Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Featured Medical Scientists identify major safety issue with CRISPR

  1. Jun 11, 2018 #1

    Ygggdrasil

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    2017 Award

    CRISPR-Cas9 technology provides scientists with an easy way to introduce targeted genetic changes to DNA and a number of different companies are looking at ways to use CRISPR to fix genetic diseases in humans. Two groups of researchers, however, have identified a major issue with CRISPR gene editing that has important implications for the safety of the technique.

    CRISPR-Cas9 is an enzyme that cuts the DNA inside of the cell at a specific location. After the DNA is cut, scientists can then manipulate the cellular DNA repair systems to introduce mutations at the site of the cut to inactivate a specific gene or introduce foreign DNA sequences at the site of the cut to, for example, fix a disease causing mutation. Normal cells, however, have defenses against DNA damage, including the tumor suppressor protein p53. The researchers found that active p53 proteins inside of the cell greatly reduce the efficiency of gene edits by CRISPR. What this means, however, is that the cells that are successfully edited often have problems with their p53.

    Why is this important? p53 helps protect cells against cancer:
    https://www.statnews.com/2018/06/11/crispr-hurdle-edited-cells-might-cause-cancer/

    If selecting for edited cells selects for cells with defective p53, those cells will likely have an increased propensity to become cancerous in the future.

    Small scale studies of CRISPR have not been able to detect increases in cancer, so it is possible that these studies do not tell the whole story. Furthermore, these problems may not occur in some applications of CRISPR (disrupting genes) and may mainly affect cases where scientists are using CRISPR to repair genes. There are also newer technologies that can directly edit DNA without cutting the DNA, which would not be subject to these concerns. Still, these papers point out important limitations in CRISPR technology that need to be considered as CRISPR moves towards clinical applications.

    Primary scientific literature:
    Haapaniemi et al. 2018 CRISPR–Cas9 genome editing induces a p53-mediated DNA damage response. Nature Medicine. Published online 11 June 2018. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-018-0049-z
    https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/08/25/180943

    Ihry et al. 2018. p53 inhibits CRISPR–Cas9 engineering in human pluripotent stem cells. Nature Medicine. Published online 11 June 2018. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-018-0050-6
    https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/07/26/168443

    Popular press:
    STAT news: https://www.statnews.com/2018/06/11/crispr-hurdle-edited-cells-might-cause-cancer/
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2018
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 11, 2018 #2
    Yes, let's not fix the disease killing you now because of a risk that might kill you in twenty years.
     
  4. Jun 12, 2018 #3

    atyy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I guess this is not a problem with TALENs?
     
  5. Jun 12, 2018 #4

    Ygggdrasil

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    2017 Award

    Because TALENs (and the earlier zinc-finger nuclease technology) also rely on cutting the DNA to generate double-strand breaks, this issue also applies.
     
  6. Jun 12, 2018 #5

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    As stated, it isn't clear that this concern is meaningful. Is it:
    1. Selecting cells with a higher cancer risk results in an increased cancer risk in edited cells vs selecting cells with a lower cancer risk. [Meaningless because you are just selecting and measuring a pre-existing risk without actually altering the risk.]
    or:
    2. Gene editing increases cancer risk in general, so selecting cells with reduced ability to fight cancer makes it worse.

    or something else?
     
  7. Jun 12, 2018 #6

    Ygggdrasil

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    2017 Award

    Interpretation #1 is the correct one. While you are correct that this won't result in an increased cancer risk in some applications, there are others where this is a concern. Here are a few ways in which scientists envision using CRISPR:

    1) Packaging CRISPR-Cas9 into a virus and applying the virus to the tissue that needs to be repaired (e.g. injection into the eye to treat blindness). As you correctly point out, the concern brought up from the papers does not really apply here. The edits are more likely to go into cells with a pre-existing cancer risk, but likely aren't altering that pre-existing risk. However, these applications are probably furthest from the clinic for other technical and safety reasons (mainly surrounding delivery of the viruses). Furthermore, the fact that active p53 suppresses gene editing suggests that these methods won't be terribly efficient in most of the cells in the body.

    2) Scientists extract cells from the individual, edit them in the laboratory, expand them in culture, and re-introduce them into the body. Some of the first planned clinical trials for CRISPR-based therapies are based on this idea. One hopes to engineer immune cells to help them fight cancer and another looks to correct one of the genes involved in sickle-cell anemia. Because scientists select for edited cells in the lab and then grow those cells in the lab before injecting them back into the patients, the concern is that the scientists will be introducing a large population of cancer-prone cells into the patients. This is a particularly important concern when introducing edited stem cells into the body, as envisioned by the sickle-cell anemia therapy.

    3) Editing embryos to correct genetic defects at their source. In the process of editing embryos and selection for embryos containing the correct edits, if scientists are not careful, they are likely to also select for embryos with defects in p53. This research makes a strong argument for a moratorium on human germ-line gene editing until we understand more about these issues.
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2018
  8. Jun 13, 2018 #7

    Orodruin

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    2017 Award

    I do not think anybody advocated that. As with any treatment it is important to investigate possible side effects. However, the fact that side effects exist do not stop us from using the treatments where the severity of the side effects do not outweigh the benefits of the treatment.
     
  9. Jun 13, 2018 #8

    TeethWhitener

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    @Ygggdrasil I'm curious, because I couldn't read past the abstracts of the papers you posted. The Ihry paper mentions wild-type p53 specifically, so I imagine they probably looked at the effectiveness of CRISPR in the presence of WT versus mutant p53's. The other paper simply mentions "inhibition," and I wonder if simply downregulating or silencing the expression of WT-p53 would increase the effectiveness of CRISPR without adversely selecting for nonfunctional p53 mutants. Does the Haapaniemi paper address this?
     
  10. Jun 13, 2018 #9

    Ygggdrasil

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    2017 Award

    Preprints of both papers are freely available on biorxiv (I've updated the OP to include links to these):
    https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/08/25/180943
    https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/07/26/168443

    To answer your question, both papers look at the efficiency of editing in the presence or absence of p53. Both compare p53 wild-type cells to cells in which p53 has been genetically knocked out. Both paper also explore methods to transiently inhibit p53, through either transient expression of MDM2 or a dominant negative verison of p53. More work is necessary to see whether transient inhibition of p53 is harmful. To quote the closing paragraph from Ihry et al.

     
  11. Jun 13, 2018 #10
    I was being somewhat facetious, but I can already see headlines and politicians quoting a study like this as a reason not to pursue these gene editing technologies.
     
  12. Jun 13, 2018 #11

    jim mcnamara

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    @dipole - you are not adding anything to the thread, other than personal opinion. More of this kind of non-helpful posting is not welcome. Please stop.
     
  13. Jun 13, 2018 #12

    atyy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Well, I guess we'll find out some time whether it's an issue or not, since TALENs are already in clinical use for CAR-T?
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted