medicine, and technology to ask: Whose values are guiding gene editing experiments? And what does this new era of scientific inquiry mean for the future of the human species?

“That rare kind of scholarship that is also a page-turner.”
—Britt Wray, author of Rise of the Necrofauna

At a conference in Hong Kong in November 2018, Dr. He Jiankui announced that he had created the first genetically modified babies—twin girls named Lulu and Nana—sending shockwaves around the world. A year later, a Chinese court sentenced Dr. He to three years in prison for “illegal medical practice.”

As scientists elsewhere start to catch up with China’s vast genetic research program, gene editing is fueling an innovation economy that threatens to widen racial and economic inequality. Fundamental questions about science, health, and social justice are at stake: Who gets access to gene editing technologies? As countries loosen regulations around the globe, from the U.S. to Indonesia, can we shape research agendas to promote an ethical and fair society?

Eben Kirksey takes us on a groundbreaking journey to meet the key scientists, lobbyists, and entrepreneurs who are bringing cutting-edge genetic engineering tools like CRISPR—created by Nobel Prize-winning biochemists Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier—to your local clinic. He also ventures beyond the scientific echo chamber, talking to disabled scholars, doctors, hackers, chronically-ill patients, and activists who have alternative visions of a genetically modified future for humanity.

…

and/or Kevin Davies’s 2020 book, “Editing Humanity: The CRISPR Revolution and the New Era of Genome Editing,”

One of the world’s leading experts on genetics unravels one of the most important breakthroughs in modern science and medicine. 

If our genes are, to a great extent, our destiny, then what would happen if mankind could engineer and alter the very essence of our DNA coding? Millions might be spared the devastating effects of hereditary disease or the challenges of disability, whether it was the pain of sickle-cell anemia to the ravages of Huntington’s disease.

But this power to “play God” also raises major ethical questions and poses threats for potential misuse. For decades, these questions have lived exclusively in the realm of science fiction, but as Kevin Davies powerfully reveals in his new book, this is all about to change.

Engrossing and page-turning, Editing Humanity takes readers inside the fascinating world of a new gene editing technology called CRISPR, a high-powered genetic toolkit that enables scientists to not only engineer but to edit the DNA of any organism down to the individual building blocks of the genetic code.

Davies introduces readers to arguably the most profound scientific breakthrough of our time. He tracks the scientists on the front lines of its research to the patients whose powerful stories bring the narrative movingly to human scale.

Though the birth of the “CRISPR babies” in China made international news, there is much more to the story of CRISPR than headlines seemingly ripped from science fiction. In Editing Humanity, Davies sheds light on the implications that this new technology can have on our everyday lives and in the lives of generations to come.

…

Kevin Davies is the executive editor of The CRISPR Journal and the founding editor of Nature Genetics. He holds an MA in biochemistry from the University of Oxford and a PhD in molecular genetics from the University of London. He is the author of Cracking the Genome, The $1,000 Genome, and co-authored a new edition of DNA: The Story of the Genetic Revolution with Nobel Laureate James D. Watson and Andrew Berry. In 2017, Kevin was selected for a Guggenheim Fellowship in science writing.

I’ve read both books and while some of the same ground is covered, the perspectives diverge somewhat. Both authors offer a more nuanced discussion of the issues than was the case in the original reporting about Dr. He’s work.

What is CRISPRnano?

Leave a reply

To answer the question, CRISPRnano is a computational webserver for identifying gene-edited cells. (For those unfamiliar with CRISPR, it stands for clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats’ a form of gene editing,)

The webserver was announced in a July 15, 2022 news item on Nanowerk but first, there’s an explanation of why this server is needed,

Diseases of genetic cause can be investigated by inducing the respective mutations in cell lines that are then used to model human diseases. The overall aim is to elucidate underlying mechanisms, interactions with environmental factors and ideally to find curative strategies.

A crucial step in generating genetically modified cell models is to verify the inserted mutation. Therefore, the genetic information carrier of the cells is decoded (sequencing) and compared to the reference set of genetic information in healthy individuals (genotyping).

To support scientists with the comparison, different workflows and software are available, but many of them require expensive high-tier sequencers or manual curation efforts.

A July 15, 2022 IUF – Leibniz-Institut für umweltmedizinische Forschung (Leibniz Research Institute for Environmental Medicine) press release, which originated the news item, includes details about the server,

To address this issue, a team of scientists from the Genome Engineering and Model Development lab at the IUF – Leibniz Research Institute for Environmental Medicine in Düsseldorf, led by Dr. Andrea Rossi, developed a robust, versatile, and easy-to-use computational webserver named CRISPRnano (https://www.crisprnano.de/) that enables the analysis of noisy reads generated by affordable and portable sequencers including Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) devices. CRISPRnano allows fast and accurate identification, quantification, and visualization of genetically modified cell lines, it is compatible with Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) and ONT sequencing reads, and it can be used without an internet connection. The according study was published in the renowned scientific journal Nucleic Acids Research.

Here’s a link to and a citation for the related study,

Identification of genome edited cells using CRISPRnano by Thach Nguyen, Haribaskar Ramachandran, Soraia Martins, Jean Krutmann, Andrea Rossi. Nucleic Acids Research, Volume 50, Issue W1, 5 July 2022, Pages W199–W203, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkac440 Published: 30 May 2022

This paper appears to be open access.

Use Gene Editing to Make Better Babies (a February 17, 2022 livestreamed debate from 05:00 PM − 06:30 PM EST)

Leave a reply

I have high hopes for this debate on gene edited babies. Intelligence Squared US convenes good debates. (I watched their ‘de-extinction’ debate back in 2019, which coincidentally, featured George Church, one of the debaters in this event.) Not ‘good’ in that I necessarily agree or am interested in the topics but good as in thoughtful. Here’s more from the organization’s mission on their What is IQ2US? webpage,

A nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, Intelligence Squared U.S. addresses a fundamental problem in America: the extreme polarization of our nation and our politics.

Our mission is to restore critical thinking, facts, reason, and civility to American public discourse.

More about the upcoming debate can be found on the Use Gene Editing to Make Better Babies event page,

Use Gene Editing to Make Better Babies
Hosted By John Donvan

Thursday, February 17, 2022
05:00 PM − 06:30 PM EST

A genetic disease runs in your family. Your doctor tells you that, should you wish to have a child, that child is likely to also carry the disease. But a new gene-editing technology could change your fate. It could ensure that your baby is — and remains — healthy. Even more, it could potentially make sure your grandchildren are also free of the disease. What do you do? Now, imagine it’s not a rare genetic disorder, but general illness, or eye color, or cognitive ability, or athleticism. Do you opt into this new world of genetically edited humans? And what if it’s not just you. What your friends, neighbors, and colleagues are also embracing this genetic revolution? Right now, science doesn’t give you that choice. But huge advancements in CRISPR [clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats] technology are making human gene editing a reality. In fact, in 2018, a Chinese scientist announced the first genetically modified babies; twin girls made to resist HIV, smallpox, and malaria. The promise of this technology is clear. But gene editing is not without its perils. Its critics say the technology is destined to exacerbate inequality, pressure all parents (and nations) into editing their children to stay competitive, and meddling with the most basic aspect of our humanity. In this context, we ask the question: Should we use gene editing to make better babies?

…

Main Points

The use of gene editing allows for couples to have children when they might otherwise have that option unavailable for them. It also allows for less to be left to chance during the pregnancy.

Gene editing will allow for babies to be born with reduced or eliminated chances of inheriting and passing on genes linked to diseases. We have a moral imperative to use technology that will improve the quality of life.

It is only a matter of time before gene editing becomes a widespread technology, potentially used by competitors and rivals on the international stage. If we have the technology, we should use it to our advantage to remain competitive.

The use of gene editing to create “better” outcomes in children will inherently create social stratification based on any gene editing, likely reflecting existing socioeconomic status. Additionally, the term ‘better’ is arbitrary and potentially short-sighted and dangerous.

Currently, there exist reasonable alternatives to gene editing for every condition for which gene editing can be used. 

The technology is still developing, and the long-term effects of any gene-editing could be potentially dangerous with consequences echoing throughout the gene environment. 

A February 8, 2022 Intelligence Squared U.S. news release about the upcoming debate (received via email) provides details about the debaters,

FOR THE MOTION – BIOS

* George Church, Geneticist & Founder, Personal Genome Project 
George Church is one of the nation’s leading geneticists and scholars. He is a professor of genetics at Harvard Medical School and MIT. In 1984, he developed the first direct genomic sequencing method, which resulted in the first genome sequence. He also helped initiate the Human Genome Project in 1984 and the Personal Genome Project in 2005. Church also serves as the director of the National Institutes of Health Center of Excellence in Genomic Science.  

* Amy Webb, Futurist & Author, “The Genesis Machine”  
Amy Webb is an award-winning author and futurist. She is the founder and CEO of the Future Today Institute and was named one of five women changing the world by Forbes. Her new book, “The Genesis Machine,” explores the future of synthetic biology, including human gene editing. Webb is a professor of strategic foresight at New York University’s Stern School of Business and has been elected a life member of the Council on Foreign Relations.  

AGAINST THE MOTION – BIOS

* Marcy Darnovsky, Policy Advocate & Executive Director, Center for Genetics and Society 
Marcy Darnovsky is a policy advocate and one of the most prominent voices on the politics of human biotechnology. As executive director of the Center for Genetics and Society, Darnovsky is focused on the social justice and public interest implications of gene editing. This work is informed by her background as an organizer and advocate in a range of environmental and progressive political movements.    

* Françoise Baylis, Philosopher & Author, “Altered Inheritance”  
Françoise Baylis is a philosopher whose innovative work in bioethics, at the intersection of policy and practice, has stretched the very boundaries of the field. She is the author of “Altered Inheritance: CRISPR and the Ethics of Human Genome Editing,” which explores the scientific, ethical, and political implications of human genome editing. Baylis is a research professor at Dalhousie University and a fellow of the Canadian Academy of Health Sciences. In 2017, she was awarded the Canadian Bioethics Society Lifetime Achievement Award. 

…

Getting back to the Use Gene Editing to Make Better Babies event page, there are a few options,

Request a Ticket

Have a question? Ask us

There’s also an option to Vote For or Against the Motion but you’ll have to go to the Use Gene Editing to Make Better Babies event page.

Two of the debaters have been mentioned on this blog before, George Church and Françoise Baylis. There are several references to Church including this mention with regard to Dr. He Jiankui and his CRISPR twins (July 28, 2020 posting). Françoise Baylis features in four 2019 postings with the most recent being this October 17, 2019 piece.

For anyone curious about the ‘de-extinction’ debate, it was described here in a January 18, 2019 posting prior to the event.

World CRISPR Day on October 20, 2021 from 8:00 a.m. – 6:00 p.m. PDT

Leave a reply

H/t to rapper Baba Brinkman (born in Canada and based in New York City) for the tweet/retweet about his upcoming appearance at World CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced palindromic repeats) Day on October 20, 2021 from 8:00 a.m. – 6:00 p.m. PDT,

Baba Brinkman @BabaBrinkman

True facts! I’ve been working with incredible #CRISPR innovator @Synthego and the @EventRapInc team, and tomorrow is #WorldCRISPRDay! Look for new DNA-themed videos and streamed performances all day from @HilaTheKilla, @CoreyJGray, @ZEPS, @MCAbdominal and me. Sign up to watch!

Synthego
@Synthego· 2h
Multiple musical notes BREAKING NEWS Multiple musical notes We’re delighted to announce that @BabaBrinkman will be performing live at #WorldCRISPRDay! Register today so you don’t miss out on this special and exclusive performance at the biggest event in #CRISPR! https://hubs.li/H0ZGfSG0

World CRISPR Day (it’s free) is being hosted by Synthego, from their About Us (company) webpage,

Synthego is a genome engineering company that enables the acceleration of life science research and development in the pursuit of improved human health.

The company leverages machine learning, automation, and gene editing to build platforms for science at scale. With its foundations in engineering disciplines, the company’s platform technologies vertically integrate proprietary hardware, software, bioinformatics, chemistries, and molecular biology to advance basic research, target validation, and clinical trials.

With its technologies cited in hundreds of peer-reviewed publications and utilized by thousands of commercial and academic researchers and therapeutic drug developers, Synthego is at the forefront of innovation enabling the next generation of medicines by delivering genome editing at an unprecedented scale.

Here’s the company’s (undated) announcement about the upcoming World CRISPR Day,

Synthego is proud to host the 2nd annual World CRISPR Day virtual event on October 20, 2021, where we can share, listen, and learn about the latest advancements in CRISPR. The day will include presentations from the world’s leading Genome Engineers, a panel discussion featuring the women of CRISPR, and much more! Don’t miss your chance to learn from the experts how CRISPR is editing the future of medicine.

Despite the COVID-related challenges that the global research community continues to face, scientists have persevered in their relentless pursuit of advancing human health. The field of CRISPR has been no exception. With development of new CRISPR innovations, drug discovery and diagnostic methods, and numerous successful reports of CRISPR-based cell and gene therapy clinical trials, the promise of CRISPR in the clinic is becoming a reality.

Join us at World CRISPR Day to hear academic and industry experts talk about their transformative research, visit our partner’s booths, take advantage of the different networking sessions with your peers, and much more!

Register now for free!

You can find World CRISPR Day 2021 here and you can find Baba Brinkman’s website here.

Having looked at the pop up pages describing the panel discussions and participants and having looked at their World CRISPR Day 2021 and 2020 videos, I strongly suspect that this day focuses on CRISPR as the solution to any number of problems in the life sciences, an area, where coincidentally, Synthego and its partners have significant expertise. With that proviso in mind, I’m sure this will be a very interesting and worthwhile day.

Five country survey of reactions to food genome editing

Leave a reply

Weirdly and even though most of this paper’s authors are from the University of British Columbia (UBC; Canada), only one press release was issued and that was by the lead author’s (Gesa Busch) home institution, the University of Göttingen (Germany).

I’m glad Busch, the other authors, and the work are getting some attention (if not as much as I think they should).

From a July 9, 2021 University of Göttingen press release (also on EurekAlert but published on July 12, 2021),

A research team from the University of Göttingen and the University of British Columbia (Canada) has investigated how people in five different countries react to various usages of genome editing in agriculture. The researchers looked at which uses are accepted and how the risks and benefits of the new breeding technologies are rated by people. The results show only minor differences between the countries studied – Germany, Italy, Canada, Austria and the USA. In all countries, making changes to the genome is more likely to be deemed acceptable when used in crops rather than in livestock. The study was published in Agriculture and Human Values.

Relatively new breeding technologies, such as CRISPR [clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats) gene editing, have enabled a range of new opportunities for plant and animal breeding. In the EU, the technology falls under genetic engineering legislation and is therefore subject to rigorous restrictions. However, the use of gene technologies remains controversial. Between June and November 2019, the research team collected views on this topic via online surveys from around 3,700 people from five countries. Five different applications of gene editing were evaluated: three relate to disease resistance in people, plants, or animals; and two relate to achieving either better quality of produce or a larger quantity of product from cattle.

“We were able to observe that the purpose of the gene modification plays a major role in how it is rated,” says first author Dr Gesa Busch from the University of Göttingen. “If the technology is used to make animals resistant to disease, approval is greater than if the technology is used to increase the output from animals.” Overall, however, the respondents reacted very differently to the uses of the new breeding methods. Four different groups can be identified: strong supporters, supporters, neutrals, and opponents of the technology. The opponents (24 per cent) identify high risks and calls for a ban of the technology, regardless of possible benefits. The strong supporters (21 per cent) see few risks and many advantages. The supporters (26 per cent) see many advantages but also risks. Whereas those who were neutral (29 per cent) show no strong opinion on the subject.

This study was made possible through funding from the Free University of Bozen-Bolzano and Genome BC.

Here’s a link to and a citation for the paper,

Citizen views on genome editing: effects of species and purpose by Gesa Busch, Erin Ryan, Marina A. G. von Keyserlingk & Daniel M. Weary. Agriculture and Human Values (2021) Published: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-021-10235-9

This paper is open access.

Methodology

I have one quick comment about the methodology. It can be difficult to get a sample that breaks down along demographic lines that is close to or identical to national statistics. That said, it was striking to me that every country was under represented in the ’60 years+ ‘ category. In Canada, it was by 10 percentage points (roughly). For other countries the point spread was significantly wider. In Italy, it was a 30 percentage point spread (roughly).

I found the data in the Supplementary Materials yesterday (July 13, 2021). When I looked this morning, that information was no longer there but you will find what appears to be the questionnaire. I wonder if this removal is temporary or permanent and, if permanent, I wonder why it was removed.

Participants for the Canadian portion of the survey were supplied by Dynata, a US-based market research company. Here’s the company’s Wikipedia entry and its website.

Information about how participants were recruited was also missing this morning (July 14, 2021).

Genome British Columbia (Genome BC)

I was a little surprised when I couldn’t find any information about the program or the project on the Genome BC website as the organization is listed as a funder.

There is a ‘Genomics and Society’ tab (seems promising, eh?) on the homepage where you can find the answer to this question: What is GE³LS Research?,

GE3LS research is interdisciplinary, conducted by researchers across many disciplines within social science and humanities, including economics, environment, law, business, communications, and public policy.

There’s also a GE3LS Research in BC page titled Project Search; I had no luck there either.

It all seems a bit mysterious to me and, just in case anything else disappears off the web, here’s a July 13, 2021 news item about the research on phys.org as backup to what I have here.