Initiator gene editing field earthquake of the disputed papers were withdrawn CRISPR off-target crisis is finally lifted

Source: trigger gene editing field earthquake of the disputed papers were withdrawn CRISPR off-target crisis finally lifted

2015, is “Science” magazine named“annual Scientific breakthrough”, related to the application selected for the 2014 and 2016 of the Massachusetts science and engineering technology reviews of the“annual top ten scientific and technological breakthrough”. Without a doubt, the CRISPR gene editing technique has become in recent years, the field of biology is the most fiery technology.

Based on the technology of all the research progress in the show: one belongs to the CRISPR era has arrived!

However, in 2017, 5 December, the top academic journal Nature magazine sub Journal of Nature Methods published an article with only 1 page of the head of thesis, but raises the CRISPR field of the earth shock.

From Columbia University and other research institutions, the scientists confirmed by the CRISPR gene editing technique successfully fixes an issue that causes two mice to blindness gene by whole genome sequencing found that mice have more than 1500 single nucleotide mutations, and a hundred or more bits point to the germinal life of the large fragment of deletion and insertion.

“A thousand more”prediction with genetic mutations that! Don’t CRISPR do not really fly?

Soon, many experts immediately pointed out the experiment there are many problems, such as experimental mice, the number is too small, based on only one sgRNA data, etc., but still inevitably caused everyone to CRISPR technology in question. For a time, the CRISPR-related biotechnology company’s shares crashed and fell……

As the CRISPR leader, and Editas Medicine(Feng Zhang)and Intellia Therapeutics

(Jennifer Doudna)the two companies of the scientists, respectively, wrote to the Nature magazine editorial, that this paper’s conclusion is completely wrong, requiring the papers the withdrawal of the draft.

2017 6 months from the Korean basic science research Institute and the German Institute of Cancer Research 7 scientist for this article the data were re-analyzed, and in the pre-printed site bioRxiv on the post was questioned. Ultimately, the authors believe that the Schaefer et al. observed“off-target mutation”to a large extent may not be the CRISPR/Cas9 off-target result, but rather two genetically modified mice with control mice of the genetic background of the differences caused.

Doing a series of big news after the Nature Methods editorial also began not calm, the first is the“Editorial Note”, followed by“Editorial Expression of Concern”, the 2018, 3 month 30 days, directly to the“Retracted(withdrawn version)”on.

At the same time, the Nature Methods published online from the gene editing field number of academic large coffee multi-article newsletter articles, respond to this.

In addition, the Nature Methods published a“CRISPR off-targets: a reassessment”, which turned out to represent: the original paper was peer-reviewed, but we should at least find a position with a senior mice of the genetic background of the experts. We neglect to regret.

But anyway, this lack of scientific research results or for CRISPR gene editing field to cause a huge negative effect. But another angle to look at the problem, it seems than being talked about is worse no buzz. After all,“fall”, the��Some question and discussion will promote scientific and technological progress. Of course at the same time, more rigorous and Sound is having value, in this case, we also expect to see more research data to support CRISPR/Cas9 this potential research tool.

Reference source:

A Journal Retracted A Controversial Paper About CRISPR. The Damage Might Already Be Done.

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/224118/20180402/journal-that-printed-paper-saying-that-crispr-is-dangerous-retracts-the-paper.htm

Nature journal retracts controversial CRISPR paper after authors admit results may be wrong

https://www.nature.com/nmeth/journal/v14/n6/full/nmeth.4293.html#correction3

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/06/30/157925

https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.4559

https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.4552

https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.4553

https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.4541

https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.4554

*statement: this article by the settled Sina pharmaceutical news authored, the views are those of the authors themselves, does not mean Sina pharmaceutical News Stand.

Published at Fri, 04 Apr 2018 12:53:31 +0000