Communication about genetic editing: CRISPR, between optimism and false expectations

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.7203/metode.9.11288

Keywords:

CRISPR, expectations, interpretation, uncertainty, science communication

Abstract

Communication is essential in all areas of society, but communication in science is inescapable. Communicating means sharing, showing, teaching, and transferring knowledge about discoveries, observations, and findings both to colleagues and to society in general. That is why good communication must always accompany good science. CRISPR genetic editing tools allow us to modify, at will, the genome of any living organism, including our own species. In this text I review the different relevant communicative events in the short but intense life of these «molecular scissors», so called for their ability to cut the DNA molecule effectively and with precision.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Lluís Montoliu, National Centre for Biotechnolgy  (CNB-CSIC).

CSIC scientific researcher in the Department of Cellular and Molecular Biology at the National Centre for Biotechnology (CNB-CSIC) and the CIBER of Rare Diseases (CIBERER-ISCIII), Madrid (Spain). His team was pioneering in Spain in its use of CRISPR tools to research rare human diseases such as albinism using animal models. In 2006, he founded the International Society for Transgenic Technologies (ISTT), which he presided over until 2014. He is currently the President of the European Society for Pigment Cell Research (ESPCR) and a member of the CSIC ethics committee and the ethics board of the European Research Council (ERC).  

References

Cong, L., Ran, F. A., Cox, D., Lin, S., Barretto, R., Habib, N., … Zhang, F. (2013). Multiplex genome engineering using CRISPR/Cas systems. Science, 339(6121), 819–823. doi: 10.1126/science.1231143

Egli, D., Zuccaro, M., Kosicki, M., Church, G., Bradley, A., & Jasin, M. (2017). Inter-homologue repair in fertilized human eggs? BioRxiv, 28 August 2017. doi: 10.1101/181255

Fernández, A., Josa, S., & Montoliu, L. (2017). A history of genome editing in mammals. Mammalian Genome, 28(7–8), 237–246. doi: 10.1007/s00335-017-9699-2

Gasiunas, G., Barrangou, R., Horvath, P., & Siksnys, V. (2012). Cas9-crRNA ribonucleoprotein complex mediates specific DNA cleavage for adaptive immunity in bacteria. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 109(39), E2579–E2586. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1208507109

Iyer, V., Boroviak, K., Thomas, M., Doe, B., Ryder, E., & Adams, D. (2018). No unexpected CRISPR-Cas9 off-target activity revealed by trio sequencing of gene-edited mice. BioRxiv, 9 February 2018. doi: 10.1101/263129

Jinek, M., Chylinski, K., Fonfara, I., Hauer, M., Doudna, J. A., & Charpentier, E. (2012). A programmable dual-RNA-guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity. Science, 337(6096), 816–821. doi: 10.1126/science.1225829

Khin, N. C., Lowe, J. L., Jensen, L. M., & Burgio, G. (2017). No evidence for genome editing in mouse zygotes and HEK293T human cell line using the DNA-guided Natronobacterium gregoryi Argonaute (NgAgo). PLOS One, 12(6), e0178768. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0178768 

Lander, E. S. (2016). The heroes of CRISPR. Cell, 164(1–2), 18–28. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2015.12.041

Liang, P., Xu, Y., Zhang, X., Ding, C., Huang, R., Zhang, Z., … Huang, J. (2015). CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing in human tripronuclear zygotes. Protein Cell, 6(5), 363–372. doi: 10.1007/s13238-015-0153-5

Ma, H., Marti-Gutierrez, N., Park, S.-W., Wu, J., Lee, Y., Suzuki, K., … Mitalipov, S. (2017). Correction of a pathogenic gene mutation in human embryos. Nature, 548(7668), 413–419. doi: 10.1038/nature23305

Mali, P., Yang, L., Esvelt, K. M., Aach, J., Guell, M., DiCarlo, J. E., … Church, G. M. (2013). RNA-guided human genome engineering via Cas9. Science, 339(6121), 823–826. doi: 10.1126/science.1232033

Mojica, F. J., Díez-Villaseñor, C., García-Martínez, J., & Soria, E. (2005). Intervening sequences of regularly spaced prokaryotic repeats derive from foreign genetic elements. Journal of Molecular Evolution, 60(2), 174–182. doi: 10.1007/s00239-004-0046-3 

Mojica, F. J., & Montoliu, L. (2016). On the origin of CRISPR-Cas technology: From prokaryotes to mammals. Trends in Microbiology, 24(10), 811–820. doi: 10.1016/j.tim.2016.06.005

Nelson, C. E., Hakim, C. H., Ousterout, D. G., Thakore, P. I., Moreb, E. A., Castellanos-Rivera, R. M., … Gersbach, C. A. (2016). In vivo genome editing improves muscle function in a mouse model of Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Science, 351(6271), 403–407. doi: 10.1126/science.aad5143

Schaefer, K. A., Wu, W. H., Colgan, D. F., Tsang, S. H., Bassuk, A. G., & Mahajan, V. B. (2017). Unexpected mutations after CRISPR-Cas9 editing in vivo. Nature Methods, 14(6), 547–548. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.4293

Seruggia, D., Fernández, A., Cantero, M., Pelczar, P., & Montoliu, L. (2015). Functional validation of mouse tyrosinase non-coding regulatory DNA elements by CRISPR-Cas9-mediated mutagenesis. Nucleic Acids Research, 43(10), 4855–4867. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkv375

Smithies, O., Gregg, R. G., Boggs, S. S., Koralewski, M. A., & Kucherlapati, R. S. (1985). Insertion of DNA sequences into the human chromosomal beta-globin locus by homologous recombination. Nature, 317(6034), 230–234. doi: 10.1038/317230a0

Su, S., Hu, B., Shao, J., Shen, B., Du, J., Du, Y., …, Liu, B. (2016). CRISPR-Cas9 mediated efficient PD-1 disruption on human primary T cells from cancer patients. Scientific Reports, 6, 20070. doi: 10.1038/srep20070

Vence, T. (2016, 19 January). “Heroes of CRISPR” disputed. The Scientist.
Retrieved from https://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/45119/title/-Heroes-of-CRISPR--Disputed 

Downloads

Published

2019-03-06

How to Cite

Montoliu, L. (2019). Communication about genetic editing: CRISPR, between optimism and false expectations. Metode Science Studies Journal, (9), 9–15. https://doi.org/10.7203/metode.9.11288
Metrics
Views/Downloads
  • Abstract
    2756
  • PDF
    1019

Issue

Section

#Biotech. The need for biotechnology communication

Metrics