A September 7, 2025 news item announced a big step forward where gene-editing (CRISPR or clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats) is concerned,
At a glance:
CRISPR gene-editing machinery could transform medicine but is difficult to get into tissues and disease-relevant cells
New delivery system loads CRISPR machinery inside spherical nucleic acid (SNA) nanoparticles
Particles entered cells three times more effectively, tripled gene-editing efficiency, and decreased toxicity compared to current delivery methods
With the power to rewrite the genetic code underlying countless diseases, CRISPR holds immense promise to revolutionize medicine. But until scientists can deliver its gene-editing machinery safely and efficiently into relevant cells and tissues, that promise will remain out of reach.
Now, Northwestern University chemists have unveiled a new type of nanostructure that dramatically improves CRISPR delivery and potentially extends its scope of utility.
…
An artistic interpretation of a spherical nucleic acid (SNA) nanoparticle, carrying CRISPR cargo, entering a cell. When inside an SNA nanoparticle, CRISPR machinery enters cells three times more effectively. Image by the Mirkin Research Group
Called lipid nanoparticle spherical nucleic acids (LNP-SNAs), these tiny structures carry the full set of CRISPR editing tools — Cas9 enzymes, guide RNA [ribonucleic acid] and a DNA [deoxyribonucleic acid] repair template — wrapped in a dense, protective shell of DNA. Not only does this DNA coating shield its cargo, but it also dictates which organs and tissues the LNP-SNAs travel to and makes it easier for them to enter cells.
In lab tests across various human and animal cell types, the LNP-SNAs entered cells up to three times more effectively than the standard lipid particle delivery systems used for COVID-19 vaccines, caused far less toxicity and boosted gene-editing efficiency threefold. The new nanostructures also improved the success rate of precise DNA repairs by more than 60% compared to current methods.
The study will be published on Sept. 5 [2025] in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The study paves the way for safer, more reliable genetic medicines and underscores the importance of how a nanomaterial’s structure — rather than its ingredients alone — can determine its potency. This principle underlies structural nanomedicine, an emerging field pioneered by Northwestern’s Chad A. Mirkin and his colleagues and pursued by hundreds of researchers around the world.
“CRISPR is an incredibly powerful tool that could correct defects in genes to decrease susceptibility to disease and even eliminate disease itself,” said Mirkin, who led the new study. “But it’s difficult to get CRISPR into the cells and tissues that matter. Reaching and entering the right cells — and the right places within those cells — requires a minor miracle. By using SNAs to deliver the machinery required for gene editing, we aimed to maximize CRISPR’s efficiency and expand the number of cell and tissue types that we can deliver it to.”
A nanotechnology and nanomedicine pioneer, Mirkin is the George B. Rathmann Professor of Chemistry at Northwestern’s Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences; professor of chemical and biological engineering, biomedical engineering and materials science and engineering at the McCormick School of Engineering; professor of medicine at the Feinberg School of Medicine; executive director of the International Institute for Nanotechnology; and a member of the Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University.
CRISPR needs a ride
When CRISPR machinery reaches its target inside a cell, it can disable genes, fix mutations, add new functions and more. But CRISPR machinery cannot enter cells by itself. It always needs a delivery vehicle.
Currently, scientists typically use viral vectors and lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) to perform this function. Naturally good at sneaking into cells, viruses are efficient, but they can cause the human body to mount an immune response, leading to painful or even dangerous side effects. LNPs, on the other hand, are safer but inefficient. They tend to get stuck in endosomes, or compartments within the cell, where they cannot release their cargo.
“Only a fraction of the CRISPR machinery actually makes it into the cell and even a smaller fraction makes it all the way into the nucleus,” Mirkin said. “Another strategy is to remove cells from the body, inject the CRISPR components and then put the cells back in. As you can imagine, that’s extremely inefficient and impractical.”
A DNA-wrapped taxi
To overcome this barrier, Mirkin’s team turned to SNAs, which are globular — rather than linear — forms of DNA and RNA previously invented in Mirkin’s lab at Northwestern. The spherical genetic material surrounds a nanoparticle core, which can be packed with cargo. Roughly 50 nanometers in diameter, the tiny structures possess a proven ability to enter cells for targeted delivery. Seven SNA-based therapies are already in human clinical trials, including a Phase 2 clinical trial for Merkel cell carcinoma being developed by Flashpoint Therapeutics, a clinical-stage biotechnology startup.
In the new study, Mirkin’s team started with an LNP core carrying the CRISPR machinery inside. Then, they decorated the particle’s surface with a dense layer of short strands of DNA. Because the DNA can interact with a cell’s surface receptors, cells easily absorb SNAs. The DNA also can be engineered with sequences that target specific cell types, making delivery more selective.
“Simple changes to the particle’s structure can dramatically change how well a cell takes it up,” Mirkin said. “The SNA architecture is recognized by almost all cell types, so cells actively take up the SNAs and rapidly internalize them.”
Boosted performance across the board
After successfully synthesizing LNP-SNAs with CRISPR cargo, Mirkin and his team added them to cellular cultures, which included skin cells, white blood cells, human bone marrow stem cells and human kidney cells.
Then, the team observed and measured several key factors: how efficiently the cells internalized the particles, whether the particles were toxic to cells and if the particles successfully delivered a gene. They also analyzed the cells’ DNA to determine if CRISPR had made the desired gene edits. In every category, the system demonstrated its ability to successfully deliver CRISPR machinery and enable complex genetic modifications.
Next, Mirkin plans to further validate the system in multiple in vivo disease models. Because the platform is modular, researchers can adapt it for a wide range of systems and therapeutic applications. Northwestern biotechnology spin-out Flashpoint Therapeutics is commercializing the technology with the goal of rapidly moving it toward clinical trials.
“CRISPR could change the whole field of medicine,” Mirkin said. “But how we design the delivery vehicle is just as important as the genetic tools themselves. By marrying two powerful biotechnologies — CRISPR and SNAs — we have created a strategy that could unlock CRISPR’s full therapeutic potential.”
I have been stumbling across bug (or insect) research at a greater rate than usual and while the ‘bug-informed’ community is, no doubt, acutely aware of the loss of insect life, the severity of the situation was a revelation to me.
Bugpocalypse (h/t IFLScience for the head)
Caption: Drosophila use multiple mechanisms to adapt to hot, dry desert temperatures. Credit: Sarah Becan for the Gallio Lab/Northwestern University
Insect populations, foundational to food chains and pollination, have dramatically declined over the past 20 years due to rapid climate change
Scientists identify two ways fly species from different climates (high-altitude forest and hot desert) have adapted to temperature
Paper provides evidence that changes in brain wiring and heat sensitivity contributed to shifting preference to hot or cold conditions, respectively
Results may help predict the impact of ongoing climate change on insect distribution and behavior
EVANSTON, Ill. — Tiny, cold-blooded animals like flies depend on their environment to regulate body temperature, making them ideal “canaries in the mine” for gauging the impact of climate change on the behavior and distribution of animal species. Yet, scientists know relatively little about how insect sense and respond to temperature.
Using two species of flies from different climates — one from the cool, high-altitude forests of Northern California, the other hailing from the hot, dry deserts of the Southwest (both cousins of the common laboratory fly, drosophila melanogaster) — Northwestern scientists discovered remarkable differences in the way each processes external temperature.
Forest flies showed increased avoidance of heat, potentially explained by higher sensitivity in their antennae’s molecular heat receptors, while desert flies were instead actively attracted to heat, a response that could be tracked to differences in brain wiring in a region of the fly brain that helps compute the valence (inherent attractiveness or aversiveness) of sensory cues.
The scientists believe these two mechanisms may have accompanied the evolution of each species as it adapted to its distinctive thermal environment, starting from a common ancestor dating back 40 million years (not long after dinosaurs went extinct).
These findings, published today (March 5 [2025]) in the journal Nature, help understand how animals evolve the preferences for specific temperature environments and may help predict the impact of a rapidly changing climate on animal behavior and distribution.
‘Not enough people care about insects’
“Insects are especially threatened by climate change,” said Northwestern neurobiologist Marco Gallio. “Behavior is the first interface between an animal and its environment. Even before the struggle to survive or perish, animals can respond to climate change by migration and by changing their distribution. We are already seeing insect populations declining in many regions, and even insect vectors of disease like the Zika virus and malaria spreading into new areas.”
Gallio, a self-appointed “insect advocate,” is a professor in the neurobiology department and the Soretta and Henry Shapiro Research Professor in Molecular Biology at the Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences. His lab examines fruit flies and their sensing systems. Gallio acknowledged there is limited data because “not enough people care about the insects,” but that available figures record a dramatic decline in insects in the past 20 to 50 years. Though bug haters may rejoice, Gallio said the population decline in the animal group with the most species on Earth is nothing to celebrate.
In addition to their position at the foundation of most terrestrial food chains, insects pollinate 70% of our crops. Gallio said losing insect communities could cause catastrophic damage to ecosystems across the globe and have a direct impact on human wellbeing.
Understanding heat circuits in the brain
Previous work from the Gallio Lab focused on how small insects like laboratory flies respond to sensory cues like harmless and painful temperature changes.
“The common fruit fly is an especially powerful animal to study how the external world is represented and processed within the brain,” Gallio said. “Many years of work on fly genetics and neuroscience have given us a map of the fly brain more detailed than that of any other animal.”
In the present study, Gallio and colleagues wondered how the brain circuits and resulting behaviors compared in fly species that were very similar aside from their choices of thermal habitat.
Using genetic tools, including CRISPR [clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats], to knock out certain genes and gene swaps between species, the team studied both the molecular and brain mechanisms that may explain species-specific differences in temperature preference.
Ph.D. student and lead author Matthew Capek explained that they first found differences in the molecules that detect heat, causing them to activate at different temperatures. And while Capek said the difference in activation could explain the forest flies’ preference for cooler environments, a shift in receptor activation was not enough to explain the behavior of the desert fly.
“The desert fly seemed actively attracted to warmer temperatures — around 90 degrees Fahrenheit compared to the forest fly’s sweet spot just below 70 degrees,” said Capek, who works in the Gallio lab. “In fact, the activation threshold of the antenna heat sensors corresponded to their favorite temperature range, which they will seek, rather than to a temperature they should avoid.”
“In other words, the fly doesn’t behave any longer as though the antennae are telling it to run away from dangerous heat; they seem to be telling it higher temperatures are good, and to approach them.”
High cost, high reward
Gallio was initially puzzled — deserts are hot, so it did not make sense that flies sought out heat — but a lab trip to the Anza Borrego desert of Southern California provided key inspiration.
“Deserts in this region are very hot during the day, but temperatures can drop extremely rapidly when the sun goes down, and night can be downright freezing,” said Alessia Para, also a key author of the study and a research associate professor of neurobiology. “Flies in this climate may need to constantly attend to the rapidly changing temperature and always seek the ideal range, finding shady spots during the day and hiding in cacti for warmth at night.”
Flies from more forgiving environments may instead ignore temperature except when it changes rapidly. Constantly detecting the right temperature is costly from an energy perspective, but for desert flies, it’s life or death.
“This comparative work is useful in a couple of different ways,” Gallio said. “When an animal is born, the brain is already programmed to know if many of the things it will encounter are bad or good for it, and we do not understand how that programming works.
These fly species represent a natural experiment because a stimulus that is good for one species is bad for the other, and we can study the differences that make it so. We also want to learn more about how animals have been able to adapt to different temperatures during evolution, so that we may be able to better understand and even predict how they react to ongoing climate change. Of course we care about the insects, and we hope that what we learn may help us appreciate and protect them better.”
There’s more but first, a citation and a link to the Gallio Lab’s paper,
Evolution of temperature preference in flies of the genus Drosophila by Matthew Capek, Oscar M. Arenas, Michael H. Alpert, Emanuela E. Zaharieva, Iván D. Méndez-González, José Miguel Simões, Hamin Gil, Aldair Acosta, Yuqing Su, Alessia Para & Marco Gallio. Nature (2025) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-08682-z Published: 05 March 2025
This paper is behind a paywall.
Bugs Matter
Thanks to buglife.org.uk for the subhead and the report. Here’s more from their April 30, 2025 press release, Note: Links have been removed,
The troubling extent of insect declines across the UK has been highlighted once again by the results of the 2024 Bugs Matter citizen science survey published today. The latest data shows that the number of flying insects sampled on vehicle number plates, across the UK, has fallen by a staggering 63% since 2021.
The Bugs Matter survey, led by Kent Wildlife Trust in partnership with invertebrate charity Buglife, relies on a nationwide network of volunteer citizen scientists who record insect splats on their vehicle number plates after journeys, using the Bugs Matter app built by Natural Apptitude. Analysis of records from more than 25,000 journeys across the UK since 2021 shows an alarming decrease in bug splats but data from 2024 shows this decrease has slowed.
Insects are critical to ecosystem functioning and services. They pollinate crops, provide natural pest control, decompose waste and recycle nutrients, and underpin food chains that support birds, mammals and other wildlife. Without insects, the planet’s ecological systems would collapse.
Dr. Lawrence Ball of Kent Wildlife Trust stated:“This huge decrease in insect splats over such a short time is really alarming. Its most likely that we are seeing the compounding effects of both a background rate of decline as well as a short term cycle of decline, perhaps linked to the extreme climate in the UK in recent years. Bug splats declined 8% from 2023 to 2024, following sharper drops of 44% in 2023 and 28% in 2022. This shows the rate of decline has slowed and it may even flatten or reverse next year. Continued support from citizen scientists is key to revealing the overall trend in insect numbers.”
The new data shows a decrease in insect splat rates across all the UK nations, with the sharpest fall between 2021 and 2024 recorded in Scotland at 65%. In England, the number of insect splats fell by 62%, in Wales by 64%, and in Northern Ireland by 55%, over the same time period.
Andrew Whitehouse, from Buglife added:“The latest Bugs Matter data suggests that the abundance of flying insects in our countryside has fallen again. The consequences are potentially far-reaching, not only impacting the health of the natural world, but affecting so many of the essential services that nature provides for us. Human activities continue to have a huge impact on nature, habitat loss and damage, pesticide use, pollution, and climate change all contribute to the decline in insects. Society must heed the warning signs of ecological collapse, and take urgent action to restore nature.”
Participation in Bugs Matter is growing and the number of journeys recorded in 2024 far exceeded previous years. This is in part thanks to a new partnership with Openreach, owner of the nation’s second largest commercial van fleet.
Peter Stewart, Openreach’s UK Operations Director for Service Delivery said:“We’re excited to participate in the ‘Bugs Matter’ survey for the second year. Our engineers travel millions of miles annually across the UK to build and maintain our network, making it easy for them to measure insect splats on vehicle number plates. We recognise the crucial role pollinators play for all of us to thrive, and as part of our strategy to protect nature, we’re proud to support this campaign again. Last year, we contributed around 10% of the registered journeys, and with our 25,000-strong fleet, we aim to do even better this year.”
Andrew Whitehouse concluded: “Thank you to everyone who participated in the Bugs Matter survey in 2024. Your contribution has provided invaluable insights into the health of our insect populations and wider environment. We are relaunching the survey on May 1 this year [2025], and with our expansion into the Republic of Ireland, we hope to engage even more people in this crucial citizen science effort.”
The 2025 Bugs Matter survey will run from Saturday 1 May to Tuesday 30 September. It is quick, free and easy to get involved – simply download the free mobile phone app and start recording insect splats on vehicle journeys.
Expansion into Republic of Ireland
In response to growing interest and the need for more comprehensive data, the Bugs Matter survey is expanding into the Republic of Ireland for the 2025 season, thanks to the Amazon Web Services (AWS) Imagine Grant ‘Go Further, Faster’ Award received by Bugs Matter at the end of 2024. This grant provides vital resources to non-profit organisations looking to deploy cloud technology as a central tool to achieve their mission goals, and is providing Bugs Matter with a combination of funding, cloud computing credits, and engagement with AWS technical specialists. This marks an important step in building a more complete picture of insect populations across the British Isles, and future expansion of the Bugs Matter survey.
Dr. Lawrence Ball of Kent Wildlife Trust stated, “We’re extremely grateful for the financial and technical support from Amazon Web Services, which means we can launch in Ireland this year and in more countries in 2026. If you drive or know someone who drives in Ireland, please download the app, sign up, and take part! The UK results highlight the importance of understanding insect numbers elsewhere.”
The charities caution that continued long-term monitoring is essential to track the precise magnitude of these alarming trends, but stress that the current pace of decline is clearly ecologically unviable. By taking part in the Bugs Matter survey each year, citizen scientists can provide crucial data to better understand insect population patterns and support evidence-based conservation actions.
…
Zac Sherratt’s April 30, 2025 article for the British Broadcasting Corporation’s (BBC) online news website offers little more information,
A survey tracking the “staggering” decline in insect numbers across the UK and Ireland has begun.
The Bugs Matter survey, led by Kent Wildlife Trust and invertebrate charity Buglife, runs from 1 May to 30 September each year and sees “citizen scientists” record the number of bug splats on their vehicle number plates after a journey.
…
Dr Ball [Dr. Lawrence Ball of Kent Wildlife Trust] said: “Without insects, the planet’s ecological systems would collapse so this huge decrease in insect splats over such a short time is really alarming.”
Bug splats declined 8% in 2024, following sharper drops of 44% in 2023 and 28% in 2022.
Dr Ball said the slowing rate of decline shows the curve may flatten or even reverse next year.
More than 25,000 journeys have been analysed as part of the survey since 2021.
There’s an interesting back story for IFLScience (which started life as as Facebook page titled, “I Fucking Love Science”). If you want to find out more about IFLScience’s origins and founder, there’s Elise Andrew’s Wikipedia entry.
Returning to the bugs, Dr. Russell Moul’s April 30 (?), 2025 article for IFLScience further highlights the plight of insects around the world, Note: Links have been removed,
Insect populations have been declining across the world at an alarming rate, but no one has been sure why. According to a new study, intense agricultural practices are at the top of the list of causes, but there are multiple interrelated factors that are all contributing to quickly killing off these vital creatures.
…
“Insects are fundamental to life on earth. They are really important pollinators, decomposers, and prey for birds, bats, reptiles, and other species”, Eliza Grames, Assistant Professor of Biological Sciences, told IFLScience.
“Insects pollinate around 80 percent of wild flowering plants, and 75 percent of agricultural crop species rely on insects for pollination. Without insects as decomposers, the earth would essentially be covered in manure. Cow manure takes 60 percent longer to deteriorate when insects are excluded from an area.”
…
But despite their importance, insect numbers are declining. In 2017, a devastating study demonstrated that there has been more than a 75 percent decline in insect populations over the last three decades. As a result, scientists have been seeking to identify the likely causes for this decline.
In order to understand which causes the scientific community has found so far, Grames and colleagues from Binghamton University examined some 175 scientific reviews, which contained over 500 hypothesized drivers behind the decline. This information allowed the team to create an interconnected network of 3,000 possible links, known as a meta-synthetic approach, which spanned everything from beekeeping and deforestation to urban sprawl and parasites.
…
Within this network of information, the team found that intensified agriculture was the most cited driver behind the mass die-off. This was linked to issues such as land-use change and insecticides. However, focusing solely on the most cited drivers is not the way to interpret this information. As the team note in their work, the results show how interconnected the drivers are, highlighting complex issues.
For example, the climate may be an important driver behind the decline, but there are aspects within that, such as extreme precipitation, fire, and temperature rises, which can then contribute to other drivers. It’s an extremely connected and synergistic network.
“The drivers of insect decline are really complex and there are many overlooked stressors that we should be thinking about and researching,” Grames told IFLScience.
…
If you have a little more time, you can find some interesting tidbits in Moul’s April 30 (?), 2025 article.
Here’s a link to and a citation for the recent meta-analysis/meta-synthesis mentioned in the article,
A February 6, 2025 news item on ScienceDaily announces an application that uses machine learning for insect identification,
A farmer notices an unfamiliar insect on a leaf.
Is this a pollinator? Or a pest? Good news at harvest time? Or bad? Need to be controlled? Or not?
That farmer can snap a picture, use a smartphone or computer to feed the photo into a web-based application called InsectNet and, with the help of machine learning technology, get back real-time information.
“The app identifies the insect and returns a prediction of its taxonomic classification and role in the ecosystem as a pest, predator, pollinator, parasitoid, decomposer, herbivore, indicator and invasive species,” said a scientific paper describing InsectNet recently published by the journal PNAS Nexus [PNAS stands for Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the US]. Iowa State University’s Baskar Ganapathysubramanian and Arti Singh are the corresponding authors.
InsectNet – which is backed by a dataset of 12 million insect images, including many collected by citizen-scientists – provides identification and predictions for more than 2,500 insect species at more than 96% accuracy. When the application isn’t sure about an insect, it says it is uncertain, giving users more confidence when it does provide answers.
And, because the application was built as a global-to-local model, it can be geographically fine-tuned using expert-verified local and regional datasets. That makes it useful to farmers everywhere.
So, beware, armyworms, cutworms, grasshoppers, stink bugs and all the other harmful insects. And, hello, butterflies, bees and all the other pollinators. Good to see you, lady beetles, mantises and all the other pest predators.
“We envision InsectNet to complement existing approaches, and be part of a growing suite of AI technologies for addressing agricultural challenges,” the authors wrote.
A village of researchers
InsectNet’s ability to be fine-tuned for specific regions or countries make it particularly useful, said Singh, an associate professor of agronomy.
In Iowa, for example, Singh said there are about 50 insect species particularly important to the state’s agricultural production. To identify and provide predictions about those insects, Singh said the project used about 500,000 insect images.
That could happen for farmers all over the globe. And wherever there isn’t sufficient data – these sophisticated models often require millions of images – for local fine-tuning, the global dataset is still available for farmers.
InsectNet isn’t just for farmers, though. Singh said it could also help agents at ports or border crossings identify invasive species. Or it could help researchers working on ecological studies.
So, the app is usable and flexible. But is it accessible?
You can’t go to an app store and download a version just yet, said Ganapathysubramanian, the Joseph and Elizabeth Anderlik Professor in Engineering and director of the AI Institute for Resilient Agriculture based at Iowa State. But the app is running on a server at Iowa State. With a QR code (see sidebar) or this URL (insectapp.las.iastate.edu/), users can upload insect pictures and get an identification and prediction.
This works throughout the stages of an insect’s life: from egg to larva to pupa to adult. It works with look-alike species. And it works with diverse image qualities and orientations.
The bottom line for any user is basic information about an insect: “Is this a pest?” Singh said. “Or is it a friend?”
Developers demonstrated the app during last August’s Farm Progress Show in Boone, Iowa. And now the research paper is introducing it to a broader, scientific audience.
But aren’t there already apps that help identify insects?
Yes, said Ganapathysubramanian, but they’re not to the scale of InsectNet and aren’t capable of global-to-local applications. And they’re also not open-source applications with technology that can be shared.
“Making InsectNet open source can encourage broader scientific efforts,” he said. “The scientific community can build on these efforts, rather than starting from scratch.”
The project also answered a lot of technical questions that could be applied to other projects, he said.
How much data is enough? Where can we get that much data? What can we do with noisy data?
How much computer power is necessary? How do we deal with so much data?
“Lastly, it takes a village of expertise to get to this point, right?” said Ganapathysubramanian.
It took agronomists and computer engineers and statisticians and data scientists and artificial intelligence specialists about two years to put InsectNet together and make it work.
“What we learned working with insects can be expanded to include weeds and plant diseases or any other related identification and classification problem in agriculture,” Singh said. “We’re very close to a one-stop shop for identifying all of these.”
The InsectNet project was supported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture (through the AI Institute for Resilient Agriculture), the National Science Foundation (through COALESCE: COntext Aware LEarning for Sustainable CybEr-Agricultural Systems), the NSF’s Smart and Connected Communities Program, the USDA’s Current Research Information System Project, and Iowa State’s Plant Sciences Institute.
Here’s a link to and a citation for the paper,
InsectNet: Real-time identification of insects using an end-to-end machine learning pipeline by Shivani Chiranjeevi, Mojdeh Saadati, Zi K Deng, Jayanth Koushik, Talukder Z Jubery, Daren S Mueller, Matthew O’Neal , Nirav Merchant , Aarti Singh , Asheesh K Singh , Soumik Sarkar , Arti Singh , Baskar Ganapathysubramanian. PNAS Nexus, Volume 4, Issue 1, January 2025, pgae575, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae575 Published: 27 December 2024
Pro-environmental behaviour increases among school students who participate in insect-related citizen science projects, according to new research from the University of Adelaide.
Students who participated in citizen science project Insect Investigators, which engages students in the discovery of new insects, not only expressed an intention to change their personal behaviour but also to encourage others to protect nature.
“As a result of their involvement in this program, students expressed intentions to further engage in insect–science–nature activities,” says the University of Adelaide’s Dr Erinn Fagan-Jeffries, who contributed to the study.
“In addition, teachers reported increased intentions to include insect-related topics in their teaching, which was positively associated with students’ own intentions for pro-environmental behaviour change.
“This suggests students’ response to the project influenced their teacher’s decision to include citizen science in their lessons.”
School-based citizen science projects facilitate authentic scientific interactions between research and educational institutions while exposing students to scientific processes.
“Teachers’ motivations for providing citizen science experiences to students was to create hands-on learning opportunities and to connect students with real science and scientists,” says Professor Patrick O’Connor AM, Director of the University’s School of Economics and Public Policy.
“Teachers reported interactions with researchers as invaluable. These interactions could take the form of in-person visits by team members, or even instructional videos and curriculum-linked teacher lesson plans.”
Incorporating insects into school-based citizen science projects can challenge widespread human misconceptions about insects and their roles in ecosystems, and foster human–insect connections.
“Given global concerns of rapid insect declines and the overarching biodiversity crisis, insect-focused, school-based citizen science projects can ultimately contribute towards equipping students with knowledge of, and actions to promote, insect conservation,” says lead author Dr Andy Howe, from the University of the Sunshine Coast.
“In Australia, approximately 33 per cent of insects are formally described, the remainder exist as ‘dark taxa’, to the detriment of environmental and biodiversity management initiatives.
“Encouraging more young people to engage in science not only engenders positive feelings in them towards the environment, it will also help to build the next generation of scientists who will fill in the vast knowledge gap that exists in the world of insects.”
Before getting to the link and citation, here’s an update on the Australian higher education ecosystem, from the March 24, 2025 version of the press release on EurekAlert ,
The University of Adelaide and the University of South Australia are joining forces to become Australia’s new major university – Adelaide University. Building on the strengths, legacies and resources of two leading universities, Adelaide University will deliver globally relevant research at scale, innovative, industry-informed teaching and an outstanding student experience. Adelaide University will open its doors in January 2026. Find out more on the Adelaide University website.
The University of British Columbia (UBC) issued an April 22, 2025 news release (also received via email) by Sachi Wickramasinghe announcing research on ‘parks for bugs’,
As the days get longer and gardeners plan their spring planting, research from the University of British Columbia offers some good news this Earth Day: small, simple changes to urban green spaces can make a big difference for pollinators. The study, published in Ecology Letters, found that reducing lawn mowing and creating pollinator meadows – think of them as ‘parks for bugs’– significantly boosts pollinator diversity, creating healthier and more resilient ecosystems.
A buzzing success
The three-year study, conducted in collaboration with the City of Vancouver’s pollinator meadows program, surveyed pollinators in 18 urban parks across Vancouver, comparing parks where meadows were planted and mowing was restricted with parks that remained as standard turfgrass lawns.
…
And while the tall grass caused a small stir among some neighbours, the results were striking: parks with meadows saw an immediate increase in pollinator species, with 21 to 47 more wild bee and hoverfly species compared to parks without meadows. The increase persisted over the three-year study period, suggesting that the meadow parks also support pollinators in the long run.
More than 100 species of wild bees and hoverflies were identified, with 35 of them only found in parks with meadows – including the Vancouver and Nevada bumble bee, some miner bees such as the Milwaukee miner bee, the red-faced miner bee and several species of hoverflies.
“Many people think of urban landscapes as poor environments for biodiversity, but our research shows that small actions can have a lasting impact,” said lead author Jens Ulrich, a PhD candidate in the faculty of land and food systems. “You don’t need a lot of space or resources to make a difference.”
Urban landscapes as pollinator havens
Unlike farmland, where large fields with monocrops can limit pollinator movement, urban areas are full of green spaces—gardens, parks, and even roadside boulevards—that can serve as pollinator refuges. The patchwork of small habitats allows species to move freely and settle into restored areas quickly.
The research highlights the importance of maintaining and expanding such efforts. Ongoing management, such as adding more native plants and controlling invasive species, can further strengthen pollinator communities.
The findings also offer practical guidance for city planners and community groups looking to enhance urban green spaces, and have already informed the City of Vancouver’s long-term planning—helping to establish pollinator meadows as a permanent option for parks and shaping future efforts to balance ecological function with aesthetic and cultural values.
“With so much land dedicated to lawns, there’s a major opportunity to rethink how we use these spaces,” said co-author Dr. Risa Sargent, an associate professor in the faculty of land and food systems. “Even small patches of insect-friendly meadows can provide critical resources for pollinators.”
Whether you have a backyard, balcony, or community garden plot, you can support pollinators with these simple steps:
Reduce mowing: Pollinators thrive in areas where flowers are allowed to bloom. Consider letting a section of your lawn grow longer or mowing less frequently.
Plant native flowering shrubs and trees: Perennial species like native chokecherry, Pacific ninebark, oceanspray, native hawthorn, red flowering currant, salal, red-osier dogwood, snowberry and vine maple are great choices for British Columbia’s Lower Mainland.
Create a diverse habitat: Incorporate a variety of plants that bloom at different times of the year to provide food from spring to fall.
Avoid pesticides: Many urban areas, including Vancouver, have already restricted pesticide use, but avoiding chemical treatments in your own garden can further protect pollinators.
Leave natural nesting sites: Many native bees nest in the ground or in plant stems. Keeping some bare soil or leaving flower stalks through winter can provide valuable shelter.
CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats) technology is often touted as being ‘precise’, which as far as I can tell, is not exactly the case (see my Nov. 28, 2018 posting about the CRISPR babies [scroll down about 30% of the way for the first hint that CRISPR isn’t]). So, it’s a bit odd to see the word ‘precise’ used as part of a new CRISPR-based technology’s name (from a January 8, 2019 news item on ScienceDaily,
Using the CRISPR gene editing tool, Nikolay Kandul, Omar Akbari and their colleagues at UC San Diego [UC is University of California] and UC Berkeley devised a method of altering key genes that control insect sex determination and fertility.
A description of the new “precision-guided sterile insect technique,” [emphasis mine] or pgSIT, is published Jan. 8 [2019] in the journal Nature Communications.
When pgSIT-derived eggs are introduced into targeted populations, the researchers report, only adult sterile males emerge, resulting in a novel, environmentally friendly and relatively low-cost method of controlling pest populations in the future.
“CRISPR technology has empowered our team to innovate a new, effective, species-specific, self-limiting, safe and scalable genetic population control technology with remarkable potential to be developed and utilized in a plethora of insect pests and disease vectors,” said Akbari, an assistant professor in UC San Diego’s Division of Biological Sciences. “In the future, we strongly believe this technology will be safely used in the field to suppress and even eradicate target species locally, thereby revolutionizing how insects are managed and controlled going forward.”
Since the 1930s, agricultural researchers have used select methods to release sterile male insects into the wild to control and eradicate pest populations. In the 1950s, a method using irradiated males was implemented in the United States to eliminate the pest species known as the New World Screwworm fly, which consumes animal flesh and causes extensive damage to livestock. Such radiation-based methods were later used in Mexico and parts of Central America and continue today.
Instead of radiation, the new pgSIT (precision-guided sterile insect technique), developed over the past year-and-a-half by Kandul and Akbari in the fruit fly Drosophila, uses CRISPR to simultaneously disrupt key genes that control female viability and male fertility in pest species. pgSIT, the researchers say, results in sterile male progeny with 100 percent efficiency. Because the targeted genes are common to a vast cross-section of insects, the researchers are confident the technology can be applied to a range of insects, including disease-spreading mosquitoes.
The researchers envision a system in which scientists genetically alter and produce eggs of a targeted pest species. The eggs are then shipped to a pest location virtually anywhere in the world, circumventing the need for a production facility on-site. Once the eggs are deployed at the pest location, the researchers say, the newly born sterile males will mate with females in the wild and be incapable of producing offspring, driving down the population.
“This is a novel twist of a very old technology,” said Kandul, an assistant project scientist in UC San Diego’s Division of Biological Sciences. “That novel twist makes it extremely portable from one species to another species to suppress populations of mosquitoes or agricultural pests, for example those that feed on valuable wine grapes.”
The new technology is distinct from continuously self-propagating “gene drive” systems that propagate genetic alterations from generation to generation. Instead, pgSIT is considered a “dead end” since male sterility effectively closes the door on future generations.
“The sterile insect technique is an environmentally safe and proven technology,” [emphasis mine] the researchers note in the paper. “We aimed to develop a novel, safe, controllable, non-invasive genetic CRISPR-based technology that could be transferred across species and implemented worldwide in the short-term to combat wild populations.”
With pgSIT proven in fruit flies, the scientists are hoping to develop the technology in Aedes aegypti, the mosquito species responsible for transmitting dengue fever, Zika, yellow fever and other diseases to millions of people.
“The extension of this work to other insect pests could prove to be a general and very useful strategy to deal with many vector-borne diseases that plague humanity and wreak havoc an agriculture globally,” said Suresh Subramani, global director of the Tata Institute for Genetics and Society.
I have one comment about the ‘safety’ of the sterile insect technique. It’s been safe up until now but, assuming this technique works as described: What happens as this new and more powerful technique is more widely deployed possibly eliminating whole species of insects? Might these ‘pests’ have a heretofore unknown beneficial effect somewhere in the food chain or in an ecosystem? Or, there may be other unintended consequences.
Moving on, here’s a link to and a citation for the paper,
The researchers have made this illustrative image available,
Caption: This is a schematic of the new precision-guided sterile insect technique (pgSIT), which uses components of the CRISPR/Cas9 system to disrupt key genes that control female viability and male fertility, resulting in sterile male progeny. Credit: Nikolay Kandul, Akbari Lab, UC San Diego
The annual live, week-long Festivals, which launched in New York in 2008, have collectively drawn over 2.9 million visitors worldwide, with millions more viewing the programs online. The World Science Festival’s original musical and theatrical works tour nationally and internationally, and March 2016 marked the launch of World Science Festival Brisbane. World Science U is the Foundation’s online education arm where students and lifelong learners can dive more deeply through artfully produced digital education content presented by world-renowned scientists.
…
I’ve arbitrarily selected three events but there are many more. I notice that several sessions have sold out. From the World Science Festival 2019 events page,
Light Falls: Space, Time, and an Obsession of Einstein Wednesday, May 22, 2019 7:00 pm – 8:30 pm Jazz at Lincoln Center’s Frederick P. Rose Hall May 2019 marks a pivotal milestone in human intellectual history: the 100th anniversary of astronomical observations that confirmed Albert Einstein’s new conception of space, time and gravity–his General Theory of Relativity. In celebration of this momentous achievement, join Brian Greene and an ensemble Broadway cast for Light Falls, an original work for the stage featuring wondrous, fully immersive projections and an original orchestral score, tracing the breakthrough moments, agonizing frustrations, and final emergence into the light as the world’s most intrepid scientific mind took on the universe. And won. Written by Brian Greene Music by Jeff Beal Design by 59 Productions Directed by Scott Faris Executive Producer Tracy Day Sponsored by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation with additional support from the John Templeton Foundation. NEW TICKETS JUST RELEASED! Learn More
CRISPR in Context: The New World of Human Genetic Engineering Tuesday, May 28, 2019 8:00 pm – 9:30 pm Gerald D. Fischbach Auditorium, Simons Foundation It’s happened. The first children genetically engineered with the powerful DNA-editing tool called CRISPR-Cas9 have been born to a woman in China. Their altered genes will be passed to their children, and their children’s children. Join CRISPR’s co-discoverer, microbiologist Jennifer Doudna, as we explore the perils and the promise of this powerful technology. It is not the first time human ingenuity has created something capable of doing us great good and great harm. Are we up to the challenge of guiding how CRISPR will shape the future? Seats are limited and will be made available to registered guests on a first-come, first-served basis. REGISTER NOW!
The Kavli Prize recognizes scientists for their seminal advances in astrophysics, nanoscience, and neuroscience. The series, “The Big, the Small, and the Complex,” is sponsored by The Kavli Foundation. Learn More
The Technology that Transforms Us Thursday, May 30, 2019 7:00 pm – 8:30 pm NYU Global Center, Grand Hall We make tools. It defines us. But since the first proto-human tied a stick to a stone, tools have also been making us. Join our panel of philosophers, anthropologists, and futurists as we examine our journey from the stone age to the computer age—seeking clues about who we are, and what we are becoming. Our smartphones have become veritable appendages. How long before we literally merge with our technology? Wearables, implantables, ingestible sensors, digital telepathy, and brain-computer interfaces are all on the horizon. Join us for a fascinating glimpse of a future that is closer than you think.
The Big Ideas Series is supported in part by the John Templeton Foundation. Learn More
This program is sold out. A small number of tickets will be available at the venue 30 minutes prior to the event on a first-come-first-served basis. CLICK HERE to join the waitlist and you’ll be alerted if tickets become available sooner. Sold Out
….
The Great Fish Count Saturday, June 1, 2019 10:00 am – 6:00 pm Great Fish Count Sites From Lemon Creek in Staten Island to the shores of the Bronx River, New York’s waterways are teeming with life — and it’s up to you to find it! Led by top marine scientists and biologists in 18 sites across New York’s five boroughs, Westchester, and New Jersey, the Great Fish Count gives attendees of all ages the chance to strap on a pair of waders, cast a net, and discover the underwater world in their own backyard.
This event is FREE and open to the public. RSVP not required, but encouraged. RSVP HERE!
Produced in partnership with the Lamont–Doherty Earth Observatory and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Supported by the Bezos Family Foundation. … Learn More
The Rotary Jet-Spinning manufacturing system was developed specifically as a therapeutic for the wounds of war. The dressings could be a good option for large wounds, such as burns, as well as smaller wounds on the face and hands, where preventing scarring is important. Illustration courtesy of Michael Rosnach/Harvard University
This image really gets the idea of regeneration across to the viewer while also informing you that this is medicine that comes from the military. A March 19,2018 news item on phys.org announces the work,
Researchers from the Harvard John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS) and the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering have developed new wound dressings that dramatically accelerate healing and improve tissue regeneration. The two different types of nanofiber dressings, described in separate papers, use naturally-occurring proteins in plants and animals to promote healing and regrow tissue.
Our fiber manufacturing system was developed specifically for the purpose of developing therapeutics for the wounds of war,” said Kit Parker, the Tarr Family Professor of Bioengineering and Applied Physics at SEAS and senior author of the research. “As a soldier in Afghanistan, I witnessed horrible wounds and, at times, the healing process for those wounds was a horror unto itself. This research is a years-long effort by many people on my team to help with these problems.”
Parker is also a Core Faculty Member of the Wyss Institute.
The most recent paper, published in Biomaterials, describes a wound dressing inspired by fetal tissue.
In the late 1970s, when scientists first started studying the wound-healing process early in development, they discovered something unexpected: Wounds incurred before the third trimester left no scars. This opened a range of possibilities for regenerative medicine. But for decades, researchers have struggled to replicate those unique properties of fetal skin.
Unlike adult skin, fetal skin has high levels of a protein called fibronectin, which assembles into the extracellular matrix and promotes cell binding and adhesion. Fibronectin has two structures: globular, which is found in blood, and fibrous, which is found in tissue. Even though fibrous fibronectin holds the most promise for wound healing, previous research focused on the globular structure, in part because manufacturing fibrous fibronectin was a major engineering challenge.
But Parker and his team are pioneers in the field of nanofiber engineering.
The researchers made fibrous fibronectin using a fiber-manufacturing platform called Rotary Jet-Spinning (RJS), developed by Parker’s Disease Biophysics Group. RJS works likes a cotton-candy machine — a liquid polymer solution, in this case globular fibronectin dissolved in a solvent, is loaded into a reservoir and pushed out through a tiny opening by centrifugal force as the device spins. As the solution leaves the reservoir, the solvent evaporates and the polymers solidify. The centrifugal force unfolds the globular protein into small, thin fibers. These fibers — less than one micrometer in diameter — can be collected to form a large-scale wound dressing or bandage.
“The dressing integrates into the wound and acts like an instructive scaffold, recruiting different stem cells that are relevant for regeneration and assisting in the healing process before being absorbed into the body,” said Christophe Chantre, a graduate student in the Disease Biophysics Group and first author of the paper.
In in vivo testing, the researchers found that wounds treated with the fibronectin dressing showed 84 percent tissue restoration within 20 days, compared with 55.6 percent restoration in wounds treated with a standard dressing.
The researchers also demonstrated that wounds treated with the fibronectin dressing had almost normal epidermal thickness and dermal architecture, and even regrew hair follicles — often considered one of the biggest challenges in the field of wound healing.
“This is an important step forward,” said Chantre. “Most work done on skin regeneration to date involves complex treatments combining scaffolds, cells, and even growth factors. Here we were able to demonstrate tissue repair and hair follicle regeneration using an entirely material approach. This has clear advantages for clinical translation.”
In another paper published in Advanced Healthcare Materials, the Disease Biophysics Group demonstrated a soy-based nanofiber that also enhances and promotes wound healing.
Soy protein contains both estrogen-like molecules — which have been shown to accelerate wound healing — and bioactive molecules similar to those that build and support human cells.
“Both the soy- and fibronectin-fiber technologies owe their success to keen observations in reproductive medicine,” said Parker. “During a woman’s cycle, when her estrogen levels go high, a cut will heal faster. If you do a surgery on a baby still in the womb, they have scar-less wound healing. Both of these new technologies are rooted in the most fascinating of all the topics in human biology — how we reproduce.”
In a similar way to fibronectin fibers, the research team used RJS to spin ultrathin soy fibers into wound dressings. In experiments, the soy- and cellulose-based dressing demonstrated a 72 percent increase in healing over wounds with no dressing and a 21 percent increase in healing over wounds dressed without soy protein.
“These findings show the great promise of soy-based nanofibers for wound healing,” said Seungkuk Ahn, a graduate student in the Disease Biophysics Group and first author of the paper. “These one-step, cost-effective scaffolds could be the next generation of regenerative dressings and push the envelope of nanofiber technology and the wound-care market.”
Both kinds of dressing, according to researchers, have advantages in the wound-healing space. The soy-based nanofibers — consisting of cellulose acetate and soy protein hydrolysate — are inexpensive, making them a good option for large-scale use, such as on burns. The fibronectin dressings, on the other hand, could be used for smaller wounds on the face and hands, where preventing scarring is important.
Here’s are links and citations for both papers mentioned in the news release,
Production-scale fibronectin nanofibers promote wound closure and tissue repair in a dermal mouse model by Christophe O. Chantre, Patrick H. Campbell, Holly M. Golecki, Adrian T. Buganza, Andrew K. Capulli, Leila F. Deravi, Stephanie Dauth, Sean P. Sheehy, Jeffrey A.Paten. KarlGledhill, Yanne S. Doucet, Hasan E.Abaci, Seungkuk Ahn, Benjamin D.Pope, Jeffrey W.Ruberti, Simon P.Hoerstrup, Angela M.Christiano, Kevin Kit Parker. Biomaterials Volume 166, June 2018, Pages 96-108 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2018.03.006 Available online 5 March 2018
Both papers are behind paywalls although you may want to check with ResearchGate where many researchers make their papers available for free.
One last comment, I noticed this at the end of Burrows’ news release,
The Harvard Office of Technology Development has protected the intellectual property relating to these projects and is exploring commercialization opportunities.
It reminded me of the patent battle between the Broad Institute (a Harvard University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology joint venture) and the University of California at Berkeley over CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats) technology. (My March 15, 2017 posting describes the battle’s outcome.)
Lest we forget, there could be major financial rewards from this work.
Not unexpectedly, CRISPR-Cas9 or clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats-CRISPR-associated protein 9 can be dangerous as these scientists note in a July 16, 2018 news item on phys.org,
Scientists at the Wellcome Sanger Institute have discovered that CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing can cause greater genetic damage in cells than was previously thought. These results create safety implications for gene therapies using CRISPR/Cas9 in the future as the unexpected damage could lead to dangerous changes in some cells.
Reported today (16 July 2018) in the journal Nature Biotechnology, the study also revealed that standard tests for detecting DNA changes miss finding this genetic damage, and that caution and specific testing will be required for any potential gene therapies.
This CRISPR-Cas9 image reminds me of popcorn,
CRISPR-associated protein Cas9 (white) from Staphylococcus aureus based on Protein Database ID 5AXW. Credit: Thomas Splettstoesser (Wikipedia, CC BY-SA 4.0)[ downloaded from https://phys.org/news/2018-07-genome-crisprcas9-gene-higher-thought.html#jCp]
CRISPR/Cas9 is one of the newest genome editing tools. It can alter sections of DNA in cells by cutting at specific points and introducing changes at that location. Already extensively used in scientific research, CRISPR/Cas9 has also been seen as a promising way to create potential genome editing treatments for diseases such as HIV, cancer or sickle cell disease. Such therapeutics could inactivate a disease-causing gene, or correct a genetic mutation. However, any potential treatments would have to prove that they were safe.
Previous research had not shown many unforeseen mutations from CRISPR/Cas9 in the DNA at the genome editing target site. To investigate this further the researchers carried out a full systematic study in both mouse and human cells and discovered that CRISPR/Cas9 frequently caused extensive mutations, but at a greater distance from the target site.
The researchers found many of the cells had large genetic rearrangements such as DNA deletions and insertions. These could lead to important genes being switched on or off, which could have major implications for CRISPR/Cas9 use in therapies. In addition, some of these changes were too far away from the target site to be seen with standard genotyping methods.
Prof Allan Bradley, corresponding author on the study from the Wellcome Sanger Institute, said: “This is the first systematic assessment of unexpected events resulting from CRISPR/Cas9 editing in therapeutically relevant cells, and we found that changes in the DNA have been seriously underestimated before now. It is important that anyone thinking of using this technology for gene therapy proceeds with caution, and looks very carefully to check for possible harmful effects.”
Michael Kosicki, the first author from the Wellcome Sanger Institute, said: “My initial experiment used CRISPR/Cas9 as a tool to study gene activity, however it became clear that something unexpected was happening. Once we realised the extent of the genetic rearrangements we studied it systematically, looking at different genes and different therapeutically relevant cell lines, and showed that the CRISPR/Cas9 effects held true.”
The work has implications for how CRISPR/Cas9 is used therapeutically and is likely to re-spark researchers’ interest in finding alternatives to the standard CRISPR/Cas9 method for gene editing.
Prof Maria Jasin, an independent researcher from Memorial Slone Kettering Cancer Centre, New York, who was not involved in the study said: “This study is the first to assess the repertoire of genomic damage arising at a CRISPR/Cas9 cleavage site. While it is not known if genomic sites in other cell lines will be affected in the same way, this study shows that further research and specific testing is needed before CRISPR/Cas9 is used clinically.”
For anyone who’d like to better understand the terms gene editing and CRISPR-Cas9, the Wellcome Sanger Institute provides these explanatory webpages, What is genome editing? and What is CRISPR-Cas9?
For the more advanced, here’s a link and a citation for the paper,
It seems this news has affected the CRISPR market. From a July 16, 2018 article by Cale Guthrie Weissman for Fast Company,
… CRISPR could unknowingly delete or alter non-targeted genes, which could lead to myriad unintended consequences. This is especially frightening, since the technology is going to be used in human clinical trials.
Meanwhile, other scientists working with CRISPR are trying to downplay the findings, telling STAT [a life sciences and business journalism website] that there have been no reported adverse effects similar to what the study describes. The news, however, has brought about a market reaction–at least three publicly traded companies that focus on CRISPR-based therapies are in stock nosedive. Crispr Therapeutics is down by over 6%; Editas fell by over 3%; and Intellia Therapeutics dropped by over 5%. [emphasis mine]
Damage control
Gaetan Burgio (geneticist, Australian National University) in a July 16, 2018 essay on phys.org (originating from The Conversation) suggests some calm (Note: Links have been removed),
…
But a new study has called into question the precision of the technique [CRISPR gene editing technology].
The hope for gene editing is that it will be able to cure and correct diseases. To date, many successes have been reported, including curing deafness in mice, and in altering cells to cure cancer.
Some 17 clinical trials in human patients are registered [emphasis mine] testing gene editing on leukaemias, brain cancers and sickle cell anaemia (where red blood cells are misshaped, causing them to die). Before implementing CRISPR technology in clinics to treat cancer or congenital disorders, we must address whether the technique is safe and accurate.
…
There are a few options for getting around this problem. One option is to isolate the cells we wish to edit from the body and reinject only the ones we know have been correctly edited.
For example, lymphocytes (white blood cells) that are crucial to killing cancer cells could be taken out of the body, then modified using CRISPR to heighten their cancer-killing properties. The DNA of these cells could be sequenced in detail, and only the cells accurately and specifically gene-modified would be selected and delivered back into the body to kill the cancer cells.
While this strategy is valid for cells we can isolate from the body, some cells, such as neurons and muscles, cannot be removed from the body. These types of cells might not be suitable for gene editing using Cas9 scissors.
Fortunately, researchers have discovered other forms of CRISPR systems that don’t require the DNA to be cut. Some CRISPR systems only cut the RNA, not the DNA (DNA contains genetic instructions, RNA convey the instructions on how to synthesise proteins).
As RNA [ribonucleic acid] remains in our cells only for a specific period of time before being degraded, this would allow us to control the timing and duration of the CRISPR system delivery and reverse it (so the scissors are only functional for a short period of time).
This was found to be successful for dementia in mice. Similarly, some CRISPR systems simply change the letters of the DNA, rather than cutting them. This was successful for specific mutations causing diseases such as hereditary deafness in mice.
I agree with Burgio’s conclusion (not included here) that we have a lot more to learn and I can’t help wondering why there are 17 registered human clinical trials at this point.
Patricia Piccinini’s Curious Imaginings Courtesy: Vancouver Biennale [downloaded from http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/vancouver-biennale-unsual-public-art-2018/]
Up to this point, I’ve been a little jealous of the Art/Sci Salon’s (Toronto, Canada) January 2018 workshops for artists and discussions about CRISPR ((clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats))/Cas9 and its social implications. (See my January 10, 2018 posting for more about the events.) Now, it seems Vancouver may be in line for its ‘own’ discussion about CRISPR and the implications of gene editing. The image you saw (above) represents one of the installations being hosted by the 2018 – 2020 edition of the Vancouver Biennale.
While this posting is mostly about the Biennale and Piccinini’s work, there is a ‘science’ subsection featuring the science of CRISPR and xenotransplantation. Getting back to the Biennale and Piccinini: A major public art event since 1988, the Vancouver Biennale has hosted over 91 outdoor sculptures and new media works by more than 78 participating artists from over 25 countries and from 4 continents.
Quickie description of the 2018 – 2020 Vancouver Biennale
The latest edition of the Vancouver Biennale was featured in a June 6, 2018 news item on the Daily Hive (Vancouver),
The Vancouver Biennale will be bringing new —and unusual— works of public art to the city beginning this June.
The theme for this season’s Vancouver Biennale exhibition is “re-IMAGE-n” and it kicks off on June 20 [2018] in Vanier Park with Saudi artist Ajlan Gharem’s Paradise Has Many Gates.
Gharem’s architectural chain-link sculpture resembles a traditional mosque, the piece is meant to challenge the notions of religious orthodoxy and encourages individuals to image a space free of Islamophobia.
…
Melbourne artist Patricia Piccinini’s Curious Imaginings is expected to be one of the most talked about installations of the exhibit. Her style of “oddly captivating, somewhat grotesque, human-animal hybrid creature” is meant to be shocking and thought-provoking.
Piccinini’s interactive [emphasis mine] experience will “challenge us to explore the social impacts of emerging biotechnology and our ethical limits in an age where genetic engineering and digital technologies are already pushing the boundaries of humanity.”
Piccinini’s work will be displayed in the 105-year-old Patricia Hotel in Vancouver’s Strathcona neighbourhood. The 90-day ticketed exhibition [emphasis mine] is scheduled to open this September [2018].
…
Given that this blog is focused on nanotechnology and other emerging technologies such as CRISPR, I’m focusing on Piccinini’s work and its art/science or sci-art status. This image from the GOMA Gallery where Piccinini’s ‘Curious Affection‘ installation is being shown from March 24 – Aug. 5, 2018 in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia may give you some sense of what one of her installations is like,
Courtesy: Queensland Art Gallery | Gallery of Modern Art (QAGOMA)
I spoke with Serena at the Vancouver Biennale office and asked about the ‘interactive’ aspect of Piccinini’s installation. She suggested the term ‘immersive’ as an alternative. In other words, you won’t be playing with the sculptures or pressing buttons and interacting with computer screens or robots. She also noted that the ticket prices have not been set yet and they are currently developing events focused on the issues raised by the installation. She knew that 2018 is the 200th anniversary of the publication of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein but I’m not sure how the Biennale folks plan (or don’t plan) to integrate any recognition of the novle’s impact on the discussions about ‘new’ technologies .They expect Piccinini will visit Vancouver. (Note 1: Piccinini’s work can also be seen in a group exhibition titled: Frankenstein’s Birthday Party at the Hosfselt Gallery in San Francisco (California, US) from June 23 – August 11, 2018. Note 2: I featured a number of international events commemorating the 200th anniversary of the publication of Mary Shelley’s novel, Frankenstein, in my Feb. 26, 2018 posting. Note 3: The term ‘Frankenfoods’ helped to shape the discussion of genetically modified organisms and food supply on this planet. It was a wildly successful campaign for activists affecting legislation in some areas of research. Scientists have not been as enthusiastic about the effects. My January 15, 2009 posting briefly traces a history of the term.)
The Biennale is also committed to presenting artwork at the cutting edge of discussion and in keeping with the STEAM (science, technology, engineering, arts, math[ematics]) approach to integrating the arts and sciences. In August [2018], Colombian/American visual artist Jessica Angel will present her monumental installation Dogethereum Bridge at Hinge Park in Olympic Village. Inspired by blockchain technology, the artwork’s design was created through the integration of scientific algorithms, new developments in technology, and the arts. This installation, which will serve as an immersive space and collaborative hub for artists and technologists, will host a series of activations with blockchain as the inspirational jumping-off point.
…
In what is expected to become one of North America’s most talked-about exhibitions of the year, Melbourne artist Patricia Piccinini’s Curious Imaginings will see the intersection of art, science, and ethics. For the first time in the Biennale’s fifteen years of creating transformative experiences, and in keeping with the 2018-2020 theme of “re-IMAGE-n,” the Biennale will explore art in unexpected places by exhibiting in unconventional interior spaces. The hyperrealist “world of oddly captivating, somewhat grotesque, human-animal hybrid creatures” will be the artist’s first exhibit in a non-museum setting, transforming a wing of the 105-year-old Patricia Hotel. Situated in Vancouver’s oldest neighbourbood of Strathcona, Piccinini’s interactive experience will “challenge us to explore the social impacts of emerging bio-technology and our ethical limits in an age where genetic engineering and digital technologies are already pushing the boundaries of humanity.” In this intimate hotel setting located in a neighborhood continually undergoing its own change, Curious Imaginings will empower visitors to personally consider questions posed by the exhibition, including the promises and consequences of genetic research and human interference. …
There are other pieces being presented at the Biennale but my special interest is in the art/sci pieces and, at this point, CRISPR.
Piccinini in more depth
You can find out more about Patricia Piccinini in her biography on the Vancouver Biennale website but I found this Char Larsson April 7, 2018 article for the Independent (UK) more informative (Note: A link has been removed),
Patricia Piccinini’s sculptures are deeply disquieting. Walking through Curious Affection, her new solo exhibition at Brisbane’s Gallery of Modern Art, is akin to entering a science laboratory full of DNA experiments. Made from silicone, fibreglass and even human hair, her sculptures are breathtakingly lifelike, however, we can’t be sure what life they are like. The artist creates an exuberant parallel universe where transgenic experiments flourish and human evolution has given way to genetic engineering and DNA splicing.
Curious Affection is a timely and welcome recognition of Piccinini’s enormous contribution to reaching back to the mid-1990s. Working across a variety of mediums including photography, video and drawing, she is perhaps best known for her hyperreal creations.
As a genre, hyperrealism depends on the skill of the artist to create the illusion of reality. To be truly successful, it must convince the spectator of its realness. Piccinini acknowledges this demand, but with a delightful twist. The excruciating attention to detail deliberately solicits our desire to look, only to generate unease, as her sculptures are imbued with a fascinating otherness. Part human, part animal, the works are uncannily familiar, but also alarmingly “other”.
…
Inspired by advances in genetically modified pigs to generate replacement organs for humans [also known as xenotransplantation], we are reminded that Piccinini has always been at the forefront of debates concerning the possibilities of science, technology and DNA cloning. She does so, however, with a warm affection and sense of humour, eschewing the hysterical anxiety frequently accompanying these scientific developments.
Beyond the astonishing level of detail achieved by working with silicon and fibreglass, there is an ethics at work here. Piccinini is asking us not to avert our gaze from the other, and in doing so, to develop empathy and understanding through the encounter.
I encourage anyone who’s interested to read Larsson’s entire piece (April 7, 2018 article).
According to her Wikipedia entry, Piccinini works in a variety of media including video, sound, sculpture, and more. She also has her own website.
Gene editing and xenotransplantation
Sarah Zhang’s June 8, 2018 article for The Atlantic provides a peek at the extraordinary degree of interest and competition in the field of gene editing and CRISPR ((clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats))/Cas9 research (Note: A link has been removed),
China Is Genetically Engineering Monkeys With Brain Disorders
Guoping Feng applied to college the first year that Chinese universities reopened after the Cultural Revolution. It was 1977, and more than a decade’s worth of students—5.7 million—sat for the entrance exams. Feng was the only one in his high school to get in. He was assigned—by chance, essentially—to medical school. Like most of his contemporaries with scientific ambitions, he soon set his sights on graduate studies in the United States. “China was really like 30 to 50 years behind,” he says. “There was no way to do cutting-edge research.” So in 1989, he left for Buffalo, New York, where for the first time he saw snow piled several feet high. He completed his Ph.D. in genetics at the State University of New York at Buffalo.
Feng is short and slim, with a monk-like placidity and a quick smile, and he now holds an endowed chair in neuroscience at MIT, where he focuses on the genetics of brain disorders. His 45-person lab is part of the McGovern Institute for Brain Research, which was established in 2000 with the promise of a $350 million donation, the largest ever received by the university. In short, his lab does not lack for much.
Yet Feng now travels to China several times a year, because there, he can pursue research he has not yet been able to carry out in the United States. [emphasis mine] …
…
Feng had organized a symposium at SIAT [Shenzhen Institutes of Advanced Technology], and he was not the only scientist who traveled all the way from the United States to attend: He invited several colleagues as symposium speakers, including a fellow MIT neuroscientist interested in tree shrews, a tiny mammal related to primates and native to southern China, and Chinese-born neuroscientists who study addiction at the University of Pittsburgh and SUNY Upstate Medical University. Like Feng, they had left China in the ’80s and ’90s, part of a wave of young scientists in search of better opportunities abroad. Also like Feng, they were back in China to pursue a type of cutting-edge research too expensive and too impractical—and maybe too ethically sensitive—in the United States.
Here’s what precipitated Feng’s work in China, (from Zhang’s article; Note: Links have been removed)
At MIT, Feng’s lab worked on genetically engineering a monkey species called marmosets, which are very small and genuinely bizarre-looking. They are cheaper to keep due to their size, but they are a relatively new lab animal, and they can be difficult to train on lab tasks. For this reason, Feng also wanted to study Shank3 on macaques in China. Scientists have been cataloging the social behavior of macaques for decades, making it an obvious model for studies of disorders like autism that have a strong social component. Macaques are also more closely related to humans than marmosets, making their brains a better stand-in for those of humans.
The process of genetically engineering a macaque is not trivial, even with the advanced tools of CRISPR. Researchers begin by dosing female monkeys with the same hormones used in human in vitro fertilization. They then collect and fertilize the eggs, and inject the resulting embryos with CRISPR proteins using a long, thin glass needle. Monkey embryos are far more sensitive than mice embryos, and can be affected by small changes in the pH of the injection or the concentration of CRISPR proteins. Only some of the embryos will have the desired mutation, and only some will survive once implanted in surrogate mothers. It takes dozens of eggs to get to just one live monkey, so making even a few knockout monkeys required the support of a large breeding colony.
The first Shank3 macaque was born in 2015. Four more soon followed, bringing the total to five.
To visit his research animals, Feng now has to fly 8,000 miles across 12 time zones. It would be a lot more convenient to carry out his macaque research in the United States, of course, but so far, he has not been able to.
He originally inquired about making Shank3 macaques at the New England Primate Research Center, one of eight national primate research centers then funded by the National Institutes of Health in partnership with a local institution (Harvard Medical School, in this case). The center was conveniently located in Southborough, Massachusetts, just 20 miles west of the MIT campus. But in 2013, Harvard decided to shutter the center.
The decision came as a shock to the research community, and it was widely interpreted as a sign of waning interest in primate research in the United States. While the national primate centers have been important hubs of research on HIV, Zika, Ebola, and other diseases, they have also come under intense public scrutiny. Animal-rights groups like the Humane Society of the United States have sent investigators to work undercover in the labs, and the media has reported on monkey deaths in grisly detail. Harvard officially made its decision to close for “financial” reasons. But the announcement also came after the high-profile deaths of four monkeys from improper handling between 2010 and 2012. The deaths sparked a backlash; demonstrators showed up at the gates. The university gave itself two years to wind down their primate work, officially closing the center in 2015.
“They screwed themselves,” Michael Halassa, the MIT neuroscientist who spoke at Feng’s symposium, told me in Shenzhen. Wei-Dong Yao, another one of the speakers, chimed in, noting that just two years later CRISPR has created a new wave of interest in primate research. Yao was one of the researchers at Harvard’s primate center before it closed; he now runs a lab at SUNY Upstate Medical University that uses genetically engineered mouse and human stem cells, and he had come to Shenzhen to talk about restarting his addiction research on primates.
Here’s comes the competition (from Zhang’s article; Note: Links have been removed),
While the U.S. government’s biomedical research budget has been largely flat, both national and local governments in China are eager to raise their international scientific profiles, and they are shoveling money into research. A long-rumored, government-sponsored China Brain Project is supposed to give neuroscience research, and primate models in particular, a big funding boost. Chinese scientists may command larger salaries, too: Thanks to funding from the Shenzhen local government, a new principal investigator returning from overseas can get 3 million yuan—almost half a million U.S. dollars—over his or her first five years. China is even finding success in attracting foreign researchers from top U.S. institutions like Yale.
…
In the past few years, China has seen a miniature explosion of genetic engineering in monkeys. In Kunming, Shanghai, and Guangzhou, scientists have created monkeys engineered to show signs of Parkinson’s, Duchenne muscular dystrophy, autism, and more. And Feng’s group is not even the only one in China to have created Shank3 monkeys. Another group—a collaboration primarily between researchers at Emory University and scientists in China—has done the same.
…
Chinese scientists’ enthusiasm for CRISPR also extends to studies of humans, which are moving much more quickly, and in some cases under less oversight, than in the West. The first studies to edit human embryos and first clinical trials for cancer therapies using CRISPR have all happened in China. [emphases mine]
Some ethical issues are also covered (from Zhang’s article),
Parents with severely epileptic children had asked him if it would be possible to study the condition in a monkey. Feng told them what he thought would be technically possible. “But I also said, ‘I’m not sure I want to generate a model like this,’” he recalled. Maybe if there were a drug to control the monkeys’ seizures, he said: “I cannot see them seizure all the time.”
But is it ethical, he continued, to let these babies die without doing anything? Is it ethical to generate thousands or millions of mutant mice for studies of brain disorders, even when you know they will not elucidate much about human conditions?
Primates should only be used if other models do not work, says Feng, and only if a clear path forward is identified. The first step in his work, he says, is to use the Shank3 monkeys to identify the changes the mutations cause in the brain. Then, researchers might use that information to find targets for drugs, which could be tested in the same monkeys. He’s talking with the Oregon National Primate Research Center about carrying out similar work in the United States. ….[Note: I have a three-part series about CRISPR and germline editing* in the US, precipitated by research coming out of Oregon, Part 1, which links to the other parts, is here.]
I touched on the topic of xenotransplanttaion in a commentary on a book about the science of the television series, Orphan Black in a January 31,2018 posting (Note: A chimera is what you use to incubate a ‘human’ organ for transplantation or, more accurately, xenotransplantation),
On the subject of chimeras, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) featured a January 26, 2017 article about the pig-human chimeras on its website along with a video,
The end
I am very excited to see Piccinini’s work come to Vancouver. There have been a number of wonderful art and art/science installations and discussions here but this is the first one (I believe) to tackle the emerging gene editing technologies and the issues they raise. (It also fits in rather nicely with the 200th anniversary of the publication of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein which continues to raise issues and stimulate discussion.)
In addition to the ethical issues raised in Zhang’s article, there are some other philosophical questions:
what does it mean to be human
if we are going to edit genes to create hybrid human/animals, what are they and how do they fit into our current animal/human schema
are you still human if you’ve had an organ transplant where the organ was incubated in a pig
There are also going to be legal issues. In addition to any questions about legal status, there are also fights about intellectual property such as the one involving Harvard & MIT’s [Massachusetts Institute of Technology] Broad Institute vs the University of California at Berkeley (March 15, 2017 posting)..
While I’m thrilled about the Piccinini installation, it should be noted the issues raised by other artworks hosted in this version of the Biennale are important. Happily, they have been broached here in Vancouver before and I suspect this will result in more nuanced ‘conversations’ than are possible when a ‘new’ issue is introduced.
Bravo 2018 – 2020 Vancouver Biennale!
* Germline editing is when your gene editing will affect subsequent generations as opposed to editing out a mutated gene for the lifetime of a single individual.
Art/sci and CRISPR links
This art/science posting may prove of some interest:
ARPICO (Society of Italian Researchers and Professionals in Western Canada) is hosting a talk on the topic of genetically modified food. Here’s more from their May 20, 2018 announcement (received via email),
Our third speaking event of the year has been scheduled for Monday, June 4th, 2018 at the Italian Cultural Centre – Museum & Art Gallery. Marie-Claude Fortin’s talk will discuss food systems derived from biotechnology (often referred to as GMO) and their comparison with traditional farming processes, both technical and ethical. You can read a summary of Marie-Claude Fortin’s lecture as well as her short professional biography at the bottom of this message.
Ahead of the speaking event, ARPICO will be holding its 2018 Annual General Meeting in the same location. We encourage everyone to participate in the AGM, have their say on ARPICO’s matters and possibly volunteer for the Board of Directors.
Genetically-Engineered Food: Facts, Ethical Considerations and World Hunger
In this lecture we will explore a part of our food system, which has received much press, but which consumers still misunderstand: food derived from biotechnology often referred to as genetically modified organisms. We will be learning about the types of plants and animals which are genetically engineered and part of our everyday food system and the reasons for which they have been transformed genetically. We will be looking at the issue from several different angles. You are encouraged to approach the topic with an open mind, and learn how the technology is being used. We will start by understanding the differences between traditional plant breeding, conventional plant breeding, transgenic technology and genome editing. The latter two processes are considered genetic engineering technologies but all of them constitute a continuum of techniques employed to improve domestic plants and animals. We will then go over the ethical paradigms related to genetically engineered food represented by the European and North American points of view. Finally, we will discuss the strengths and weaknesses associated with genetic engineering as a tool to solve world hunger.
Marie-Claude Fortin is a former Research Scientist with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Associate Editor with Crop Science Society of America, Board Member of the Soil and Water Conservation Society and Adjunct Professor at the University of British Columbia (UBC) and currently responsible for the shared research infrastructure portfolio at the UBC Vice-President Research & Innovation Office. Her main areas of research expertise are crop and soil sciences with special interests in measuring and modeling crop development and various processes on agricultural land: water and nitrogen fertilizer flow through the soil profile, emissions of greenhouse gases and soil physical properties. Her research shows that sustainable crop management practices result in soil environments, which are conducive to resilient crop production and organic matter buildup, which is the process of storing carbon in soils, a most important process in this era of climate change. For the past 18 years, Marie-Claude has been teaching food systems courses at UBC [University of British Columbia], emphasizing impacts of decisions made at the corporate, national and local levels on the economic, environmental and social sustainability of the food system, including impacts of organic and industrial agriculture and adoption of genetically engineered crops and animals, on farmers and consumers.
WHEN (AGM): Monday, June 4th, 2018 at 6:00pm (doors open at 5:50pm)
WHEN (EVENT): Monday, June 4th, 2018 at 7:00pm (doors open at 6:45pm)
WHERE: Italian Cultural Centre – Museum & Art Gallery – 3075 Slocan St, Vancouver, BC, V5M 3E4
Tickets are FREE, but all individuals are requested to obtain “free-admission” tickets on EventBrite site due to limited seating at the venue. Organizers need accurate registration numbers to manage wait lists and prepare name tags.
All ARPICO events are 100% staffed by volunteer organizers and helpers, however, room rental, stationery, and guest refreshments are costs incurred and underwritten by members of ARPICO. Therefore to be fair, all audience participants are asked to donate to the best of their ability at the door or via EventBrite to “help” defray costs of the event.
FAQs
Where can I contact the organizer with any questions? info@arpico.ca
Do I have to bring my printed ticket to the event? No, you do not. Your name will be on our Registration List at the Check-in Desk.
Is my registration/ticket transferrable? If you are unable to attend, another person may use your ticket. Please send us an email at info@arpico.ca of this substitution to correct our audience Registration List and to prepare guest name tags.
Can I update my registration information? Yes. If you have any questions, contact us at info@arpico.ca
I am having trouble using EventBrite and cannot reserve my ticket(s). Can someone at ARPICO help me with my ticket reservation? Of course, simply send your ticket request to us at info@arpico.ca so we help you.
Since the 2016 approval, AquAdvantage salmon, 4.5M tonnes has been sold in Canada according to an Aug. 8, 2017 article by Sima Shakeri for Huffington Post (Note: Links have been removed),
After decades of trying to get approval by in North America, genetically modified Atlantic salmon has been sold to consumers in Canada.
AquaBounty Technologies, an American company that produces the Atlantic salmon, confirmed it had sold 4.5 tonnes of the modified fish on August 4 [2017], the Scientific American reported.
The fish have been engineered with a growth hormone gene from Chinook salmon to grow faster than regular salmon and require less food. They take about 18 months to reach market size, which is much quicker than the 30 months or so for conventional salmon.
The Washington Post wrote AquaBounty’s salmon also contains a gene from the ocean pout that makes the salmon produce the growth hormone gene all-year-round.
The company produces the eggs in a facility in P.E.I., which is currently being expanded, and then they’re shipped to Panama where the fish are raised.
Health Canada assessed the AquAdvantage salmon and concluded it “did not pose a greater risk to human health than salmon currently available on the Canadian market,” and that it would have no impact on allergies nor a difference in nutritional value compared to other farmed salmon.
Because of that, the AquAdvantage product is not required to be specially labelled as genetically modified, and is up to the discretion of retailers.
…
As for gene editing, I don’t follow everything in that area of endeavour but I have (more or less) kept track of CRISPR ((clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeat). Just use CRISPR as the search term for the blog search function to find what’s here.
This looks to be a very interesting talk and good for ARPICO for tackling a ‘difficult’ topic. I hope they have a lively, convivial, and open discussion.
A new delivery system for introducing gene-editing technology into cells could help safely and efficiently correct disease-causing mutations in patients.
The system, developed by KAUST scientists, is the first to use sponge-like ensembles of metal ions and organic molecules to coat the molecular components of the precision DNA-editing technology known as CRISPR/Cas9, allowing efficient release of the genome-editing machinery inside the cell.
“This method presents an easy and economically feasible route to improve on the delivery problems that accompany RNA-based therapeutic approaches,” says Niveen Khashab, the associate professor of chemical sciences at KAUST who led the study. “This may permit such formulations to be eventually used for treating genetic diseases effectively in the future.”
CRISPR/Cas9 has a double delivery problem: For the gene-editing technology to work like a molecular Swiss Army knife, both a large protein (the Cas9 cutting enzyme) and a highly charged RNA component (the guide RNA used for DNA targeting) must each get from the outside of the cell into the cytoplasm and finally into the nucleus, all without getting trapped in the tiny intracellular bubbles that are known as endosomes.
To solve this problem, Khashab and her lab turned to a nano-sized type of porous material known as a zeolitic imidazolate framework, which forms a cage-like structure into which other molecules can be placed. The researchers encapsulated the Cas9 protein and guide RNA in this material and then introduced the resulting nanoparticles into hamster cells.
The encapsulated CRISPR-Cas9 constructs were not toxic to the cells. And because particles in the coating material become positively charged when absorbed into endosomes, they caused these membrane-bound bubbles to burst, freeing the CRISPR-Cas9 machinery to travel to the nucleus, home to the cell’s genome. There the gene-editing technology could get to work.
Using a guide RNA designed to target a gene that caused the cells to glow green under fluorescent light, Khashab and her team showed that they could reduce the expression of this gene by 37 percent over four days with their technology. “These cage-like structures are biocompatible and can be triggered on demand, making them smart options to overcome delivery problems of genetic materials and proteins,” says the study’s first author Shahad Alsaiari, a Ph.D. student in Khashab’s lab.
The researchers’ plan to test their system in human cells and in mice, and eventually, they hope, in clinical trials.
I guess if you’re going to use bacteria as part of your gene editing technology (CRISPR [clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats]/Cas9) then, you might half expect the body’s immune system may have developed some defenses. A Jan. 9, 2018 article by Sarah Zhang for The Atlantic provides some insight into what the new research suggests (Note: Links have been removed),
2018 is supposed to be the year of CRISPR in humans. The first U.S. and European clinical trials that test the gene-editing tool’s ability to treat diseases—such as sickle-cell anemia, beta thalassemia, and a type of inherited blindness—are slated to begin this year.
But the year has begun on a cautionary note. On Friday [January 5, 2018], Stanford researchers posted a preprint (which has not been peer reviewed) to the website biorXiv highlighting a potential obstacle to using CRISPR in humans: Many of us may already be immune to it. That’s because CRISPR actually comes from bacteria that often live on or infect humans, and we have built up immunity to the proteins from these bacteria over our lives.
…
Not all CRISPR therapies in humans will be doomed. “We don’t think this is the end of the story. This is the start of the story,” says Porteus [Matthew Porteus, a pediatrician and stem-cell researcher at Stanford]. There are likely ways around the problem of immunity to CRISPR proteins, and many of the early clinical trials appear to be designed around this problem.
Porteus and his colleagues focused on two versions of Cas9, the bacterial protein mostly commonly used in CRISPR gene editing. One comes from Staphylococcus aureus, which often harmlessly lives on skin but can sometimes causes staph infections, and another from Streptococcus pyogenes, which causes strep throat but can also become “flesh-eating bacteria” when it spreads to other parts of the body. So yeah, you want your immune system to be on guard against these bacteria.
The human immune system has a couple different ways of recognizing foreign proteins, and the team tested for both. First, they looked to see if people have molecules in their blood called antibodies that can specifically bind to Cas9. Among 34 people they tested, 79 percent had antibodies against the staph Cas9 and 65 percent against the strep Cas9.
The Stanford team only tested for preexisting immunity against Cas9, but anytime you inject a large bacterial protein into the human body, it can provoke an immune response. After all, that’s how the immune system learns to fight off bacteria it’s never seen before. (Preexisting immunity can make the response faster and more robust, though.)
…
The danger of the immune system turning on a patient’s body hangs over a lot of research into correcting genes. In the late 1990s and 2000s, research into gene therapy was derailed by the death of 18-year-old Jesse Gelsinger, who died from an immune reaction to the virus used to deliver the corrected gene. This is the worst-case scenario that the CRISPR world hopes to avoid.
Here’s a link to and a citation for the preprint,
Identification of Pre-Existing Adaptive Immunity to Cas9 Proteins in Humans by Carsten Trevor Charlesworth, Priyanka S Deshpande, Daniel P Dever, Beruh Dejene, Natalia Gomez-Ospina, Sruthi Mantri, Mara Pavel-Dinu, Joab Camarena, Kenneth I Weinberg, Matthew H Porteus. bioRxiv posted January 5, 2018 doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/243345
This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed …
This preprint (not yet published paper) is open access and open for feedback.
This year could be a defining one for CRISPR, the gene editing technique, which has been hailed as an important breakthrough in laboratory research. That’s because the first company-sponsored clinical studies will be conducted to see if it can help treat diseases in humans, according to an article in Chemical & Engineering News (C&EN), the weekly newsmagazine of the American Chemical Society.
C&EN Assistant Editor Ryan Cross reports that a big push is coming from industry, specifically from three companies that are each partly founded by one of the three inventors of the method. They are zeroing in on the blood diseases called sickle-cell anemia and β-thalassemia, mostly because their precise cause is known. In these diseases, hemoglobin doesn’t function properly, leading to severe health issues in some people. Crispr Therapeutics and Intellia Therapeutics plan to test the technique to boost levels of an alternative version of healthy hemoglobin. Editas Medicine, however, will also use CRISPR to correct mutations in the faulty hemoglobin gene. Labs led by university researchers are also joining the mix, starting or continuing clinical trials with the approach in 2018.
Because CRISPR is being used to cut a cell’s DNA and insert a new sequence, concerns have been raised about the potential for accidents. A cut in the wrong place could mean introducing a new mutation that could be benign — or cancerous. But according to proponents of the method, researchers are conducting extensive computer predictions and in vitro tests to help avoid this outcome.
The January 8, 2018 Chemical and Engineering News (C&EN) open access article by Ryan Cross is here.
Finally, if you are interested in how this affects research as it’s being developed, there’s University of British Columbia researcher Rosie Redfield’s January 16, 2018 posting on RRResearch blog,
Thursday’s [January 11, 2018] post described the hypothesis that bacteria might use gene transfer agent particles to inoculate other cells in the population with fragments of phage DNA, and outlined an experiment to test this. Now I’m realizing that I need to know a lot more about the kind of immunity I should expect to see if this GTA-as-vaccine hypothesis is correct.
That should give you some idea of what I meant by “research as it’s being developed.” Redfield’s blog is not for the mildly interested.
Redfield is well-known internationally as being one of the first to refute research which suggested the existence of an ‘arsenic bacterium’ (see my Dec. 8, 2010 posting: My apologies for arsenic blooper. She’s first mentioned in the second excerpt, second paragraph.) The affair was known online as #arseniclife. There’s a May 27, 2011 essay by Carl Zimmer on Slate titled: The Discovery of Arsenic-Based Twitter: How #arseniclife changed science.
