Stanford researchers develop an engineered 'mini' CRISPR genome editing system

https://news.stanford.edu/2021/09/03/researchers-develop-hypercompact-crispr/

by kungfudoi • 5 years ago

118 16 5 years ago

news.stanford.edu

koeng• 5 years ago

Here is the paper link - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2021.08.008

They did a lot of hard work to get there! A few years we synthesized some prokaryotic argonaute proteins for their lab. Bet they were considering them as an alternative to CRISPR proteins. Excited to use CasMINI in some bacterial systems, Cas9/Cpf1 are kinda annoying to synthesize.

jakoblorz• 5 years ago

And thats why I love HN, some topic with notation I have no idea about but I my ADHD will solve that for sure. Thanks for providing the entrypoint!

xiphias22• 5 years ago

An important detail left out from the short article is that CasMINI was evaluated for base editing as well. I personally would hesitate taking something that cuts my DNA unless I really really need to and close to dying, but I might accept the risks of base editing if it gives me significant health benefits.

DrAwdeOccarim2• 5 years ago

I am surprised by your comment. We have much better techniques for understanding off-target issues with DSB-inducing gene editors. I'm certain the tox package $NTLA put together to support NTLA-2001 looked into this non-clinically very, very closely.

From my vantage point, $BEAM does not have the analytical tools to actually know where edits are occurring in an entire genome-context. Maybe RCA-type ideas, or super deep NGS, but I haven't seen robust and convincing off-target analysis yet.

daemonk• 5 years ago

Nice. I read about these cool new systems all the time, but have to end up waiting for some reagent company to start producing them after they resolve all the IP stuff. A lot of commercial and academic labs don't have access to the facilities/resources needed to produce the enzymes.

nn3• 5 years ago

“At first, this system did not work at all for a year,” Xu >said. “But after iterations of bioengineering, ...

Doesn't sound very "engineering" yet if they had to use try and error for over a year.

COGlory• 5 years ago

I'm sure it was informed trial and error.

Unfortunately, things in biology tend to fail silently and without log entries.

meowkit• 5 years ago

0 to 1 creation is still engineering even if involves testing and measurement closer to the scientific method.

Trial and error are cornerstones of engineering regardless.

qrybam• 5 years ago

To add to this, trial and error is the cornerstone of how we acquire any scientific knowledge.

dukeofdoom• 5 years ago

How long will the humanity last, when near anyone will be able to engineer a new virus.

manmal• 5 years ago

At that point near anyone will also be able to engineer antibodies against it.

devops000• 5 years ago

What are small public companies working on this?

DrAwdeOccarim2• 5 years ago

As this is a very new publication, it looks like it hasn't been licensed/spun-out to an industry partner yet. If I were a betting person, I'd go with one of the gene editing companies on the west coast. Maybe $CRBU?

kleiba• 5 years ago

My question: is it available for hobbyists?

R0b0t1• 5 years ago

If you have money usually you can just buy these things.

At the start of COVID, for example, I had access to COVID tests before most of the market (at a huge premium) via work. They really did not care who bought it. At worst create some paper company and start asking questions.

Stanford researchers develop an engineered 'mini' CRISPR genome editing system

Related Stories