Category Archives: Genetic Engineering

Gene therapy and a range of biological research rely on the efficient delivery of nucleic acids into cells through the process known as transfection. Most widely-used transfection approaches for mammalian cells rely on electrostatic forces, usually taking advantage of cationic reagents to bind to negatively-charged nucleic acids and form strong ionic complexes. Cells then grab these complexes and internalize them through a process called endocytosis. However, the concentration of positive charge in the reagents can kill cells, and some cellssuch as embryonic cells, neurons, or cells directly isolated from tissuedont incorporate the nucleic acids successfully.

Now researchers report a novel transfection technique, SnapFect, that relies on bio-orthogonal moleculesa class of chemically-reactive molecules that dont interfere with biological systems (ACS Cent. Sci. 2017, DOI: 10.1021/acscentsci.7b00132). The team designed nanoparticle liposomes carrying a bio-orthogonal ligand. When they add those fatty particles to cell culture, they fuse into the cell membrane within seconds, leaving the ketone ligand exposed on the surface. The team then packages the nucleic acids to be delivered in complementary lipid complexes decorated with oxyamines. When the oxyamine particles are added to the cells, these functional groups react quickly with the cell surface ketones. The membrane-bound nucleic-acid complex is then pulled into the cell via endocytosis, and the nucleic acid can be expressed. Its not based on electrostatics but on click chemistry, says Muhammad N. Yousaf, a chemical biologist at York University. Thats why basically every cell is transfected with the nucleic acid.

Commercial transfection reagents already bring in about $1.5 billion per year. Yousafs team compared SnapFect to two widely-used kits: Lipofectamine (Life Technologies) and ViaFect (Promega). SnapFect transfected cells with a 68% overall efficiency while the other two transfected 19% and 29%, respectively.

Yousaf launched a company called OrganoLinX that this month began selling SnapFect ($350 for 20-25 transfections). We focused on making [the kit] just as easy to use as other commercial products out there, he says.

Besides improving efficiency, researchers could also pre-treat one batch of cells to decorate them with ketones and then mix them with other cell types before adding nucleic acids. Just the pre-treated ones will be transfected, Yousaf explains. Its like precision transfection. Because the team can create a variety of complexes using the oxyamine particles, the technique can also deliver other molecules such as proteins into cells.

I think its an interesting step forward, says James H. Eberwine, a molecular neurobiologist at the University of Pennsylvaniaparticularly the techniques universal applicability to DNA, RNA, and proteins, as well as the specificity conferred by the click chemistry approach.

Eberwine adds that while the study compares SnapFect to two widely-used techniques, researchers often optimize those techniques for their particular applications and achieve much higher efficiencies than those noted in this study. I would certainly try it, he says, and if it really does have the higher efficiency then I could see value in doing this.

Currently cell surface modification with ketones must occur shortly before addition of the oxyamine-bundled cargo. But SnapFect would be especially powerful if the ketone modification was more permanent, Eberwine says. That way, researchers could pre-engineer the surface of immature cells, then allow those cells to develop, migrate, and find their place in the local microenvironment of an experimental system before they get transfected. This would be a real boon, he says.

Go here to read the rest:
Genetic engineering through click chemistry - The Biological SCENE

Twenty years ago, proponents of genetic engineering promised that GMO foods would increase yields, reduce pesticides, produce nutritious foods and help feed the world. Today, those promises have fallen far short as the majority of GMO crops are engineered to withstand sprays of Roundup herbicide, which is increasingly documented as a risk to human health.

Now, new genetic engineering technologies such as synthetic biology and gene editing are being hailed with the same promises of revolutionizing food production, medicine, fuels, textiles and other areas.

But a closer look at this next generation or "GMOs 2.0" technologies reveals possibly even greater risks than existing GMO technology with possible human health risks and negative impacts on farming communities worldwide, among other unintended consequences. And while products developed using current genetic engineering methods are regulated by the U.S. government, GMOs 2.0 products are entering the market with few or no regulations.

Synthetic Biology: Extreme Genetic Engineering

While traditional genetic engineering involves inserting genes from one species into another, GMOs 2.0 technologies like synthetic biology aim to create life from scratch with computer-synthesized DNA.

"Genetic engineering has moved on from the first generation GMO crops," said Jim Thomas, program director at the ETC Group, a non-profit advocacy group that tracks the new GMO technologies. "There are different ways to genetically engineer an organism by creating synthetic DNA or editing DNA."

The ETC Group describes synthetic biology or "extreme genetic engineering" as "the design and construction of new biological parts, devices and systems that do not exist in the natural world and also the redesigning of existing biological systems to perform specific tasks."

"Synthetic biology is about synthesizing genetic sequences, designing them increasingly from scratch as if they were parts to put together in a particular way to get a predicted outcome," Thomas said.

The synthetic biology process involves altering the DNA of microorganisms such as algae, bacteria and yeast so they produce compounds like flavors and fragrances that previously have been extracted from plants. Scientists and software engineers are altering the DNA of existing microorganisms and designing new ones.

Synthetic biology companies are producing a wide range of compounds for food, pharmaceutical, fuel and industrial use. Evolva has created a synthetic biology form of vanillin, an alternative to natural vanilla extract. Perfect Day has engineered yeast cells to produce proteins similar to those found in cow's milk with the aim of producing vegan milk. Impossible Foods engineered heme, a molecule that makes meat sizzle and look pink for the company's meatless Impossible Burger. According to the ETC Group, there are some 350 synthetic biology products on the market or in development.

The claimed benefits of synthetic biology products such as flavors and fragrances are that they can be produced in greater and more consistent quantities and at lower prices than crop-based plant materials that are subject to climate conditions, crop failures and transportation logistics.

CRISPR Gene Editing

Another GMOs 2.0 technology is a gene editing method called CRISPR. This enables scientists to edit parts of the genome by removing, adding or altering sections of the DNA. The aim is to activate or deactivate genes to produce a desired effect. Proponents say CRISPR has the potential to treat illnesses that have a genetic basis such as cancer, sickle cell anemia, hepatitis B or high cholesterol.

GMO seed companies are using CRISPR to develop new plant varieties. Cibus used the technique to develop an herbicide tolerant canola. Pioneer Hi-Bred is developing waxy corn hybrids with high starch content for food and non-food uses. Monsanto recently announced it was licensing the CRISPR technology to develop new seed varieties.

Proponents say CRISPR is "the simplest, most versatile and precise method of genetic manipulation."

"It's a lot more precise in that it targets a specific gene in the genome where it exists while genetic engineering involves inserting a gene at random in the genome, which could disrupt the functioning of other genes," said Jim Orf, professor emeritus, plant breeding and genetics at the University of Minnesota.

But Thomas said scientists are seeing unintended effects using CRISPR. In fact he said "some scientists are intentionally not using CRISPR because of off-target effects." Orf also admitted that the technology is not "100 percent foolproof." Dr. J. Keith Joung of Massachusetts General Hospital said there is growing evidence that CRISPR might alter regions of the genome other than the intended ones.

Technology Risks

Causing unintended consequences is one of the problems with current genetic engineering methods, and these could be even worse with GMOs 2.0 technologies, particularly synthetic biology.

"You're not just adding one gene with all the implications of that. Here you are dealing with stretches of DNA that are invented on a computer. The level of novelty and the depth of intervention are much more significant."

Synthetic biology techniques could create secondary metabolites or molecules or different levels of compounds that could have negative impacts.

An underlying problem with the techniques is that they are based on an outdated premise of how biology and nature function.

"One of the dangers with synthetic biology is that it pretends that life is a linear, predictable system that you can engineer as if you can re-engineer a car or computer and that DNA is just a code," Thomas said, "But all those metaphors are falling apart in the biological sciences."

There are also social concerns. Companies like Evolva that make synthetic biology flavors like vanillin are hurting the market for natural vanilla produced by farming communities in Madagascar.

"These companies are trying to disrupt those markets and take that value," Thomas said. "If you can produce vanillin, then you will start affecting the supply chains and livelihoods of vanilla farmers."

Natural and Non-GMO Claims

Another problem is that some synthetic biology and gene editing companies are claiming that their products are natural or even non-GMO. Cibus calls its gene-edited canola "non-transgenic." Synthetic biology companies say that even though the production organism they create is a GMO, they claim the final ingredient is non-GMO.

"They'll argue that the (GMO) production organism is a just a processing aid," Thomas said. "That's a bit like saying a cow is a processing aid for making milk."

The Non-GMO Project also disagrees.

"There is a growing attempt on the part of biotechnology companies to claim that new types of genetic engineering, such as gene editing and synthetic biology, are not actually genetic engineering," said Megan Westgate, executive director of The Non-GMO Project. "To bring clarity in the face of this misleading trend, the Non-GMO Project has explicitly included these technologies in our Standard and cannot be used in a Non-GMO Project Verified product."

On the organic side, the National Organic Standards Board has proposed redefining genetic engineering in the National Organic Program to include GMOs 2.0 technologies, but the new definition hasn't yet been formally adopted.

No Regulation

There is virtually no regulation of GMOs 2.0 techniques in the U.S. The U.S. Department of Agriculture doesn't consider gene-edited crops such as Cibus's canola and Pioneer's waxy corn as falling under the agency's regulations for genetically engineered crops.

But Orf said the U.S. Department of Agriculture is deciding how GMOs 2.0 crops should be regulated. "They're reviewing their process to see if these crops should be regulated on a case-by-case basis or in a general way. These are different technologies doing things in a different way than transgenics."

Synthetic biology manufacturers are claiming their products such as vanillin are the same as the natural compounds and consider them to be "generally recognized as safe" or GRAS.

"Some companies are going to the Food and Drug Administration and saying 'we would like this to be GRAS' and the FDA is doing that," Thomas said.

Can GMOs 2.0 products be tested to detect their presence as current GMOs are?

"At this point, they are not developed, but they are developable," Thomas said.

"The companies will say their products can't be tested because they are the same as natural compounds. But if you talk with testing labs, they say they could develop a test. It is inevitable that tests will be developed because you have certifiers like the Non-GMO Project saying you can't use synthetic biology products."

See the rest here:
Next Generation of GMOs Escapes Regulation - EcoWatch

Nature Methods | Research Highlights | Methods in Brief

Nature Methods | Research Highlights

Nature Methods | Research Highlights

Synthetic biology

Weinberg, B.H. et al. Nat. Biotechnol. 35, 453462 (2017).

Reprogramming cells to perform desired tasks or computations is a long-standing goal in synthetic biology. Although tools are being developed at a fast pace, engineering biocomputation circuits with multiple inputs and outputs in mammalian cells remains technically challenging. Weinberg et al. sought to address this challenge by developing Boolean logic and arithmetic through DNA excision (BLADE). BLADE is a general framework that uses site-specific recombinases for engineering complex logic circuits. These recombinases are powerful because they can function simultaneously as transcriptional activators and repressors. The researchers designed and tested over 100 different circuits and found that 96.5% functioned as intended without any additional optimization. The circuits represent a broad range of designs and can control CRISPRCas9 to regulate endogenous gene expression.

Read more here:
Synthetic biology Engineering complex and robust genetic circuits - Nature.com

Will Shindel prepares for a gene-editing class using the CRISPR tool at a Brooklyn community lab called Genspace. Alan Yu/WHYY hide caption

Will Shindel prepares for a gene-editing class using the CRISPR tool at a Brooklyn community lab called Genspace.

On a Saturday afternoon, 10 students gather at Genspace, a community lab in Brooklyn, to learn how to edit genes.

There's a recent graduate with a master's in plant biology, a high school student who started a synthetic biology club, a medical student, an eighth grader, and someone who works in pharmaceutical advertising.

"This is so cool to learn about; I hadn't studied biology since like ninth grade," says Ruthie Nachmany, one of the class participants. She had studied anthropology, visual arts, and environmental studies in college, but is now a software engineer.

In the 1970s, personal computers emerged from labs and universities and became something each person could have. That made it possible for people like Nachmany to become a professional programmer despite not having studied it in school.

Some compare that democratization of personal computing in the '70s to the current changes in access to genetic engineering tools.

In 2015, the journal Science declared the gene editing tool CRISPR Cas9 the breakthrough of the year. It let scientists make changes in DNA of living cells easier and cheaper than before. Today, the CRISPR tool is no longer something that only researchers do in labs. You can take classes in gene editing at a community lab. You can buy a $150 kit to do it at home. Some middle schoolers are doing it in their science classes.

Genspace lab manager Will Shindel, who teaches the genome-editing class, says his students are usually professionals who want to learn a new career skill or curious everyday people. "They just know that it's this word that everybody's throwing around," Shindel says. "It's either going to lead to the singularity or the apocalypse."

Shindel, a biologist by training, is one of many people now dreaming about and starting synthetic biology projects using the CRISPR tool. With some friends, he is working on genetically engineering a spicy tomato. Some people are trying to make bacteria produce insulin. At Acera, an elementary and middle school in Massachusetts, 13-year-old Abby Pierce recently completed a CRISPR experiment, genetically modifying bacteria so that it could grow in an antibiotic that would have killed it otherwise.

Pierce's science teacher, Michael Hirsch, made the argument to get genetic engineering kits for his science students to experiment with in class. "It's going to take molecular bio out of the 'Oh man, cool, they do it in labs' to 'Wait, we can do this in our homes,' " Hirsch says. "We could do things like create pigments, and create flavor extracts, and all of these really nifty things safely and carefully in our kitchens."

New skill set

In fact, the University of Pennsylvania's Orkan Telhan argues, genetic engineering will become an increasingly important skill, like coding has been. Telhan is an associate professor of fine arts and emerging design practices and he worked with a biologist and an engineer on a desktop machine that allows anyone to do genetic engineering experiments, without needing a background in biology.

"Biology is the newest technology that people need to learn," Telhan says. "It's a new skill set everyone should learn because it changes the way you manufacture things, it changes the way we learn, store information, think about the world." As an example of a recent application, Telhan points to an Adidas shoe made from bioengineered fiber, inspired by spider silk.

The comparison between genetic engineering and computing is not new. Two years ago at a conference, MIT Media Lab Director Joi Ito gave a talk called "Why bio is the new digital":

Genspace Lab Manager Will Shindel mixes all the chemicals before class, so the students don't have to make calculations to dilute them during the class. Alan Yu/WHYY hide caption

Genspace Lab Manager Will Shindel mixes all the chemicals before class, so the students don't have to make calculations to dilute them during the class.

"You can now take all of the gene bricks, these little parts of genetic code, categorize them as if they were pieces of code, write software using a computer, stick them in a bacteria, reboot the bacteria and the bacteria just as with computers, usually does what you think it does."

'We need to dig deeper'

Gene editing tools have already started a debate about ethics and safety. Some scientists have warned about not just intentionally harmful uses, but also potential unintended consequences or dangerous mistakes in experimentation.

The German government in March sent out a warning about one kind of CRISPR kit, saying officials found potentially harmful bacteria on two kits they tested, though it's not clear how those bacteria got there. The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control responded with a statement earlier this month that the risk to people using these kits was low and asked EU member states to review their procedures around these kits.

Earlier, the German Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety also issued a reminder that depending on the kit, genetic-engineering laws still applied, and doing this work outside of a licensed facility with an expert supervisor could lead to a fine of up to 50,000 euros ($56,000).

In the U.S., then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper in early 2016 added genome editing to a list related to "weapons of mass destruction and proliferation." But bioengineering experts say overall, the U.S. government agencies have long been monitoring the gene-editing and the DIY bio movement "very proactive in understanding" the field, as Johns Hopkins University biosecurity fellow Justin Pahara puts it.

"There is a lot of effort going into understanding the scope of DIY biology, who can do it, what can be done, what are some of the concerns, how do we mitigate risk," says Pahara, who is also a co-founder of bioengineering-kit company Amino Labs. He says DIY bio, or biohacking, poses little security concern for now, being at a very early stage.

"I would suggest that just all of these discussions, including looking into the past at computing and other technologies, [have] really helped us understand that we need to dig deeper," he says.

More variables

As much as the gene-engineering revolution is being compared to the PC revolution before it, bacteria are not as predictable as computers, says Kristala Prather, associate professor of chemical engineering at MIT. Her team studies how to engineer bacteria so they produce chemicals that can be used for fuel, medications and other things.

"I have a first-year graduate student ... who was lamenting the fact that even though she has cloned genes many times before, it's taking her a little while to get things to work well at my lab," Prather says. "And my response to her is that the same is true for about 80 percent of students who come into my group."

Prather explains that engineering bacteria isn't quite like coding because many more variables are at play.

"One of the common mistakes that people make it to assume all water is just water. The water that comes out of the tap in Cambridge is different than the water that comes out of the tap in New York," she says. "So there are very small things like that that can turn out to make a significant difference."

But Prather who remembers writing programs on a Commodore 64 computer as a 13-year-old is nonetheless excited about the prospect of more people learning about genetic engineering through kits and classes: She says even if all this access does right now is get more people excited about becoming scientists, it's still really valuable.

Alan Yu reports for WHYY's health and science show, The Pulse. This story originally appeared on an episode of its podcast called Do It Yourself.

Excerpt from:
How A Gene Editing Tool Went From Labs To A Middle-School Classroom - NPR

Updated 3 hours ago

A theory to solve the nation's ever-worsening bee decline through genetic engineering has Western Pennsylvania beekeepers split about whether it will work.

We have to start working with bees that are locally adapted to the areas we keep them, explained Dwight Wells, 77, a founding member of the Heartland Honeybee Breeders Cooperative and president of the West Central Ohio Beekeepers Association who was a guest speaker at a weekend seminar in Beaver County. Beekeepers have got to understand their bees like farmers understand their crops and cows and pigs. Farmers are careful on the genetics they have in herds and fields big-time. They're looking for proper genetics.

Beekeepers have to start thinking along the same line and start calling themselves bee farmers.

Wells has worked with Purdue University geneticists since 2013 to improve the genetics of honeybees by mating them with queen bees that have adapted to chew off the legs of Varroa mites, also known as Purdue ankle biters. The parasites have long been blamed for honeybee loss because they transmit deadly diseases.

Wells said there are many theories that attempt to explain the mysterious colony collapse disorder, which surfaced in 2006. But he is convinced the main problem is linked to the Varroa mite and malnourished bees a problem he believes is solvable by combining the genetics of mite-resistant bees with Southern, commercial bees that are not fully adapted to surviving harsh winters.

Al Fine, owner of Fine Family Apiary, is not sure the project will work in the long run.

Fine, who keeps about 130 colonies at farms and backyards throughout Allegheny, Washington and Westmoreland counties, lost about 60 percent of his honey bees this winter.

Beekeepers can't afford not to treat for mites because we have to treat them to keep business going, Fine said.

He makes money by selling bees and honey and by renting out colonies to farmers. Business suffers when bees die off in winter, so Fine said he has a vested interest in keeping his bees alive.

To replenish his stock, he buys packages from large-scale commercial beekeepers in Georgia.

You like your strawberries I like blueberries and squash is really good, and people like zucchini, Fine said. Bees are always going to be moved.

According to the Atlanta-based American Beekeeping Federation, bees contribute nearly $20 billion to the country's agriculture industry by pollinating everything from apples to cranberries, melons and broccoli. Crops such as blueberries and cherries are almost entirely dependent on bee pollination. Almonds are entirely dependent on their pollination.

An estimated two-thirds of the country's 2.7 million bee colonies are transported to different farms across the nation throughout the year, ABF reports.

To keep his bees alive, Fine usually sprays them with an organic pesticide twice a year. The spray, he said, burns Varroa mites with naturally occurring acids. This year, however, he plans on using three or four treatments.

But Wells' genetic improving program is not necessarily targeting large beekeeping operations, which typically move bees long distances, said John Yakim, president of the Beaver Valley Area Beekeepers Association. He thinks the program would work if hobbyists who own five to 10 hives, like himself, introduced Purdue ankle biters to the region.

Yakim met Wells at a Pennsylvania State Beekeepers Association seminar in November 2014. Since then, he said he has been learning about the practice and wants others to be exposed to it as well.

BVABA hosted its Queen Raising Seminar on Friday and Saturday in Baden. Participants received unmated queen bees that Yakim and Wells hope mate with local drones.

This is designed for small-scale hobbyist and sideliners, Yakim said of the genetic improving program.

But that doesn't mean he thinks the program couldn't potentially work for large-scale beekeeping operations.

I don't see why not, even for producers with 10,000 colonies. The underlying science isn't going to change, he said.

The science lies in combining the genes of climate survivability and Varroa mite resistance, Wells said.

The problem with bees bought by beekeepers is that most of them are adapted to live in warmer climates, such as Georgia and Florida, where most commercial stock is produced, Wells said.

Beekeepers have been relying on chemicals since the 1980s to treat for mites. But mites develop resistance. And now they're running out of chemicals, Wells said. The smart ones are understanding they got to start developing their own stocks in order to kill mite spells. They're in trouble, and they realize it.

Dillon Carr is a Tribune-Review staff writer. Reach him at 724-850-1298, dcarr@tribweb.com or via Twitter @dillonswriting.

Dan Speicher | Tribune-Review

Al Fine, owner of Fine Family Apiary, inspects his bee hives, at Triple B Farms in Monongehala, on Wednesday, May 17, 2017.

Dan Speicher | Tribune-Review

The queen bee, marked with a yellow dot, can be seen inside an observation hut Al Fine, at Triple B Farms in Monongehala, on Wednesday, May 17, 2017. Fine

Dan Speicher | Tribune-Review

Al Fine, owner of Fine Family Apiary, lights a ball of cardboard for his smoker, before he inspects his bee hives, at Triple B Farms in Monongehala, on Wednesday, May 17, 2017. The Smoke is believed to mask the bees alarm pheromones, which blocks the bees ability to raise the alarm of an intruder.

Dan Speicher | Tribune-Review

Al Fine, owner of Fine Family Apiary, removes the cover of a beehive, before inspecting the hive after recently introducing a new queen, at Triple B Farms in Monongehala, on Wednesday, May 17, 2017.

Dan Speicher | Tribune-Review

Al Fine, owner of Fine Family Apiary, removes the cover of a beehive, before inspecting the hive after recently introducing a new queen, at Triple B Farms in Monongehala, on Wednesday, May 17, 2017. The Smoke is believed to mask the bees alarm pheromones, which blocks the bees ability to raise the alarm of an intruder.

Dan Speicher | Tribune-Review

Al Fine, owner of Fine Family Apiary, searches for a newly introduced queen, while inspecting his bee hives at Triple B Farms in Monongehala, on Wednesday, May 17, 2017.

Dan Speicher | Tribune-Review

Al Fine, owner of Fine Family Apiary, inspects his bee hives, at Triple B Farms in Monongehala, on Wednesday, May 17, 2017.

Dan Speicher | Tribune-Review

The dark bodied queen bee, crawls around a frame, as Al Fine, owner of Fine Family Apiary, inspects his bee hives, at Triple B Farms in Monongehala, on Wednesday, May 17, 2017.

Dan Speicher | Tribune-Review

Honey bees, owned by Al Fine, owner of Fine Family Apiary, stand at the uncovered entrance to the bee hives, at Triple B Farms in Monongehala, on Wednesday, May 17, 2017. Fine

Dan Speicher | Tribune-Review

Al Fine, owner of Fine Family Apiary, inspects his bee hives, at Triple B Farms in Monongehala, on Wednesday, May 17, 2017.

Dan Speicher | Tribune-Review

Al Fine, owner of Fine Family Apiary, takes a break while inspecting his bee hives, at Triple B Farms in Monongehala, on Wednesday, May 17, 2017. Fine

Dan Speicher | Tribune-Review

Al Fine, owner of Fine Family Apiary, poses for a portrait in his bee keeper suit, at Triple B Farms in Monongehala, on Wednesday, May 17, 2017.

Continue reading here:
Western Pennsylvania beekeepers abuzz on genetic engineering - Tribune-Review

Asheville-based director and producerJeremy Seiferts 2013 documentary film GMO, OMG highlighteda major concern about the manipulation of the food supply the belief that genetically modified organisms are dangerous.

In 2015, Mountain Xpress reported how local restaurants were seeing an increased demand for non-GMO foods. Until aGMO labeling bill was signed into law in July 2016, locals likeThe Market Placechef and ownerWilliam Dissenwere vocal, not so much about the dangers of GMOs, but about the importance of transparency when it comes to genetic engineering in our foods.

On Saturday, May 20, GMO Free NC will host the sixth annual March Against Monsanto, an Asheville public protest that organizers say aims to raise awareness of the dangers of genetically modified organisms to our food, to our health, our childrens health and that of all living things on the planet.

Even theNational Academy of Sciences,the agency responsible for releasingthe comprehensive May 2016 reportthat found no evidence that foods derived from genetically engineered (GE) crops were unsafe to eat, noted that it is clear that the proportion of Americans who believe that foods derived from GE crops pose a serious health hazard to consumers has steadily increased, from 27 percent in 1999 to 48 percent in 2013.

This trend pits those who are skeptical of genetic engineering against those who, alongside agencies like the Food and Drug Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Agriculture and National Academy of Sciences, believe that genetic engineering is not only safe but has the potential to be a powerful tool for food production in the future.

Simply speaking, genetic engineering is a process whereby genes can be moved within a species or from one species to another, saysJack Britt, an Asheville-based scientist, consultant and agricultural professor of nearly 40 years at institutions like N.C. State University and the University of Tennessee. All of us have genes or pieces of genes that came from other species. Some have been introduced by viruses and bacteria, and some have been spread by biting insects and the organisms they inject into us when they bite.In the 1960s, scientists discovered how to excise and insert DNA (genes). The methods used by scientists are the same as those used by bacteria and viruses to move genes around among species, except that scientists do this more precisely than bacteria and viruses.

Essentially, the idea is that genetic engineering is simply a more efficient means of doing something that nature has always been doing since the dawn of time improving species through natural selection. We now know that nature has created many GMO crops over millions of years. The same organism that is used by scientists to move genes into corn, soybeans, papaya, canola, alfalfa and other GMO crops has been moving genes across species naturally for a long time. When the sweet potato genome was sequenced a few years ago, it was discovered that it was a true GMO crop and that the same organism has left its footprint in the sweet potato thousands of years ago.

WHAT GMO Free NC hosts the sixth annual March Against Monsanto. The march is kid- and pet-friendly. Participants are encouraged to wear earthy colors and/or creative costumes.

WHERE Downtown, starting and ending atthe Vance Monument

WHENSaturday, May 20 Rally begins at 11 a.m., march begins at noon. Rain or shine.

DETAILS Visit the events Facebook page at avl.mx/3pv for updates, including informationabout a sign-making circle planned for 4 p.m. Thursday, May 18, at The Block Off Biltmore.

Rather than improving species through whats essentially rolling the dice, genetically speaking, genetic engineering is much more targeted. With GMOs, there may be one gene altered. Yourenot changing a host of genes. Its very deliberate and very direct. Its not like taking a Schnauzer and breeding it with a St. Bernard and seeing what were going to get, saysLeah McGrath, corporate supermarket dietitian for Ingles Markets.

The use of GMOs and genetic engineering is also more prevalent than many people realize. Insulin is a GMO, so everyone who is a Type 1 diabetic relies on a product of genetic engineering, says McGrath.

Genetic engineering is used widely in processing and manufacturing of thousands of products that we all use every day, says Britt. Many cosmetic, health and other products are produced in fermentation vats using genetically modified E. coli.The technology that is used to produce GMO crops is used to make hundreds of products such as cold-water detergents, bread preservatives, many over-the-counter products and many pharmaceuticals.

Despite the widespread use of GMO-based products, many of the foods grown today fall outside the realm of what is considered genetically modified. Remember that there are no tomatoes, cucumbers, lettuces, kale, collards andmany other vegetables that are genetically engineered, saysFred Gould, N.C. State professor and chair of the National Academy of Sciences committee on GE crops. So unless your farm is focused on commodity row crops, you probably dont even have access to engineered crops.

The current list of GE foods on the market includes corn, soybeans, cotton, Innate Potatoes, papaya,squash, canola, alfalfa, arctic apples, sugar beets and AquaBounty salmon, according to a report frombestfoodfacts.org.

The number of GMO crops out on the market is limited by the regulatory process theyre subjected to.It can actually take almost 20 years to bring a GMO product to market. There are trials upon trials beforethat can happen, says McGrath. Britt agrees, noting that GMO crops are under much more control by FDA, EPA and USDA than any other farm products.

McGrath says its important for consumers to understand which GMO foods are in circulation so theres no risk of being exploited by unfounded, fear-based marketing. When you have small grocery stores, even here in Asheville, that put out adsshowing a tomato or strawberry with a syringe in it, implying that those products are GM, its important to understand that there arent actually any GMO strawberries or tomatoeson the market, says McGrath.

Despite the fact that every national scientific and medical agency in the world has declared that GMO foods are safe, according to Britt, many people are still concerned and skeptical.

According to a recentvideo released byKurzgesagtvia YouTube, there are several common objections to genetic engineering, including gene flow (the concept that GM crops can mix with traditional crops and introduce unwanted new traits into them), the use of terminator seeds (which are essentially seeds that produce sterile plants, requiring farmers to buy new seeds every year) and the use of chemical pesticides and herbicides, like the weed-killing herbicide glyphosate.

The use of pesticides and herbicides especially causes alarm among vocal critics in Asheville.

Philosophically and ethically, I believe that you are what you eat, and I do my best to source and cook ingredients that are local, sustainable and healthy. For me, the conversation about GE and healthy eating is the use of herbicides and pesticides in our food, says Dissen.

Agricultural communities suffer the greatest and most obvious effects of the ever-increasing amount of poison being sprayed, saysChris Smith, community coordinator at Asheville-basedSow True Seed. Glyphosate is showing up in groundwater. Studies show effects on beneficial insects and pollinators, not least because of the killing off of plants like milkweed, the preferred food of monarch butterflies. More emerging studies are linking health issues to people who get drift from aerial spraying. And that isnt to mention the real threat to the biodiversity of food and other crops in nearby fields, says Smith.

AnneandAaron Grierrun the 70-acreGaining Ground Farm in Leicester and have been selling vegetables in Asheville since 1999. We currently grow 14acres of vegetables on land that we lease from immediate family. We do actively avoid GMO seed in our vegetable production. We actively avoid buying non-GMO seed from companies that also produce and sell GMO seeds. We worry about GMOs unintended impacts on insects and increased usage of herbicide in Roundup Ready-type applications, say the Griers.

Britt seemsless concerned than Dissen, Smith and the Griers about the use of chemicals like glyphosate. The primary advantage of GMO corn and other GMO crops is that they simplify control of weeds and control of insect damage to crops, says Britt. In general, weeds are now typically controlled by a single herbicide (glyphosate) rather than multiple herbicides, and the GMO plants often include a BT toxin that kills insects that feed on plants.

When Britt refers to weeds controlled by glyphosate, he is referring togenetically modified herbicide-resistant crops (think Roundup Ready), which have been engineered to survive exposure to glyphosate, the chemical (found in Roundup spray)known to kill weeds. The BT that Britt references is a gene borrowed from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, which allows engineered plants to produce a protein that destroys the digestive systems of specified insect pests. So basically, the plant makes its own pesticide, and insects that eat it will die.

Butare BT toxins bredinto crops something to worry about? Unlike many pesticides, the BT toxin is not active in humans. The bacteria that produces the BT toxin is used by organic farmers to control pests in their organic crops. It is a natural product, says Britt.

Britt counters concerns about the overall use of pesticidesby noting that now we spray much less than previously, and pesticide use in the U.S. has declined significantly over the last two decades. According to worldwide statistics, the U.S. now ranks around 43rd in the world in amount of pesticide used per acre of arable farmland. Fertilizer use has also declined, and we rank about 62nd in the world in fertilizer use per acre.

For Gould, some objections to the current use of GE technology may be valid, but not those regarding the health or safety for humans and the environment. The overall data doesnt show that GMOs themselves cause human and environmental safety problems, says Gould. If you are against GMOs for ethical and societal reasons, I think its best to express your opposition in those terms instead of health and environmental terms.

Laura Lengnick, professor of sustainable agriculture at Warren Wilson College and author of the bookResilient Agriculture, says: GE technology may be a useful tool in climate change adaptation, but not as it is used today. In general, GE technology is a great example of the overemphasis on technological solutions to food production challenges that characterizes industrial agricultural.

Britt disagrees.The first GMO on the market was Roundup-resistant corn, and that was really designed so that Monsanto could sell more Roundup. Now, while it definitely makes planting and growing corn simpler for the farmer, the company was primarilyfocused on selling more Roundup. So, ultimately, that was a product that made a lot of money for [Monsanto], farmers liked it, but itwasnt necessarily a great step forward in terms of producing food more efficiently or meeting needs any better, except for maybe reducing the overall use of pesticides, says Britt.

For Anne and Aaron Grier of Gaining Ground Farm, everyday shoppers carry a responsibility when it comes to farmers buying seed from companies like Monsanto.We think that most of the responsibility rests with the consumer making decisions with their dollar. If consumers quit buying products that contained GMO crops, farmers would quit using GMO seeds, say the Griers.

Companies like Monsanto are for-profit corporations with shareholders and board members to satisfy. Thus, consumer and agricultural concerns may be secondary to generating profits. This isnt to imply that these companies are malicious or nefarious, however,but rather a reminder that profits are a top priority for many companies. Which company does not have an intention tomake profit? Britt asks.

Britt says the GMO technologies were using today arent particularly enhancing the state of agriculture, as they have the potential to, but believes there is reason to be optimistic about the future of GE. I think the long-term advantages of genetic engineering or gene editing is for things like drought resistance and salt tolerance, he says. Could you grow plants in salty water? If we could do that, we wouldnt have to worry about irrigation water.

Britt also believes GMOs may soon be a thing of the past. My guess is that GMO will soon be replaced by gene-editing, he says. Its quicker, easier to do and has a precision that is exceptionally high. With gene-editing, a specific gene is excised or cut from the DNA, and its replacement is inserted in the space that was cut out. Often the replaced gene is a slightly different version of the one that was cut out and often leads to improved health or some other benefit to the plant or animal.

With growing concerns around global population growth and impending climate change, there is certainly reason to move forward with research and development of potentially effective GE technologies. I dont think you can draw a line in the sand and just say no to GE, says McGrath. I think we have to realize that we need tohave these tools in our toolbox and dont have the luxury of taking anything off the plate.

Those critical of GE maintain that we need to proceed with caution, however. Could publicly funded altruistic application of certain types of biotech help us in the future? Smith asks. Quite possibly. Will biotech be a golden wand that solves all our problems? Extremely unlikely. We need big system changes, which means human behavior needs to change and that relies on the most complex tool we have at our disposal: our brains.

Read the original here:
Facts, fears and the future of food: Asheville talks about genetic engineering - Mountain Xpress

Myrtle Beach Sun News

Why does it matter if food is grown organically? Myrtle Beach Sun News About two thirds of the processed and packaged food on the supermarket shelves contains genetically engineered products. That may be in the form of oils, sweeteners, soy protein, amino acids, vitamin C and other such ingredients. Genetic engineering ...

Go here to see the original:
Why does it matter if food is grown organically? - Myrtle Beach Sun News

The environment ministry in India will make the final call after the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee recently gave a positive recommendation for the commercial cultivation of GM mustard. Whether the crop is commercially cultivated could depend on the Supreme Court, which is hearing a case seeking a moratorium on its commercial release. The government has stated it will abide by the courts decision (although that remains to be seen and some question the courts impartiality). The final hearing will probably take place in July. The casebefore the Supreme Court was brought by Aruna Rodrigues who accuses various officials and the regulatory authorities of unremitting fraud and regulatory delinquency.

The importance of GM mustard should not be underestimated. It is central to the whole debate about the future of agriculture in India and the wider development paradigm. GM mustard is a Trojan horse that would help pave the way for ripping up the economic and social fabric of India and recast for the benefit of powerful Western corporations, not least Bayer-Monsanto (seeGM Mustard in Indiato read my numerous articles on this issue).

GM mustard is being promoted on the basis of the lie that it will increase yield. However, the government itself admits theres no evidence that it will do so.In aletterto Anil Dave, Indias environment minister, presented below, advocate Prashant Bhushan says that conclusions were drawn and disseminated to mean that GM Mustard DMH 11 is a superior hybrid-making technology that will out-yield Indias best non-GMO hybrids and varieties. But he adds that non-GMO hybrids and varieties out-yield HT DMH 11 hands down.

Bhushan reminds the Indian government that it has admitted that there is no evidence that GM mustard out-yields non-GM. In an affidavit to the Supreme Court, the government stated,

No such claim has been made in any of the submitted documents that DMH 11 out-performs Non-GMO hybrids.

ANNEX

Resi. Office. Chamber

B-16,Sector-14,Noida C-67, Sector-14, Noida 301, New Lawyers Chamber

Dist. Gautam BudhNagar Dist. Gautam BudhNagar SupremeCourt Of India

(U.P.) 201 301 (U.P.) 201 301, fax: 0120-4512694 New Delhi

Ph : 0120-2512632, 2512693 Ph: 0120-2512523, 2512695 Ph: 011- 23070301,23070645.

Dated: May 13, 2017

Shri Anil DaveThe Honble Minister of MoEF and Climate Change Paryavaran Bhavan Lodhi Road New Delhi

COMMERCIAL APPROVAL BY THE GEAC OF HT MUSTARD HYBRID DMH 11ON 11 MAY 2017

Dear Shri Dave

I express a deep disquiet and anxiety at the opaque and unscientific regulatory oversight of this GM mustard, which is also an herbicide tolerant (GM) crop. It has resulted yesterday, in its undoubtedly flawed approval for Commercialisation by the GEAC. I write to request you to please withhold your approval of such a move on three grounds.

The firstis that the CJ, based on the assurance given by the AG Mukul Rohatgi that the Union of India will not release DMH 11without the prior approval of the Supreme Court,accordingly, gave a verbal Order of an interim injunction till the case is heard comprehensively and the issue of HT mustard in substance. This was widely reported in the newspapers, two examples of which are referenced ().

The secondis the grave matter of the independence, surety and rigourof the oversight of the biosafety of HT Mustard DMH 11, which is critical for Indias agriculture in mustard, its food safety (both as a vegetable and seed oil), and furthermore, and of outstanding importance, the certain contamination that will occur of Indias mustard germplasm. These matters are of course, of central concern to your Ministrys regulating function and mandate for India.

The thirdis the requirement and my personal plea to you, to take note of the lessons of history of GMO regulation in India, embedded as it is in the most serious conflicts of interest and lack of expertise, where regulation has become farcical. For this reason,self-assessed safety dossiersby crop developers are kept secret by our Regulators and governing Ministries. Four official reports attest to the prevailing, utterly dismal state of regulation.

May any government treat its citizens with such willful disregard, despite Constitutional provisions?

The Bt brinjal Biosafety-Dossier remained unpublished for 16 months despite a SC order, but eventually, the Regulators had to comply with its full publication (with the raw data), which then revealed its fraudulence when examined and appraised by independent scientists of international stature. Studies said to be done were not done, as many as 36 of 37 environmental studies, leaving aside other risk assessment protocols. The moratorium which followed was also in large part influenced by the fact thatIndia is the worlds Centre of brinjal diversitywith 2500 varieties and wild species, which would certainly be contaminated. This is what the 37thPSC of 2012 (on GMOs) had to say on Bt brinjal and regulation. I quote very briefly. I would urge you to read the full recommendations of just 3 pages:

-Convinced that these developments are not merely slippages due to oversight or human error but indicative of collusion of a worst kind,they have recommended a THOROUGH PROBE INTO THE BT. BRINJALmatter from the beginning up to the imposing of moratorium on its commercialization by the then Minister of Environment and Forests (I/C) on 9 February, 2010 by a team of independent scientists and environmentalists.(Recommendation Para No. 2.79).

The Committee after critically analyzingthe evidence the gross inadequacy of the regulatory mechanism, the absence of chronic toxicology studies and long term environment impact assessment of transgenic agricultural crops; the virtual non-existent nature of the oversight bodies like National Biodiversity Authority, Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Right Authority, Food Safety and Standards Authority of India, etc., recommended that till all the concerns voiced in their Report are fully addressed -, to put in place all regulatory, monitoring, oversight, surveillance and other structures,further research and development on transgenics in agricultural crops should only be done in strict containment and FIELD TRIALS UNDER ANY GARB SHOULD BE DISCONTINUED FORTHWITH.(Recommendation Para Nos. 8.116, 8.121 & 8.125)

Noting with concern the grossly inadequate and antiquated regulatory mechanism for assessment and approval of transgenics in food crops; the serious conflict of interest of various stakeholders involved in the regulatory mechanism; the total lack of post commercialization, monitoring and surveillance, the Committee have felt thatin such a situation what the Country needs is not a bio-technology regulatory legislationbut anall-encompassing umbrella legislation on bio-safety-The Committee have also cautioned the Government that in their tearing hurry to open the economy to private prospectors, they should NOT MAKE THE SAME FATE BEFALL ON THE AGRICULTURE SECTOR, as has happened to the communications, pharma, mineral wealth and several other sectors in which the Governmentsfacilitative benevolence preceded setting up of sufficient checks and balances and regulatory mechanisms,thereby, leading to colossal, unfettered loot and plunder of national wealth in some form or the other, incalculable damage to environment, bio-diversity, flora and fauna and unimaginable suffering to the common man.(Recommendation Para No. 3.47 & 3.48)

But till date, the GM mustard dossier remains unpublished in willful Contempt of Court. Prof Pental is the Chair of the DBTs Agricultural Biotechnology Task Force. SR Rao, Member GEAC is over-all in-charge of the DBTs Agri Biotech programmes.The DBT also funds Pentals GM mustard.

Does anything more need to be said to underscore the implications of thiscosyarrangement of partnership in the Regulatory oversight of HT mustard DMH 11 and GMOs in general?

Data that has leaked around the edges demonstrate that we have ample reason to be greatly concerned of gross cover-up and misconduct. Furthermore, this HT mustard DMH 11 and its two HT variants are doubly barred by the unanimous 5-member TEC recommendations: ie this is an HT crop and a crop in a Centre of genetic diversity.

The further contents of this letter below, make clear in the simplest possible way, from, and it has to be said, curious admissions of your Apex Regulator and the Union of India in their Reply Affidavit submitted to the SC, which effectively demolish wholesale, any sound basis for the release of HT DMH 11 for commercial cultivation. I make 3 short points, to alert you to the veracity of this statement, as you will not be briefed correctly on these matters by your Regulators and indeed by the Ministries of S & T and Agriculture, both of which promote HT DMH 11 and even fund it (DBT) as stated above:

(a) HT hybrid mustard DMH 11 has failed the first criteria of a test risk protocol of a GM crop:Is the GM Crop required in the first place?The answer inNobased on the admission of the Union of India itself in their Reply Affidavit in the SC.They said:

No such claim has been made in any of the submitted documents that DMH 11 out-performs Non-GMO hybrids. The comparison has only been made between hybrid DMH 11, NC (national Check) Varuna and the appropriate ZC (zonal checks) MSY of 2670 Kg/ha has been recorded over three years of BRL trials which is 28% and 37% more than the NC & ZC respectively (At 88, pg.56).

Unfortunately, the whole truth uncovered, is that no valid comparators were used and the field trials themselves stand voided on the basis of serious anomalies and violations in field testing, inconclusive results and even statistical fraud.Yet, conclusions were drawn and disseminated to mean that DMH 11 is a superiorhybrid-making technologythat will out-yield Indias best Non-GMO hybrids and varieties. The fact is, Non-GMO hybrids and varieties out-yield HT DMH 11 hands down.

(b) We know, based on the AGs assertion in Court that the Union of India holds that this GM mustard will displace imported edible oil-seeds in a significant way (reduce our oilseeds bill). However, such an assertion in the light of the above submission is to say the least ludicrous, entirely lacking any semblance of logic. Moreover, the nearest equivalent to Indian mustard (Brassica juncea) is rape-seed oil (Canola), imported from Canada (which is essentially GMO) and represents just 2% of Indias edible oil imports! Rs 68,000 Cr is the total import oil-seeds bill,not Canolaalone, as the AG mistakenly stated in Court. Can this be the basis for the Commercialisation of HT mustard DMH 11?

It gets murkier still when the U of I also admits that:

Heterosis is due to the careful selection of parents and not due to the three transgenes The developers have nowhere claimed that the yield increase is due to the three transgenes(At 65, page 45)

This is exactly the issue that there is no trait for yield in HT DMH 11. It is good indeed that on this point we are all in agreement. Yet, somehow, the opposite story prevails, the story to the media, and the PMO. The stand of the Niti Aayog is particularly curious in that their National Agri policy requires GMOs in agriculture to meet Indias food security as they are better yielding! Where in this statement is the basic science governing the trait for yield in GMOs and Mustard in particular? It is very troubling that the Niti Aayog has failed to do some basichomework.

(c) Therefore, we draw the conclusion that the stated regulatory intent is toderegulate HT DMH 11 as a policy agenda based on no science,and to convert Indias mustard agriculture, in a massive and dangerous experiment, to (GM) HThybridmustard, (variants of DMH 11). Imagine our consternation when your Regulator admitted to precisely this:

Once the GE mustard events Varuna bn 3.6 and EH2 modbs 2.99 are approved and deregulated, these would be immediately used by the National net-work programme Once a robust pollination control mechanism is in place,yield of hybrids can be further improved by breeding betterparental lines(at 63, pg. 43).

The statement is pure spin, dissimulation. Unless deconstructed, it conveys that HT Hybrid DMH11 is a superior hybrid-making technology (which it is not); that will (alone) provide 25 to 30% higher yield and even better, (not true, as admitted), because on the contrary, Indias best Non-GMO hybrids and varieties are already significantly outperforming HT DMH 11. Unfortunately and regrettably, the plain truth is that decades of good work already being done by our agri institutions and the DRMRin Non-GM hybrid technology and superior-yielding varieties will be laid waste in this dangerous plan for the country via HT Hybrid DMH 11 and its variants.

AND OUR GERMPLASM WILL BE THOROUGHLY CONTAMINATED AND IN A CENTRE OF MUSTARD DIVERSITY.

India is a centre of diversity in mustard with9720 Accessionsin our gene banks(The NBPGR). With a commercialised GM crop, contamination of non-GMO is certain. That is the evidence.

In closing, Id like to emphasise that GMO contamination is neither remediable nor reversible and is the outstanding concern. The genes in HT hybrid DMH 11 are toxic genes: being an HT crop also means that DMH 11 is a pesticidal crop. Its nationality doesnt change the science. It stays this way whether foreign or Indian! How do we get carried away on such a band-wagon?

The issue also is that with GMO contamination, our mustard will be changed at the molecular level. Any toxicity that there is will remain in perpetuity. Are we prepared to be the agents for such monumental risk and put India and its people in jeopardy without any recourse and remedy?

For these reasons among others, and there are decidedly others, I would urge you on behalf of our Nation not to endorse this outrageous and anti-national approval, but reject it in the public interest. You will be doing India a noble service in posterity.

Thank you, Yours sincerely,

Signed/

Prashant Bhushan

* * *

Notes

LiveLaw News Network: No GM Mustard Without SC Approval October 24, 2016;

http://www.dnaindia.comreport-will-not-release-gm-mustard-crop-commercially-without-supreme-court-s-permission-centre-

Directorate of Rape-Seed Mustard

Read the original:
India: Genetic Engineering, the Commercialization of GM Mustard and the Future of Agriculture - Center for Research on Globalization

TechCrunch

Synthego's genetic toolkit aims to make CRISPR more accessible TechCrunch 80 percent of users getting into CRISPR have never done genetic engineering at all. So we simplified the process, said Synthego founder Paul Dabrowski on stage at Disrupt today. It's a beautiful interface but there's a lot of heavy lifting in the ... Synthego aims to simplify CRISPR editing for genetic researchersEngadget all 5 news articles »

Excerpt from:
Synthego's genetic toolkit aims to make CRISPR more accessible - TechCrunch

Stories about a mysterious tool that can cut out and replace genes have crept out from behind the lab walls and entered boldly into the public spotlight. Nowadays, CRISPR is everywhere. And we cant help but let our imaginations wander, especially when the questions posed by this novel gene editing technology come straight out of a sci-fi movie.

Can we edit out bad genes that cause diseases in humans and replace them with healthy ones? Might parents be able to design babies to their liking, with a certain hair or eye color, personality, or intelligence level? Could we engineer animals so they cant pass on deadly diseases to us? Can we even add or remove epigenetic marks on genes of our choice to control the expression of lifes code and, perhaps, our very behavior?

The precise power of the CRISPR-Cas9 system has created exciting yet controversial opportunities for genetic and epigenetic editing. Although we certainly dont have all the answers, the intriguing questions require further exploration and a deeper look into the near and distant possibilities for our society. As endless as the opportunities may appear to scientists and laypeople alike, some are more realistic than others. Its crucial we trim the hype from the realistic capabilities of CRISPR, as we usher in what some may call the golden age of genetic engineering.

The start of CRISPR

You know when you pick up a suspense novel, and read the first chapter, and you get a little chill, and you know, Oh, this is going to be good? It was like that. Jennifer Doudna, Ph.D. Credit:The New York Times.

Since the beginning of CRISPRs recent discovery as a precise and simple gene editing method, interest in its potential to improve our quality of life has skyrocketed, and with no end in sight. A similar excitement was expressed by one of the co-inventors of CRISPR, Jennifer Doudna from University of California Berkeley.

In 2011, Doudna was approached at a microbiology conference in Puerto Rico by a researcher from Max Planck Institute for Infection Biology, Emmanuelle Charpentier. The two started a conversation that laid the ground work for arguably one of the greatest collaborations, which spurred the invention of CRISPR.

I had this feeling. You know when you pick up a suspense novel, and read the first chapter, and you get a little chill, and you know, Oh, this is going to be good? It was like that, Doudna told The New York Times in 2015.

Surprisingly, the investigation of CRISPR (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats) in bacteria is not a new thing. Researchers have been exploring these repeated sequences since the 1980s, but their function was unknown at the time. Then, scientists slowly started to uncover clues about their purpose, which pointed to a built-in adaptive immune system that bacteria used to combat invaders such as viruses.

Within the past few years, researchers like Jennifer Doudna and Emanuelle Charpentier, along with postdoc researcher Martin Jinek, have been tapping into the gene-editing possibilities of the CRISPR-Cas9 system. Meanwhile, Feng Zhang from the Broad Institute and MIT was eager to show that the system worked in mouse and human cells, which he accomplished in his paper published in 2013. He even created an alternative genome engineering method called CRISPR-Cpf1, which may improve the tools precision and power.

Recently, the two groups of researchers entered a fiery battle for a CRISPR patent and the scientific community called for a moratorium on using CRISPR to edit the human germline for fear of unknown repercussions as a result of making heritable changes that could shift the gene pool. It will surely be intriguing to follow the progression of this gene editing system and its uncertain what the future holds.

How it works

The CRISPR-Cas9 system targets precise gene sequences and removes, adds to, or changes them with the help of two components: an enzyme called Cas9 and guide RNA (gRNA). Its based on the naturally occurring ability of bacteria to recognize and destroy invading viruses via a genetic memory.

SEE ALSO: The Epigenetics Behind the Flu

Cas9 acts as the scissor that snips the DNA and the RNA guide is a tailor-made sequence that ensures Cas9 is cutting in the right place. Researchers are able to program the guide RNA with any sequence of the genetic code they desire in order to lead Cas9 to the proper location.

Other techniques for editing DNA, such as TALENs and zinc finger nucleases were explored by researchers around the same time, but these methods have a much lower level of precision and are significantly more cumbersome. Unlike other techniques, CRISPR can even target multiple genes at once. The beauty of this gene editing system is how relatively simple, accessible, and incredibly precise it is. However, even among the accomplishments there are certainly limitations.

CRISPR accomplishments

As young as the technology is, scientists have been working feverishly with the CRISPR-Cas9 system in several applications. In one study published in PNAS, a group of researchers edited out a gene sequence in mosquitos and replaced it with a DNA segment that rendered them resistant to the parasite that causes malaria, known as Plasmodium falciparum. This could prevent mosquitos from transmitting the disease to humans entirely. Interestingly, when these malaria-resistant genetically modified mosquitos mated, they passed on the resistance to nearly 99% of their offspring. This was true even if a modified mosquito bred with a normal one.

A study conducted by a Chinese research team led by geneticist Lei Qu at Yulin University also demonstrated the successful use of CRISPR to bulk up livestock. They manipulated goats DNA to make them more muscular and produce more wool, in the hopes of bolstering the goat meat and cashmere sweater industry in Shaanxi, China. We believed gene-modified livestock will be commercialized after we demonstrate [that it] is safe, Qu predicted in an article by Scientific American.

Another group of researchers were able to edit out a genetic mutation in mice that causes a disease known as retinitis pigmentosa (RP), which can ultimately lead to blindness. Although not yet approved for use in humans, they were able to restore the mices vision and are hopeful for its therapeutic application in people. They recently published their results in Nature.

Not only can scientists edit genes using CRISPR, but they may be able to change the epigenome using CRISPR as well. Many diseases are not caused by a single genetic mutation but rather disturbed gene expression profiles. Harnessing the ability to edit epigenetic marks could drastically broaden our ability to cure a much wider range of disorders. In theory, perhaps editing our epigenome could allow us to cherry-pick more desirable behaviors.

Researchers can also utilize the power of next generation sequencing to perform chromatin immunoprecipitation sequencing (ChIP-seq) with a CRISPR/Cas9 antibody. The precise, high throughput capability of this method is especially promising because of the target efficiency of the Cas9 enzyme in conjunction with multiple guide RNAs, which can be used simultaneously for multiplexing. Not only can ChIP-seq be useful as an unbiased method for detecting on-target effects of the CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing system, but it might also be used to pinpoint how the system might miss the mark, which would be helpful when developing the system for therapeutic application.

Recently, researchers used the CRISPR-Cas9 system to add acetyl groups to histones, carrying enzymes to certain locations on the genome. Histone modifications, including histone acetylation and histone methylation, have the ability to remodel chromatin to make genes more or less accessible, influencing their expression. Other research suggests we may modify DNA methylation with CRISPR-Cas9, which could prove invaluable for understanding and treating disorders that are linked to this epigenetic modification, such as cancer, lupus, muscular dystrophy, and many others.

Although these studies have been conducted in animal models and the only CRISPR-Cas9 research on non-viable human embryos was performed in China, there is much more to be learned about the effects of CRISPR in humans and how it might be used towards creating what has gained a lot of attention recently superior designer babies.

Continue to the next page to read about designer babies and future directions.

Follow this link:
Cut Out the Hype: Gene Editing With CRISPR and the Truth about Superhuman 'Designer Babies' - WhatIsEpigenetics.com (blog)