Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Crack in CRISPR Facade After Unanticipated in Vivo Mutations Arise

genengnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–66 of 66 posts

Re: Crack in CRISPR Facade After Unanticipated in Vivo Mutations Arise

#61

Post by dekhn »

Blackthorn wrote: post #38
leggomylibro wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's still fairly hard to do in a living room, if you want to do anything novel. You need probably low 4-figures of equipment first; a -20C freezer for DNA/buffer storage, small centrifuge, thermal cycler, some way of getting genes into a target, and incubation space for whatever you're modifying. Preferably you'll also have consistent temperature control and an extremely clean environment. You also need a source of…

> And they've demonstrated an ability to take genes from things like jellyfish for e.g. autoluminescence, too. This almost feels like bikeshedding but...to be fair, pretty much the first thing anybody does with a new work organism in biotech is make it glow and it's been that way long before CRISPR! There's just something about it that people find irresistible.

I lost decades of my life chasing the dream of making things glow (more specifically: general germline mutation based on engineering). I agree the glowing tobacco plant was a sexy introduction to gene modification. Unfortunately doing anything non-trivial and actually useful (beyond the 'hello world' of a glowing plant) is really challenging.

Re: Crack in CRISPR Facade After Unanticipated in Vivo Mutations Arise

#62

Post by BrandonMarc »

randyrand wrote: post #35
BrandonMarc wrote: post #26

Unanticipated I'm just a normal person with nothing to do with this, and I expected such "surprises" from the beginning. I remain convinced mankind should not mess with this.

The rest of us will enjoy leaving you behind =)

Hammond, is that you? Jurassic Park was a cautionary tale about hubris. People with lots of money and smarts were convinced they could control nature.

Re: Crack in CRISPR Facade After Unanticipated in Vivo Mutations Arise

#63

Post by dekhn »

subroutine wrote: post #60
Someone wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Non-coding = "not translated into proteins", not "isn't used". Some non-coding DNA produces non-coding RNA, including transfer RNAs ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-coding_RNA ), which help in protein construction.

This makes sense given we know that some nontranslated RNA has biological activity , like tRNA and rRNA. I was under the impression that "junk" DNA referred to DNA that was not transcribed.

nearly all DNA is transcribed at some low rate (this has been experimentally determined) but it seems probable that most long stretches of non-coding DNA contain little to no functional elements and could be replaced or removed with no observable functional effect.

Re: Crack in CRISPR Facade After Unanticipated in Vivo Mutations Arise

#64

Post by dekhn »

Amygaz wrote: post #39
dekhn wrote: post #7

I believe George Church published some work several years ago now using whole genome sequencing after CRISPR, saying they had neglible off-site integration or other mutations. But going back,the findings were much more measured than that- they still saw off-site integration.

It seems to me that this high profile character often goes on record mentioning things that ultimately end up being just his wishful thinking and don't have much bearing.

I'm inclined to agree, except he did invent much of modern sequencing. He's great at technology, but limited in actual science.

Re: Crack in CRISPR Facade After Unanticipated in Vivo Mutations Arise

#65

Post by twic »

leggomylibro wrote: post #45
madengr wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could the genes that produce THC be spliced into common lawn grass?

Yes, and they're all characterized. It would be difficult, though; you're looking at about a half-dozen genes for the intermediary steps from something common like acetyl-coa. But with just THC, it probably wouldn't mimic the effects of cannabis very well. There wouldn't be any CBD, terpenes, etc etc. Still, you could do it. It'd probably be easiest with something like tobacco which is well-understood and already has…

DMT would probably be the easiest. It's only three steps from tryptophan, and I believe ask the enzymes are pretty simple.

Re: Crack in CRISPR Facade After Unanticipated in Vivo Mutations Arise

#66

Post by feelix »

peter303 wrote: post #30
leggomylibro wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's still fairly hard to do in a living room, if you want to do anything novel. You need probably low 4-figures of equipment first; a -20C freezer for DNA/buffer storage, small centrifuge, thermal cycler, some way of getting genes into a target, and incubation space for whatever you're modifying. Preferably you'll also have consistent temperature control and an extremely clean environment. You also need a source of…

There is the bio-maker movement, sometimes called biolabs, that puts fairly elaborate biotech in the hands of unaffiliated researchers and hobbyists. I wouldn't be surprised to see homebrew CRISPR at science fairs in the near future. https://www.meetup.com/denverbiolabs/

Indeed. And the thing I linked to (the odin) does allow you to do CRISPR in your living room for $150, as I said in my original comment.
Post reply on HN