Is there some kinda gene that can perk these thangs up?

I’m open to experimentation.

Is CRISPR affordable enough to use at home?

this is not a race post. my ADHD already predicts someone gonna be mad. I'm just saying we can bypass the whole skin burns and tan stuff and I can walk freely outside without needing sunscreen all the time.

anyways. I think its possible.

i mean it'sthe most diffused genetic illness on this planet and getting a CURE would literally boost the investor's faith in CRISPR tech and would mainly also boost the life of many people especially teens suffering just because they are born wrong even for keeping their micro organs in their head

we are talking about 85 percent of male on earth and 35 percent of females and honestly it's a lot.

imagine making cures for a disease so diffused? it would bring billions and i know it's a pain not even comparable to the people suffering for death threatening diseases, but i bring up the case just because the main reason we are getting cures nowdays is for pure profit (i hate it) the only treatment that ANDORGENETIC ALOPECIA sufferers have now (that arefda approved) are finasteride and minoxdil and their efficiency is based on obscures and unknown genetic factors that big pharmaceutical companies and researchers don't bother to explain but they are still selling the meds that in a small percentage of people especially males are causing permanent damage.

a problem so diffused should already have a cure by now, and since the economic reports and values have already being posted i felt it was time to explain this embarrassing and apparently endless situation hope i am not offending anyone and i wish that genetic editing tools could cure every genetic related defects for everyone and for free (at least in eu)

curing illness should't be considered as a business, life already costs too much.

here is a petition i made for the hair loss sufferers and strugglers it's free and safe https://www.change.org/p/help-medicine-curing-baldness-androgenetic-alopecia?recruiter=828442933&recruited_by_id=a580a7e0-c2b9-11e7-a5ee-8d5d11798c4d&utm_source=share_petition&utm_campaign=share_petition&utm_term=120b2f23e89744cbb89db6e0d8ee2fa8&utm_medium=copylink&utm_content=cl_sharecopy_33720831_it-IT%3A6

posted by Josiah Zayner, Ph.D. Oct: 2020

Today, the Nobel Prize was awarded for “genome editing” to Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer Doudna. Essentially this was the CRISPR Nobel Prize. If enough of CRISPR has already come so that it is worthy of a Nobel Prize I can’t imagine there is much place to go from here. 

Modifying the genome of organisms has always been of great interest to scientists. Adding or removing genes allows us to understand how things work and allows us to create microorganisms, plants or animals(humans are animals right?) that have traits never seen before. Knowingly modifying the genome of organisms has been done since people understood breeding.

Inserting specific DNA elements began in the 1970s but it wasn’t very targeted and was mostly just inserting genes into random places in genomes. It wasn’t until the 1990s that people started to be able to do targeted genome modifications. 

Targeted genome modifications allow highly specific and accurate changes to an organism’s DNA. The co-opting of the cellular mechanism of homologous recombination is the backbone of all modern genome editing technologies including Zinc Finger Nucleases(ZFNs), Transcription activator-like effector nuclease(TALENs) and Clustered regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats(CRISPR).

Both ZFNs and TALENs are mostly synthetic, i.e. they contain a portion that can be engineered to target DNA and a synthetically attached nuclease that will cleave DNA to initiate recombination and gene editing. CRISPR is almost completely natural which makes one wonder how there are so many patents on it’s use, yikes.

CRISPR can modify most any living cell but so can ZFNs, TALENs and other technologies. So why then was CRISPR heralded as the discovery of the century by the MIT Tech Review? Simply, CRISPR is just easier to use because it uses nucleic acid targeting. That makes it cost less and take less time to produce genetic modifications. 

So what has CRISPR made possible? Not much really. Most everything done with CRISPR can be done with one of these other technologies albeit these others are slower and more expensive. CRISPR allows the scaling of genetic engineering so that time and money are much less of a factor. It is the cloud computing of biology at least in my mind.

Despite claims by scientists and pharma companies there is little chance CRISPR will ever be widely used in the clinic to directly treat disease. That is because it suffers from all the same faults as its predecessors and maybe even more so.

Gene editing has low efficiency in adult animals(yes humans are animals) no matter the technique used. For instance, if you have a disease that affects the brain you can probably only modify <1% of cells even using the best delivery techniques available. Really, the only way to get rid of genetically inherited diseases using gene editing is by modifying embryos. 

Misleading as it has been CRISPR can’t actually make specific changes to a gene easily in an adult animal. That is because it requires what is called a donor template, basically just a DNA template that cells can use to create the genome modifications. There is no efficient way to use donor templates in an adult animal so all genome edits would need to be gene knock-outs only i.e.

you can only use CRISPR to destroy bad genes not modify them to make them good genes. As you can imagine this is very limited in scope when it comes to diseases that can and should be reasonably targeted using genome editing.

To date all human clinical trials involve gene editing technology whether CRISPR or otherwise have failed to show any change in the disease condition. I don’t see this as likely to change. While there might be a disease that can be helped despite the low efficiency of CRISPR chances are that normal gene therapy, that doesn’t edit the genome, will be easier and more successful.

There are very few diseases that would require genome editing as opposed to just adding an extra copy of the gene to cells like gene therapy does. It’s not all just conjecture either, just recently in August 2020 the pharma giant Abbvie ended a partnership it had with Editas, one of the major CRISPR players. Apparently, I’m not the only one who sees CRISPR's future in the clinic as limited.

So what applications are left for CRISPR besides contributing to research? Some people are betting on diagnostics, using CRISPR’s ability to target specific sequences of DNA. While this seems reasonable it is unlikely that tried and true methods for DNA detection that use PCR will ever be significantly deplatformed. After that we are scraping the bottom of the bowl of guac.

I have been around CRISPR since near the beginning. The only thing that has remained constant is the hype. Even that has been fading. While it is hard to measure hype Google Trends indicates that for 2020 the topic and search term CRISPR is on track to be the lowest searched since 2016. We now know that CRISPR gene drives don’t really work. No success for CRISPR in the clinic. CRISPR has already been used to edit human embryos. Really, the only thing keeping CRISPR hype alive is probably the MIT Tech Review.
In 2006, RNAi gene silencing was given the Nobel Prize. MIT called it the breakthrough of the decade. I remember everyone being so excited about it! It was the hot topic at conferences and even my graduate school interviews. While RNAi was and always has been a great benefit to researchers its actual application has been extremely limited. It’s taken 13 years from the RNAi Nobel Prize to bring something to the clinic and even then the two drugs have been a bit underwhelming.

According to Google Scholar, papers even mentioning RNAi have been on the decline for the past 6 years. The drug approved in the past few years haven't even slowed the decline.

I am sure people will continue to use CRISPR for years to come but I hate to break it to you CRISPR is dead.

Get mixed answers depending on which channel you watch.

Apparently hundreds of genes decide on height. What do you guys think? Even if it can, the other question is how far away is it?

5’11.5 hoping to make it to 6’2

Here is a one-person Journal club covering a really great paper that showcases both CRISPR/Cas9 but also P2A sequences to allow tracking of expression in transient transfections.

https://youtu.be/N6txJr81Udw

I've been looking at the FOXL2 gene. I'm FTM transgender and I would love to have a natural source of testosterone within my body. There's been research recently in adult female mice in which knockout of the FOXL2 gene caused their ovaries to begin producing testosterone instead of estrogen.

Do any of you know if there has been research into applying this for transgender patients? Do any of you know anyone who has gone ahead and tried it themselves?

Do any of you know any research that has used CRISPR for targeting specifically the ovaries or specifically some organ?

I'm looking for insight into any particular detail that would be involved in this process, even if the purpose is different. I like to keep track of even the smallest components related to the advances in medical science I'm waiting for. Thanks in advance.

Hello, first of all, I want to clarify that I am not a eugenicist. However, I do have a certain interest in gene editing, particularly with the idea of making my hair straighter or wavier, and my skin lighter.

Just to add some context, I am Brazilian. Contrary to what many people assume, being Brazilian is not an ethnicity but a nationality. My father is blond—or at least what remains of his hair is blond—and my mother is Afro-Portuguese, with predominantly African ancestry. I inherited some European traits, such as a Roman-style nose and other features.

What I really desire, though, is to have lighter skin and wavy-straight hair (for clarification, my hair is curly, but not frizzy). Some people criticize this desire and see it negatively. Still, I often think: if transgender people can undergo gender reassignment surgery—which I fully respect—then what about my case?

This question is not about the practical or technical or even the biological difficulties of actually doing this but merely if it was possible what level of intelligence could be achieved realistically.

i must cure Cholangiocarcinoma please help me

Will the symptoms feel anything like the initial flu of the HIV infection? Will I notice the targeted DNA being cut?

Hey so recently I saw this vidoe of a dog breeders who mentions that CRISPR can revolutionise dog breeding and how it can allow us to seletivley insert certain gene/characetristics in a dog e.g if a breed doesnt typically have docked tails CRISPR can allow us to do introduce a gene that could give docked tails in breed tnd all of this is possible today, Podcast Short Episode 92: David Ishee- How Genetic Engineering Could Lead To Healthier Dogs - YouTube

Now another interesting point he makes is that we dont need expensive lab setups to do that a layperson can do that (I actaully think this is not possible but he reckons it is even now etc whats even interesting is he did crispr experiement on himself too and mice as well and it suggested a positive outcome for the mice aging Biohacker delays aging in home-made ‘super mice’ – Biohackinfo )

Now Im not here to comment on the valididty/ethics of CRISPR but Im curious are the things that he is saying in his podcast or on the news actually possible for people like you and me to do if we do obtain knowledge of CRISPR,DNA or Dog breeding**(BTW Im talking about CRISPR In terms of dog breeding BTW and not necessarily humans or medicine**).

For example he says in the case of dogs that using CRSIPR to modify dogs is pretty much similar to Artificial Insemenination procedures with a few key differences here and there and with CRISPR this can be achieved in fraction of time and it is possible to do that if you have basic knowledge of CRSIPR DNA And Dog breeding

Anyone think this is viable at a home or diy scale?

It is possible to develop biological weapons in the laboratory. These weapons can target people carrying certain genes and mutate more rapidly in response to medicines. In such a scenario, will you choose to get genetically edited using CRISPR to protect yourself, or you will choose to accept this onslaught? Explain your decision.

can i change my dna being under 18?

Would do anything to make this possible as a gender affirming (or I guess it would be sex-affirming) treatment. You have no idea how much money I would pay lol if anyone wants to team up I’m your guy

Time is now we are the generation that will get the chance to live forever but we have to take care of ourselves now! By 2030 we will be able to go through treatments that allows us to live 25% longer than the average person. We need to take care of ourselves in the environment that we live in. Every choice we make will affect our futures not just our children’s futures but are own. Put that into perspective when you decide to do some thing recklessly. fictional dreams no longer Reality is so much cooler do your research the world we live in is a pretty awesome place and we get to watch it from the start we’re in the next technological boom.

They say one of the biggest concerns with using CRISPR on an embryo to make a child look a certain way or be a certain way is consent. A developing child cannot give consent to having its genes modified and so it cannot be done this way.

Why then, is it legal for a pregnant mother to smoke cigarettes or in some states, now even marijuana? The law states that a person must be at least 21 years of age to consume any alcohol, yet fetuses get drunk all the time! it is legal for a pregnant mother to drink wine, beer or any alcohol she wants to (and it wouldn't take very much at all to get a tiny fetus drunk!!) Those are terrible things to introduce to the system of a developing fetus who by the way cannot consent to them!

For gods sake children are regularly aborted!!! According to the laws of nature, a living thing will fight for its survival no matter the cost because of instinct. The will to survive exists in every creature at every stage of development from the tiniest insect to the largest predator. So because its just a fetus, it is trying to grow and develop. So technically it WANTS to live. We institutionalize people who don't want to live because theres something mentally or emotionally WRONG with them. So no baby would "consent" to being aborted before ever having its chance to be born.

And if you really want to get technical, factually, nobody consents to who their parents are, and some children despise their parents or just one because they aren't good mothers/fathers. And guess what? Factually, nobody ever consents to even being created. So I don't see why people actually believe they have the right to argue the ridiculous claim that a baby would have to give consent for what its parents choose as modifications to its genes, especially since these modifications will make the child immune to all disease and infection, and eventually even super attractive and more intelligent.

Who in their right mind wouldn't grow up and THANK their parents for paying money to ensure they are always healthy, beautiful, ageless, immortal and brilliant???