Scientists have successfully edited the DNA of human embryos to erase a heritable heart condition that isknown for causingsudden death in young competitive athletes, cracking openthe doors toa controversial new era in medicine.
This is the first time gene editing on human embryos has been conducted in theUnited States. Researcherssaid in interviews this weekthat theyconsider their work very basic. The embryos were allowed to grow for only a few days, and there was never any intention to implant them to create a pregnancy. But they also acknowledged that they will continue to move forward with the science, with theultimate goal of being able to correct disease-causing genes in embryos that will develop into babies.
News of the remarkable experiment began to circulate last week, but details became public Wednesday with a paper in the journal Nature.
The experiment is the latest example of how the laboratory tool known as CRISPR (orClustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats), a type of molecular scissors, is pushing the boundaries of our ability to manipulate life, and it has been receivedwith both excitement and horror.
The most recent work is particularly sensitive because it involves changes to the germ line that is, genes that could be passed on to future generations. The United States forbids the use of federal funds for embryo research, and theFood and Drug Administration is prohibited from considering any clinical trials involving genetic modifications that can be inherited. A report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine in February urged caution in applying CRISPR to human germ-line editingbut laid out conditions by whichresearch should continue. The new study abides by those recommendations.
This animation depicts the CRISPR-Cas9 method for genome editing a powerful new technology with many applications in biomedical research, including the potential to treat human genetic disease or provide cosmetic enhancements. (Feng Zhang/McGovern Institute for Brain Research/MIT)
Shoukhrat Mitalipov, one of the lead authors of the paper and a researcher at Oregon Health & Science University, said that he is conscious ofthe need for a larger ethical and legal discussion about genetic modification of humans but that his team's work isjustified because it involves correcting genes rather than changing them.
Really we didnt edit anything. Neither did we modify anything, Mitalipov said. Our program is toward correcting mutant genes.
Alta Charo, a bioethicist at the University of Wisconsin at Madison who is co-chair of the National Academies committee that looked at gene editing,said that concerns about the work that have been circulating in recent days are overblown.
What this represents is a fascinating, important and rather impressive incremental step toward learning how to edit embryos safely and precisely, she said. However, no matter what anybody says, this is not the dawn of the era of the designer baby. She said that characteristics that some parents might desire, such as intelligence and athleticism, are influenced by multiple genes and that researchers don't understand all the components of how such characteristics areinherited, much less have the ability to redesign them.
The research involved eggs from 12 healthy female donors and sperm from a male volunteer who carries the MYBPC3 gene, which causes hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. HCM is a disease that causes an abnormal thickening of the heart muscle butcan cause no symptoms and remain undetected until it causes sudden cardiac death. There's no way to prevent or cure it, and it affects1 in 500 people worldwide.
Around the time the sperm was injected into the eggs, researchers snipped out the gene that causes the disease. The result was far more successful than the researchers expected: As the embryo's cells began to divide and multiply, a huge number appearedto be repairing themselves by using the normal, non-mutated copy of the gene from the women'sgenetic material. In all, they saw that about 72 percent were corrected, a very high number. Researchers also noticed that theredidn't seem to be any off-target changes in the DNA, which has been a major safety concern ofgene-editing research.
Mitalipov said he hoped the technique could one day be applied to a wide variety of genetic diseases and that one of the team'snext targets may be the BRCA gene mutation, which is associated with breast cancer.
The first published work involving human embryos, reported in 2015, was done in Chinaand targeted a gene that leads to theblood disorder beta thalassemia. But those embryos were abnormal and nonviable, and there were far fewer than the number used in the U.S. study.
Juan Carlos Izpisua Belmonte, a researcher at the Salk Institute who is also a co-author on the new study, saidthat there are many advantages to treating an embryo rather than a child or an adult. When dealing with an embryo in its earliest stages, only a few cells are involved, while in a more mature human being there aretrillions of cells in the body and potentially millions that must be corrected to eradicate traces of a disease.
Izpisua Belmonte said that even if the technology is perfected, it could deal with only a small subset of human diseases.
Idont want to be negative with our own discoveries, but it is important to inform the public of what this means, he said. In my opinion the percentage of people that would benefit from this at the current way the world is rather small. For the process to make a difference, the child would have to be born through in vitro fertilization or IVF and the parentswould have to know the child has the gene for a disease to get it changed. But the vast majority ofchildren are conceived the natural way, and this correction technology would not work in utero.
For years, some policymakers, historians and scientists have been calling for a voluntary moratorium on the modification of the DNA of human reproductive cells. The most prominent expression of concern came in the form of a 2015 letter signed by CRISPR co-inventor Jennifer Doudna, Nobel Laureate David Baltimore and 16 other prominent scientists. They warned that eliminating a genetic disease could have unintended consequences on human genetics, society and even the environment far into the future.
On Wednesday,Marcy Darnovsky, executive director of the Center for Genetics and Society, warned that the O.H.S.U. research would result in fertility clinics offering genetic upgrades to those able to afford them.
Once those commercial dynamics kick in, we could all too easily find ourselves in a world where some peoples children are considered biologically superior to the rest of us, she said in a statement. We need to ask ourselves whether we want to add that new kind of excuse for extreme social disparities to the ones we already tolerate.
Researchers who worked on the heart-condition experiment appear to have differing views on where their work is headed.
Paula Amato, a reproductiveendocrinologist with O.H.S.U., was excited about the idea of being able to editout diseases before birth. She said that while pre-implantation genetic screening of embryos is now available, it isn't perfect.She talked about how one of her patients went through three cycles of in vitro fertilizationbut all theeggs that were harvested hadthegene mutation that causes diseases.
With gene correction technology, Amatosaid, we could have rescued some of those embryos.
ButIzpisua Belmonte said he is focusing on using thefindings from this study to further research into gene modifications during a pregnancy or after birth into adulthood.
Ifeel that the practical thing to do is deal with the diseases people have, not with the disease they may have, he said.
Mitalipov said he hopes regulators will provide more guidance on what should or should not be allowed.
Otherwise, he said, this technology will be shifted to unregulated areas, which shouldnt be happening.
This story has been updated.
Read more:
A new CRISPR breakthrough could lead to simpler, cheaper disease diagnosis
Scientists debate the ethics of CRISPR
Ethicists urge caution in applying CRISPR to humans
Jennifer Doudna ponders 'what it means to be human' on the frontier of gene editing
View post:
First human embryo editing experiment in US 'corrects' gene for heart condition - Washington Post
- IOM not webcast today. Why Not? - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- National Academies skeptical at Best. - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Some Confusion Exists - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Why DTC Genomics IS Medicine. - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- First Mari, Now Linda. Who's next? - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Is it true? - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Re-Reviewing the National Academies - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- The problem with nonclinicians....... - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Crazy Night of Emails to Government - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Adrienne Carlson's Personalized Medicine. - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Tell Me, How do you feel now? Sherpa's RX - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- This Just In. 23andMe to go to GPs. I love my readers!! - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Sorry so long away - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- 2D6 Rears its ugly head..... - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Ok, Fine, Back to Plavix - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Kaiser a protoype for Collins' Aim - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- A few months late to the party.... - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Stated Another Way....... - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Excuse Me? Harvard and Navigenics? WTF? - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Follow up to Yesterday's WTF? Harvard, Navi? and Pfizer??? - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Did you get your kit? Thanks Dr. Rob from MedCo - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Gluco...Wha? Parkinson's Disease and Glucocerebrosidase mutations. - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Away and now back, What did I miss???? 23andme layoffs? Selling Genomes for cheap up next! - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Change IS Needed. I agree with William, sometimes. - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Good Enough Science? Apparently so at 23andme - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Long QT Syndrome, location matters - December 13th, 2009 [December 13th, 2009]
- Congratulations Generation Health. Nice pick up! - December 13th, 2009 [December 13th, 2009]
- An argument 23andSerge can't win...23andme but not medicine - December 13th, 2009 [December 13th, 2009]
- Stop. Breathe. Repeat. An analysis of the direction of DTC Genomics Field. - December 13th, 2009 [December 13th, 2009]
- Hey DTC genomics, Stay Private, Stay Alive, Go Public and Die - December 13th, 2009 [December 13th, 2009]
- You can't have it both way. Either scared your genome is sold off or not. - December 13th, 2009 [December 13th, 2009]
- 15 Days Away Gives Time for Perspective. - December 13th, 2009 [December 13th, 2009]
- What about the SACGHS registry? Another missed opportunity? - December 13th, 2009 [December 13th, 2009]
- AJHG is in and my Favorite Muin is in it! But He Is NOT the Father! - December 13th, 2009 [December 13th, 2009]
- Navigenics for 23andMe prices? - December 18th, 2009 [December 18th, 2009]
- Lp(a) Maybe there's something there that wasn't there before? - December 24th, 2009 [December 24th, 2009]
- Another Year, Another Bankruptcy - December 31st, 2009 [December 31st, 2009]
- 5 Technologies going bye bye in this decade? - January 6th, 2010 [January 6th, 2010]
- Hackers, HITECH and HIPAA in DTC Genomics, Oh My! - January 7th, 2010 [January 7th, 2010]
- Personal Genomics Flop.....big Belly Flop! - January 8th, 2010 [January 8th, 2010]
- Gotta Love It. Even the daycare....... - January 11th, 2010 [January 11th, 2010]
- Congratulations Navigenics. You ARE a clinical lab! Uh-Oh... - January 12th, 2010 [January 12th, 2010]
- CETP, Jewish Centenarians and Alzheimers - January 14th, 2010 [January 14th, 2010]
- Enter the "Not" DTC Genomics Rep - January 17th, 2010 [January 17th, 2010]
- Why Dr. Vanier's Navigenics appointment is good for PM - January 22nd, 2010 [January 22nd, 2010]
- Holy Crap! MedCo Follows in CVS footsteps - February 3rd, 2010 [February 3rd, 2010]
- FDA, Warfarin, still not as sexy to me. - February 5th, 2010 [February 5th, 2010]
- Hype, Hype, Hype from a single study. - February 11th, 2010 [February 11th, 2010]
- I love my readers, even Renata M! - February 17th, 2010 [February 17th, 2010]
- How can insurers use DTC genomics to profile? - February 17th, 2010 [February 17th, 2010]
- 9p21.....ahem. Paynter et.al. Smackdown. Again. - February 18th, 2010 [February 18th, 2010]
- Hey! It's Pete Hulick! Are you Going to GET? - February 19th, 2010 [February 19th, 2010]
- I was wrong......AHEM - February 28th, 2010 [February 28th, 2010]
- G2C2, finally a tool for genomic education! - March 2nd, 2010 [March 2nd, 2010]
- Just 4 million? What 23andMe is worth. - March 5th, 2010 [March 5th, 2010]
- What a difference a year makes - March 9th, 2010 [March 9th, 2010]
- ........DTC Genomic Medicine? - March 12th, 2010 [March 12th, 2010]
- The FDA, 2c19 and the ACC - March 13th, 2010 [March 13th, 2010]
- The problem with Comparative Whole Genomics...... - March 13th, 2010 [March 13th, 2010]
- BRCA testing by 23andME is the same as Myriad Genetics. - March 15th, 2010 [March 15th, 2010]
- The Argument Against DTC Genomics Marketing and such - March 16th, 2010 [March 16th, 2010]
- A moment of Clarity. Some DTCG is not bad. - March 18th, 2010 [March 18th, 2010]
- SNPs for breast cancer risk? It Depends. - March 18th, 2010 [March 18th, 2010]
- How can MDVIP use Navigenics Test for Medicine? - March 18th, 2010 [March 18th, 2010]
- Why did P&G invest in Navigenics? - March 23rd, 2010 [March 23rd, 2010]
- PGx in DTCG? Doesn't stand up to Useful testing. - March 25th, 2010 [March 25th, 2010]
- End of Gene Patents? - March 29th, 2010 [March 29th, 2010]
- Sherpa Accepting Chief Medical Officership - April 3rd, 2010 [April 3rd, 2010]
- The Rumors of My Death........ - April 20th, 2010 [April 20th, 2010]
- Happy DNA Day! - April 25th, 2010 [April 25th, 2010]
- 99 USD, DNA day and patient letters - April 25th, 2010 [April 25th, 2010]
- 2C19, Navigenics and Clinical Reality. - May 1st, 2010 [May 1st, 2010]
- Coriell Personalized Medicine Collaborative rising - May 7th, 2010 [May 7th, 2010]
- Personal Genomes in Clinical Care. Quake paper is a waste! - May 11th, 2010 [May 11th, 2010]
- Personal Genomes in Clinical Care. Quake paper Falls Short! - May 13th, 2010 [May 13th, 2010]
- Last post edited by Drew - May 13th, 2010 [May 13th, 2010]
- GateKeeper? FCUK U! - May 13th, 2010 [May 13th, 2010]
- GateKeeper? F! U! - May 15th, 2010 [May 15th, 2010]
- Potential of genomic medicine, LOST - May 19th, 2010 [May 19th, 2010]
- How Bad Can a House Investigation be for DTC Genomics? - May 20th, 2010 [May 20th, 2010]