Показаны сообщения с ярлыком human gene. Показать все сообщения
Показаны сообщения с ярлыком human gene. Показать все сообщения

среда, 10 мая 2017 г.

Breast cancer cells spread in an already-armed mob

ON THE ROAD  Breast cancer cells may break away from the main tumor in clumps, already bearing most of the mutations that will drive cancer recurrence, a study suggests. Shown here is a cluster of circulating tumor cells (red) from a patient with breast cancer.

Most tumor-driving mutations are carried from original malignancy, study suggests

COLD SPRING HARBOR, N.Y. — When breast cancer spreads, it moves in gangs of ready-to-rumble tumor cells, a small genetic study suggests. Most of the mutations that drive recurrent tumors when they pop up elsewhere in the body were present in the original tumor, geneticist Elaine Mardis reported May 9 at the Biology of Genomes meeting.

For many types of cancer, it is the spread, or metastasis, of tumor cells that kills people. Because cancer that comes back and spreads after initial treatment is often deadlier than the original tumors, researchers thought most of the mutations in recurrent tumors happened after they spread. But the new findings contradict this assumption and may indicate ways to stop metastasis.

Mardis, of Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, and colleagues collected recurrent breast tumors from 16 women who died after their cancer had spread to other parts of the body. Comparing the metastasized tumors with the original breast tumors, the researchers were surprised to learn that multiple, slightly genetically different cells from the original site had broken away together and established the new tumors.

Researchers used to think cancer spread when single cells slipped away and set up shop elsewhere. But recent research in mice suggested cancer cells migrate in groups (SN: 1/10/15, p. 9). The new study doesn’t provide direct evidence of this group migration in human cancer. But genetic similarities between metastasized and original tumors suggest that multiple cells move together to remote sites.

Only two women in the study had cancer-driving mutations — both in an estrogen receptor gene called ESR1 — in their recurrent tumors not seen in the original. All of the tumors that metastasized contained mutations in the TP53 gene. Such mutations could be a warning sign that a breast cancer is prone to spread, Mardis said.

Citations
E.R. Mardis et al. Genomic characterization of breast cancer progression. Biology of Genomes, Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y., May 9, 2017.
K.A. Hoadley et al. Tumor evolution in two patients with basal-like breast cancer: A retrospective genomics study of multiple metastasesPLOS Medicine. Vol. 13, December 6, 2016, p. e1002174. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002174.
Further Reading
S. Schwartz. Clusters of cancer cells get around by moving single file. Science News. Vol. 189, May 28, 2016, p. 10.
T.H. Saey. Cells in groups may promote cancer’s spreadScience News. Vol. 187, January 10, 2015, p. 9.

воскресенье, 1 мая 2016 г.

Gene Linked To Age Perception Discovered


photo credit: Aging is thought to be a mixture of genetic and environmental factors. Evgeny Atamanenko/Shutterstock

by Josh L Davis


We all know that even when people are exactly the same age, some of us look older than we actually are, and some of us younger. Many of these differences can be attributed to lifestyle choices and behavior, from smoking to sitting in the sunshine for too long, but what about the role of genetics? A new study, published in Current Biology, claims to have found a single gene that can influence whether or not someone is perceived to be older by up to two years.
The study, carried out by scientists in the Netherlands, involved looking at photographs of close to 2,700 people and estimating their ages, before then trawling through the subjects' genetics to search for any similarities. Surprisingly, they found that those carrying two copies of a variant of the gene in question, MC1R, were perceived to be up to two years older, while those carrying a single copy were seen as being one year older than they actually were, as opposed to those not carrying this variant. Interestingly, this gene is more commonly known for being involved in giving people ginger hair and pale skin. 
“Discovering this first gene involved in perceived age is important, because it opens the door for identifying more, which we know exist, and we now know are possible to find,” said Professor Manfred Kayser from the Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, and co-author of the study, in a statement. “Our finding marks another step in understanding aging differences between people and provides new leads to identify the molecular links between perceived age, chronological age, and biological age.”
The MC1R gene is already known to be involved with the making of melanin and skin protection from UV, which would seem to be the mechanism that could potentially make anyone who has it appear older. But the researchers write that for the study they took into account the aging effects of skin color, wrinkles, and sun exposure, which would imply that the gene is acting in some other, currently unknown fashion.
While many other experts have commented that this finding may not be the fountain of youth, they have also conceded that the findings are of interest. “MC1R has been genetically associated with UV-induced skin damage, skin features like pigmentation, freckles and age spots, and with skin cancer,” João Pedro de Magalhães, a researcher of aging at Liverpool University, told The Guardian. “So it is perhaps not surprising that this gene plays a role in perceived age.”
The main question now is whether or not MC1R genuinely does affect aging, or just how pale someone’s skin is, and thus their perceived age. In addition to that, another expert not involved with the research has suggested that perhaps the study was measuring not the perceived age of the subjects, but the psychology and bias of the people doing the judging.
Whether or not the finding could be of significance is still unknown, with Professor Tim Frayling from the University of Exeter telling BBC News that, “whilst interesting, the authors admit that they need to find more genetic variation to have any chance of predicting someone’s appearance from DNA alone.” 

понедельник, 16 ноября 2015 г.

Paul Allen's Latest Surprising Revelation About The Human Brain

Scientists at the Seattle-based Allen Institute for Brain Science—backed by Microsoft MSFT +1.57% co-founder Paul Allen—have spent more than a decade building an intricate map of the human brain. Today they announced the latest major discoveries from that effort, and even they were surprised by what they found. Despite the complex structure of the brain and the 20,000 genes in the human genome, brain activity is not all that diverse. Yes it’s true, no matter how much you gripe about how different you are from, say, your annoying boss, your brains really work quite similarly.
Using data from the Allen Human Brain Atlas, the scientists investigated gene “expression,” or usage, across different regions of six human brains. Because of the diversity of the genome and the brain’s intricate architecture, they thought they would find hundreds of thousands of gene-expression patterns, but they found just 32. “This was rather surprising. The number of combinatorial possibilities for these genes should be enormous,” says Michael Hawrylycz, an investigator at the institute. “But what we find is that these patterns are very stereotyped, in the sense that almost all genes look like one of these 32.”
This image from the Allen Brain Explorer shows gene expression across the human brain (Courtesy of the Allen Institute for Brain Science)
This image from the Allen Brain Explorer shows gene expression across the human brain (Courtesy of the Allen Institute for Brain Science)
The finding, published in Nature Neuroscience, could be most useful for unlocking the mysteries behind some of the world’s most vexing brain diseases. That’s because in addition to scrutinizing the human brain, the Allen Institute scientists compared their observations to gene-expression activity in the mouse—the most commonly used animal model for developing new drugs. They found that some of the 32 gene-expression patterns were similar in mice and people, but not all of them, which could help drug researchers predict when mouse models of brain diseases are likely to be useful, and when they’re not.
Specifically, they discovered that the gene activities associated with neurons—the signal-conducting cells that make our brains work—were similar between mouse and human. But gene patterns associated with glial cells, which surround and protect neurons, were not. Glial cells have been shown to play a role in several neurological diseases, including epilepsy, autism and chronic pain. “For many of these patterns, there are genes that are just fundamentally different in how they’re used between humans and mice,” says Ed Lein, an investigator at the institute. “This is really important to know if you’re wanting to use a mouse as a model for some disease, or you’re trying understand what elements might be actually more specific to humans.”
In their paper about the research, which was conducted in partnership with Cincinnati Children’s Hospital and Medical Center and Washington University in St. Louis, Lein and his colleagues describe the relationship between “differential stability”—or patterns related to the tendency for genes to be used similarly across brain structures—and 25 common brain disorders. They found that the most highly stable genes pointed to some drug targets that are already known in diseases like autism and Alzheimer’s. But they also offer some insights that might help identify new therapeutic opportunities.
The Allen Institute for Brain Science, launched by Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen, has discovered that gene activity in the brain is not as diverse as one might think (Photo by Frazer Harrison/Getty Images).
The Allen Institute for Brain Science, which was founded in 2003 and backed by $500 million from the Microsoft veteran, is on a mission to map the human brain, and to offer its discoveries free-of-charge to the public. Its goal is to accelerate the pace of research into common brain diseases. In May, the institute launched the Allen Cell Types Database, which includes information on about 240 neurons found in mouse brains, including details about the electrical activity of neurons, as well as their shape and location. The group also updated its Ivy Glioblastoma Atlas Project, which offers genetic information about that form of brain cancer.
Allen, whose mother batted Alzheimer’s, is particularly interested in speeding up the development of new therapies against the disease. In July, the Paul G. Allen Family Foundation awarded $7 million in grants to five research teams that are working on new ways of attacking the disease.
As for the Human Brain Atlas, Allen’s scientists hope they will continue to build on the insight they’ve gained—and that the entire community of brain researchers will benefit. “We’re building a large gene network that could open up a set of candidate targets for disease,” Lein says. “It’s a much broader picture of a whole genetic network that may be associated with disease. We believe identification of gene patterns will help a lot of people to think beyond the data that they have and get access to a whole lot more information.”

суббота, 14 ноября 2015 г.

Everything You need to Know About Precision Medicine


How does our understanding of genetics affect how we treat cancer?


BEFORE IT CAN REACH ITS FULL POTENTIAL, IT HAS TO BECOME MORE PRECISE

Tania Swain got bad news: her ovarian cancer had come back. This was in November 2013; almost three years before, Swain, who is herself a physician, had been surprised by the initial diagnosis. And despite the surgery that removed 30 pounds of liquid and tissue from her ovaries, spleen, and appendix, and the chemo drugs that were swished around the space they left, the cancer was back. She feared that this time the diagnosis was truly the “kiss of death.”
But this time, Swain learned about the Clearity Foundation, a nonprofit organization that compiles its own database of mutations that cause ovarian cancer and help patients find the best individualized treatment. After another surgery in December 2013, her doctors sent a tissue sample to Clearity. “They look at the proteins and receptors, and the different ways that the tumor tissue itself has mutated to find how they can best attack it,” Swain says. Her tumor had an unusually high concentration of a protein called Ki-67, which was good news—her cancer would be more responsive to typical chemotherapy agents.
The treatment worked well—Swain felt less ill after the chemo than she had the last time. Though her cancer has since returned, she’s hopeful because she’s so impressed by the progress of cancer treatment, and advances in precision medicine in particular. “I finished my training [to become a doctor] in 1982, when CAT scans were just coming online. I think cancer treatments now are as different as night and day compared to then,” Swain says.
Precision medicine, an emerging field in which treatments are tailored to an individual’s genes, environment and lifestyle, is on the cutting edge of cancer treatment. President Obama launched his Precision Medicine Initiative earlier this year; several research institutions have undertaken large-scale clinical trials in which patients with different diseases can enroll, one of which was conducted by the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center with results published last week. And while some patients like Swain have benefitted from what researchers have figured out so far, precision medicine isn’t nearly as widespread—or precise—as proponents want it to be. To bring this field to its full potential, researchers will need to figure out how to best tailor treatments to suit every patient’s biological differences. And the more they learn, the more difficult that seems.
“What’s happened in science is really breathtaking—the human genome was first sequenced in 2003, and today we can do the same thing in a matter of hours,” says Razelle Kurzrock, the director of the Center for Personalized Cancer Therapy at the Moores Cancer Center at the University of California, San Diego. Since researchers can read the genes more effectively than ever before, treatments that target the mutations have suddenly become a reality.

HOW DOES PRECISION MEDICINE ACTUALLY WORK?

On their most basic level, cancers are diseases in which normal cells grow more quickly than they die. Genes regulate this cycle of growth and death. Mutations in these genes can affect a person’s cancer risk, but they can end up in the genome in different ways. Germline mutations are those that you inherit; women who are born with the BRCA mutations have a higher risk of developing breast and ovarian cancer as adults. Acquired mutations are the ones that are added to your genome after you are conceived; women with HER2-positive breast cancer (about one fifth of all breast cancers) weren’t born with that mutation: It developed over time due to environmental and lifestyle factors.
Cancer happens when several of these mutations converge in one or a cluster of cells. And, importantly, the same mutation can happen in lots of different places in the body. “It’s no longer that important where the disease originates, if it’s in the lung or in the breast or in the brain—what’s important is the [genetic] driver of the disease,” Kurzrock said in a 2013 presentation.
Precision medicine—also known as personalized medicine or individualized medicine—mostly targets these acquired mutations because those are what make the cancerous cells different from the other cells in your body. When a patient is diagnosed with lung cancer, for example, her doctor will take a tiny sample of the tumor and sequence the genes found in the cells. Usually they’ll only look at a handful of genes to look for mutations known to drive cancer, but sometimes they’ll sequence all of the patient’s genes to better understand the genetic factors that have brought the cancer about.


A neon model of DNA.
Once they’ve identified the mutations driving the cancer, doctors can prescribe drugs that target and destroy only the cells with that mutation. That’s a lot better for the patient than existing chemotherapy drugs, which kill all rapidly reproducing cells, whether they are cancerous or not. Patients receiving treatments targeted specifically at cancer cells tend to experience fewer side effects, feel better, and recover more quickly, as Swain did.
That all sounds simple and elegant in theory. But at the moment, precision medicine is a bit less precise than that. Cancer cells have lots of different mutations, and sometimes it’s hard to identify just which one is driving the cancer. Researchers have only identified about 50 genetic mutations known to drive cancer. Though they suspect that there are hundreds, they just haven’t found them yet, which means that sometimes genetic tests of tumors come back without any mutations known to cause cancer. Even if they do find a cancer-driving mutation, doctors sometimes can’t prescribe a drug to treat it because it simply does not exist, or is only approved to treat a different kind of cancer.
Most of these questions haven’t been addressed yet because the field of precision medicine is so new. Many of them will take years of dedicated research to answer fully. But right now researchers are making some impressive headway, systematically tackling what seems to be an unfathomably complex issue. Their answers have meant that precision medicine treatments are starting to become available to patients in the U.S. and beyond, but it’s also shown them just how far they have to go.

A NEW WAY OF TESTING TREATMENTS

Researchers are answering many questions about how to treat cancer through new, large-scale clinical trials. In the past, when scientists wanted to test a new cancer drug on patients, they would group them by the location of their cancer—lung, breast, colon. But with the rise of precision medicine, researchers have realized that cancers with the same driving mutation, no matter where they are in the body, have more in common. New clinical trials, conducted by cancer-focused research institutions like the National Cancer Institute and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC), have tested treatments on patients with the same cancerous mutation in different parts of the body.
In MSKCC’s study the results of which were published last week in the New England Journal of Medicine, the researchers tested a drug on 122 patients worldwide. In a traditional clinical trial, only patients with cancer in the same part of the body would be eligible to participate; if it worked, the researchers would have found a new drug to specifically treat colon cancer, for example. But in this new kind of trial, called a basket trial, the researchers tested the drug on people who had cancers of the blood, breast, thyroid, ovaries, colon, and several rare forms. But these cancers all had something in common: they were all driven by the same mutation. The researchers found that the treatment worked better on cancers in some parts of the body than in others. That means that doctors have to take location and mutation into account when selecting a treatment.
“I think that many people may not know is that we really have to look at our patients in the context of where the tumor came from and the entire complement of genetic and potentially non-genetic abnormalities in that cancer,” says David Hyman, the acting director of Developmental Therapeutics, MSKCC’s drug development program that focuses on precision medicine, and one of the study authors. “We need to marry the information about the genetics of tumors with our understanding about their basic function in order to make real breakthroughs in individual patients.”

THE FLIPSIDE OF GENES

This study didn’t show Hyman and his collaborators why treatments work better for some types of cancer than others—or why a treatment’s efficacy differs between individuals with cancers in the same location with the same primary mutation. On an abstract level, though, researchers know why these variations exist: other genes, not the ones driving the cancer. “Most people don’t know that their genes can interfere with the drugs they take, even with special cancer treatments,” says Keith Stewart, the director of Mayo Clinic for Individualized Medicine.
The way a patient metabolizes the treatment can mean that she needs a higher or lower dose. Sometimes cells without the cancer-driving mutation survive the treatment, which can mean that the cancer comes back. “[Treatments can] suppress the cells they’re supposed to, but the other cells keep growing. It’s like a whack-a-mole game,” Stewart says. “And they’re often growing because they’re drug-resistant,” which means they’re harder for doctors to treat the next time.
The next step for precision medicine will be to combine multiple targeted treatments so that they fight more cells, not only the ones primarily driving the cancer—like using several hammers to whack all the moles at once. “Let’s say we do a profile of biomarkers and genomic markers on a patient and, rather than deciding to give patients one drug, we might give them three drugs, like we do to treat AIDS and other diseases,” Kurzrock says. By stopping multiple pathways, doctors could take the tumor out completely, she adds, and put the cancer in remission.

Precision medicine is a relatively new field, but this particular facet--the cocktail approach--is even newer.
“Everyone needs their own individual cocktail,” Kurzrock says. And that’s not how the FDA approves cancer drugs at the moment--each drug has a specific dosage for a cancer depending on its location in the body. Recently doctors have started using these treatments off-label, like using a drug approved for melanoma to treat a lung tumor because they share a driver mutation, but they can’t do this with several drugs at once for fear of how they might interact in the body . But it seems likely that this multi-pronged approach will be one of the main ways we treat cancer in the near future, likely combined with immunotherapy, a way of harnessing the immune system so that it recognizes and combats cancers that are otherwise able to slip past it.
That combination, of various targeted drugs and immunotherapy, seems like the closest we’ve ever come to a cure for cancer since we knew what cancer was. That’s not to say it’s right around the corner; in addition to lots more research and new drug development, there are issues to work out on the patient-facing side of the issue.

MOVING MOUNTAINS TO READ GENES

Precision medicine is only possible because of how quickly and easily we can now sequence the human genome. But most people in the U.S. still have never gotten their genome sequenced. Genetic sequencing is still limited to university medical centers and hasn’t yet made its way to community hospitals, so most Americans’ doctors aren’t suggesting it. Even people who do want to get a genetic test have trouble because insurance often doesn’t cover the testing, which usually costs about $300 for a cancer panel. “For whole genome sequencing, cost is definitely still a barrier, it still costs about $10,000 dollars,” Stewart says. In the Mayo Clinic’s rare disease practice, most patients need this whole genome sequencing so that doctors can finally diagnose illnesses that have eluded treatment for years, and insurance only covers it about a third of the time, Stewart says.
Eventually the process of sequencing a genome will become even cheaper, and insurance will catch up and cover genetic sequencing as it becomes more common for myriad medical procedures—the model will be “sequence once, query often,” Stewart says. He means that, soon, a person’s entire genome will simply become a part of her medical record that her doctor can refer back to throughout her life.






But there is another factor that stands in the way of precision medicine becoming more widespread, Stewart says: cost of sequencing, insurance coverage, and education. Not enough people (including many physicians) know what the genome can tell us given the current state of research, and just as importantly, what it can’t. That means that patients aren’t asking their doctors for genetic tests, and doctors aren’t suggesting them. So patients are not getting the best treatments possible or, worse, they’re afraid of getting their genome sequenced because of the other information a genetic test could reveal.
It’s true that whole genome sequencing in particular can reveal some incidental findings, uncovering other mutations that could affect a patient’s health, or those of his loved ones. But the role of genetic counselors is to discuss the results and help patients understand what they really mean. At the Mayo Clinic, before they see their doctors, cancer patients watch a short educational video about what their cancer genome can tell them (and what it can’t), and why they may or may not want their genes sequenced. “We have patients enter the doctor’s office with that knowledge and discuss it with the physician. ‘Would [a genetic test] be helpful in my situation?’ They can decide,” Stewart says.
For Swain, the choice to get a genetic test was an obvious one. She knew it would help her find the best possible treatment, but even as a doctor she struggled to understand just what was going on in her body. “It was still a little overwhelming. All that information just comes at you,” she says. Without that treatment, however, she may not have survived; when she was first diagnosed with Stage 3 ovarian cancer, in 2011, she had a 39 percent chanceof living at least five more years. Now, almost five years later, Swain is hoping that this third round of treatment has finally rid her body of ovarian cancer. The genes driving her cancer have changed—“which speaks to the polymorphism of this cancer,” she says—and the drugs she’s using to kill it have changed accordingly. But she’s optimistic: “I am very happy with the status of my markers and I’m feeling good.”
Precision medicine is just starting to make a difference for patients like Swain, and in just a few years it will be an even more powerful force against cancer for thousands of people around the world. But there’s a lot that needs to happen to get us there. Patients have to understand how genes play a role in cancer and treatment; organizations like insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies need to acknowledge the importance of these genetic markers so they can support and discover treatments that really work. And of course scientists will continue to conduct larger, more sophisticated experiments new ways to more effectively target tumor cells. In the process, they’ll likely answer some questions about how our genes affect us, even before cancers develop.
“I think the human genome is the book of life. I feel we don’t fully understand its power and value at this time, and I’d like to know what we’re missing,” Stewart says.
https://bit.ly/3jBSoV4

четверг, 2 июля 2015 г.

Scientists ‘Resurrect’ Woolly Mammoth Gene in Human Cell

shutterstock_235371946

By Carl Engelking

We all know that woolly mammoths are modern-day elephants’ distant shaggier cousins, but why, exactly, were mammoths so different?
That’s a tough question, but scientists believe they have some answers after performing the first comprehensive analysis of the woolly mammoth genome. Not only did scientists uncover the genetic changes that allowed mammoths to thrive in the Arctic, they also resurrected a mammoth gene by transplanting it into a human cell.

If the Genes Fit

To home in on what makes woolly mammoths so unique, scientists played a highly complex game of compare and contrast. Geneticist Vincent Lynch and his team first sequenced the genomes of three modern-day Asian elephants — the closest living relatives to mammoths — and two woolly mammoths that died roughly 20,000 to 60,000 years ago. Then, they compared genomes from the two species to find genetic variations that were unique to mammoths.
Scientists identified roughly 1.4 million genetic variants that were unique to woolly mammoths, and these variants caused changes to the proteins produced by roughly 1,600 different genes — different proteins means different physical and biochemical features.
Not surprisingly, most of these variations in mammoths had something to do with thriving in cold weather. They included genes known to be involved in circadian rhythms, lipid metabolism, skin and hair development, temperature sensation and fat tissue formation — all which would help a creature survive in cold weather. Scientists published their findings Thursday in the journal Cell Reports.

Thermostat Gene

Here’s where things got really cool: To make sure they were on the right track, scientists actually “resurrected” a mammoth gene by transplanting it into a human kidney cell in the lab. The gene, called TRPV3, is known to affect temperature sensation and hair growth regulation. When they added the mammoth TRPV3 gene to a human cell, the gene produced a protein that was less responsive to heat than modern elephants. In other words, mammoths’ unique TRPV3 gene may have contributed to their cold tolerance.
Lynch says their genome-wide analysis can’t say with absolute certainty how each of these mammoth genes affected them physically, but effects can be inferred through lab tests. In order to truly understand the interplay of mammoth genes, we’d have to fully resurrect one of the beasts.
If you read Discover, you know bringing back the woolly mammoth is probably feasible. And with these results it’s become clearer than ever how it could be done.

пятница, 1 мая 2015 г.

Human gene editing has arrived – here's why it matters





Taking aim at faulty DNA (Image: Power and Syred/Science Photo Library)

It's becoming possible to edit our genes to treat and prevent conditions like HIV and sickle cell disease or, more controversially, create designer babies
GENE editing is here. The first work attempting to edit human embryos grabbed headlines last week. And another study showed how gene editing might prevent children inheriting disease.
It could be decades before it is safe to snip out and replace stretches of DNA to genetically engineer babies – even if it is deemed ethically acceptable. But the approach is already being tested for treating disease in adults and could soon be used to treat a wide range of disorders.
It has been a long time coming. Rudimentary editing methods were first developed some 30 years ago, but only now have techniques been honed to the point that they can be used for treating people. It raises the curtain on a new era of genomic tinkering and genetic medicine.

HIV therapy

In the coming months, four US clinics will recruit people with HIV to a trial of a therapy based on gene editing. HIV wreaks havoc by destroying immune cells called T-cells. It does this by exploiting a receptor, CCR5, on the surface of these cells. Destroy the gene for CCR5 and you can block infection.
Last year, researchers targeted and destroyed this gene in the T-cells of 12 people with HIV using custom-made proteins called zinc finger nucleases. This raised their resistance to the virus. The new trial goes further, knocking out the gene in the stem cells that give rise to T-cells, making it a possible one-shot, lasting treatment. "The goal is a functional cure," says John Zaia, of the City of Hope hospital in Duarte, California.
The trial blazes a path for using the approach to treat other diseases. For example, another trial set to start soon will focus on sickle cell disease, in which the oxygen-carrying haemoglobin molecules in red blood cells are abnormal. The technique would switch on a protein that can be used instead of the haemoglobin.
There could be downsides to this approach though. "Genome editing offers both tremendous promise and significant potential risk," says David Liu of Harvard University. Almost all editing techniques have the potential to modify unintended DNA sequences, he says. "Some of these off-target genome modification events will likely lead to negative biological consequences."
But, if it can be made safe, editing adult stem cells is likely to face fewer ethical hurdles than other applications of gene editing.

Inherited change

Some teams are already exploring the possibility of using gene editing to make heritable changes. Last week, researchers showed that gene editing can weed out mutations in the mitochondria that a female mouse passes on to her offspring.
Mitochondria generate energy in our cells and have their own set of DNA, which differs from that in the cell nucleus. Mutations in mitochondria can cause diseases for which there are no treatments.
Earlier this year, the UK gave the green light to mitochondrial replacement therapy. This involves creating "three-parent babies" with healthy mitochondria donated from a third person preventing such diseases being passed on.
The new approach offers an alternative. It uses a gene-editing technique based on custom-made proteins called TALENs. These proteins can be designed to latch on to the DNA in faulty mitochondria and target them for destruction. Healthy mitochondria remain unharmed.
Most women at risk of passing on faulty mitochondria carry some healthy and some mutated mitochondria, so TALENs could lower the number of mutated mitochondria in their eggs. Harmful effects only kick in once the number of mutated mitochondria crosses a threshold, so this may be enough to prevent disease in their child, and perhaps in future generations too.
Using gene editing in this way isn't without risk, says Robert Lightowlers at Newcastle University, UK. It is unclear whether reducing the number of mitochondria could have a long-term effect, he says. And although the TALENs protein in the study seemed to target only the intended mitochondria, it could be harmful if even a very low amount of it got into the nucleus and altered DNA there.
Juan Carlos Izpisua Belmonte of the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California, who is part of the team doing the TALENs work, says they plan to begin testing the safety of the technique. "The idea will be to obtain oocytes and discarded embryos from IVF treatments in order to test this technology using human samples."
Taking the research to the next level will be controversial. Last month, a group of scientists called for a moratorium on gene editing research in cells that can form embryos. The plea was made by those working on gene editing with adult cells who are concerned that embryo editing could have unpredictable effects on future generations and stimulate a public outcry.

Uncharted waters

Despite the call for a hiatus, a team in China announced last week that it hadedited DNA in the nucleus of human embryos.

The work involves a technique called CRISPR/Cas9, developed in the last few years. It has the potential to accelerate progress enormously because CRISPR is much faster than conventional gene editing methods (see "How to edit genes").
Despite the hype, there is a long way to go before CRISPR could be used to write genetic disease out of the DNA of future generations. The Chinese study flagged up a number of potential problems. Of the 86 eggs injected, just four were successfully modified. And the resulting embryos were a mosaic of modified and unmodified cells.
This may have been down to the unviable embryos used, which were created when two sperm fertilised the same egg. The team said it used them because ethical concerns preclude the study of gene editing in normal embryos. But that hasn't stopped the work being criticised.
The fuss is because it is the first phase of a more controversial effort to make genomic changes in human embryos intended to be implanted, says George Annas of Boston University. "It is only in the context of this wider project that manipulation of non-viable human embryos moves from curiosity to potentially dangerous – both to the resulting children and their children, and to society at large," says Annas. These concerns over designer babies are less of an issue for mitochondrial gene editing because it is only possible to delete mutant mitochondria, not alter them.
Yuet Kan of the University of California, San Francisco, describes the study as a publicity gimmick. The disease it targeted, beta-thalassaemia, can already be detected by pre-implantation embryonic screening during IVF. "I don't see any need for embryo gene editing," says Kan, who is using CRISPR to treat HIV.
Despite the controversy, at least one group in the US and several more in China are also reportedly working with human embryos. But when it comes to treating disease in the near future, it is the adult methods that hold the most immediate promise. One thing is for sure, the gene-editing genie is well and truly out of the bottle.

How to edit genes


Target a specific sequence
For the TALENs or zinc finger gene editing systems (see main story), this requires designing proteins to bind to the DNA you want to edit.
With CRISPR, only RNA complementary to the target DNA is needed. It takes days to make these, but customised proteins take years.
Cut the target DNA
This is the easy part – enzymes cut your chosen DNA.
Hijack DNA repair systems
Cells repair any strands of cut DNA using the nearest matching DNA as a template. So if you supply the template DNA, you can trick cells into making the changes you want.

Current state of play


Treating disease by modifying genes in adults
Human trials under way
Pros: Could be used to treat all kinds of diseases and disorders
Cons: Could turn cells cancerous if the wrong bit of DNA gets modified
Preventing disease by destroying mutant mitochondria
Testing in human cells about to start
Pros: Could prevent mitochondrial diseases without using a donor
Cons: Effects are heritable, so ethically controversial
Preventing disease by modifying genes in embryos
Testing in human embryos under way
Pros: Could prevent many genetic disorders
Cons: Uncharted ethical and scientific waters; treatments are a long way off
https://bit.ly/3Nd5a85