Talk:CRISPR gene editing
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the CRISPR gene editing article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Untitled
editEverybody ok with deleting the 'As of's' in this article and trying to keep this article up to date? Hard to read sections like the patent section.--Akrasia25 (talk) 02:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
edit
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2021 and 26 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nmorgan5.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Risks
editWhy no mention or discussion of CRISPR risks? See [CRISPR Worth the Risk?]. -- 98.208.1.65 (talk) 23:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- The link is dead. Audriusa (talk) 11:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, concur, article is extremely thin on risks. The link https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/is-crispr-worth-the-risk works. Some points about ethics, but I guess there is much more in discussion right now not reflected here. I currently have not time for it, sorry.--𝔏92934923525 (talk) 08:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- The link is dead. Audriusa (talk) 11:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Structure
editI think the 'PAM' in this article is unexplained - is it the same as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peptidylglycine_alpha-amidating_monooxygenase? Ignorantly yours, Peter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.87.212 (talk) 02:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Bak references
editI spotted some incoming refspam today from 185.45.22.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Boghog has previously reverted them at CRISPR but this article still contains a lot of references authored by Bak. This edit shows some of the changes that were made. I'm definitely going to remove the first reference because it is primary research and there is no need for a reference at that position in the lead. If anyone is watching, please take a look and consider whether the other references are worthy of being included. SmartSE (talk) 10:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
intro
editThe intro only mentions Cas9, it should be updated as Cas12 and Cas13 are becoming increasingly relevant.--2.204.228.103 (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Please add info on non-viral delivery methods & homology-directed repair
editPlease add some info on such delivery methods / improvements, including some brief info on this study, included in 2022 in science (25 August) like so:
Researchers report the development of a highly effective CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing method without expensive viral vectors, enabling e.g. novel anti-cancer CAR-T cell therapies.[1][2]
From the study:
Enhancing CRISPR-mediated site-specific transgene insertion efficiency by homology-directed repair (HDR) using high concentrations of double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) with Cas9 target sequences (CTSs) can be toxic to primary cells. Here, we develop single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) HDR templates (HDRTs) incorporating CTSs with reduced toxicity that boost knock-in efficiency and yield by an average of around two- to threefold relative to dsDNA CTSs. Using small-molecule combinations that enhance HDR, we could further increase knock-in efficiencies by an additional roughly two- to threefold on average.
It may also be relevant in an article like Chimeric antigen receptor T cell but I'm not sure about that.
Furthermore, I think there probably should be info on "Use in gene editing" in the article Homology directed repair. Could you please add a new section there (with or without some info on this study)? Maybe I'll ask about it at its talk page later but I don't think many would read it.
Concerning the article not containing info on risks, as remarked by @17387349L8764: and an IP in #Risks above, what about transcluding Genome editing#Risks if it's due and useful here? If so, I think the section should probably get expanded at least with some more info on proposed or under development countermeasures (policies, technologies, gene drive control concepts, etc).
References
- ^ Williams, Sarah. "A cellular engineering breakthrough: High-yield CRISPR without viral vectors". Gladstone Institutes. Retrieved 15 September 2022.
- ^ Shy, Brian R.; Vykunta, Vivasvan S.; Ha, Alvin; Talbot, Alexis; Roth, Theodore L.; Nguyen, David N.; Pfeifer, Wolfgang G.; Chen, Yan Yi; Blaeschke, Franziska; Shifrut, Eric; Vedova, Shane; Mamedov, Murad R.; Chung, Jing-Yi Jing; Li, Hong; Yu, Ruby; Wu, David; Wolf, Jeffrey; Martin, Thomas G.; Castro, Carlos E.; Ye, Lumeng; Esensten, Jonathan H.; Eyquem, Justin; Marson, Alexander (25 August 2022). "High-yield genome engineering in primary cells using a hybrid ssDNA repair template and small-molecule cocktails". Nature Biotechnology: 1–11. doi:10.1038/s41587-022-01418-8. ISSN 1546-1696. PMID 36008610. S2CID 251843150.
Wiki Education assignment: Technology and Culture
edit This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TheEditor0702 (article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Thecanyon (talk) 05:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)