Shocked! The top international journals announced CRISPR toxic! Then it was the withdrawal of the draft!

author: Ghost Valley hidden Dragon

edit: tomorrow

in 2017 a lot has happened, many of which I have forgotten, but there is one thing that until now I are difficult to calm down at the time of the mood.

that thing originated in an article published in the world’s leading biotechnology journal Nature-method onNature Methodson the paper, named theCRISPR/Cas9in the body of the editor after the girl think of the mutations of theUnexpected mutations after CRISPR–Cas9 editing in vivo）[1]。

This paper was published in the life Sciences in the circle set off an earthquake, it is said on the same day makes gene editing field two Dean Zhang Feng and Jennifer du de na of the company’s share price plummeted. Because it presents a very scary point of view-to use CRISPR/Cas9 to edit genes of mice will appear more than a thousand unpredictable mutations in!

at that time, the CRISPR/Cas9 are moving in the medical field make great strides forward. Medical technology is the most important? Safe! Political bad people don’t do not, the political problem to that something big. Academia has been that CRISPR/Cas9 is an extremely precise and safe gene editing technologies can be efficiently controllably change the biological gene[2,3]。 This article turned out, almost completely ruined this with trillions of dollars in the value of the sunrise industry. Really dood na watched in silence, Zhang Feng see the want to hit people OK. p>

and we, as the practitioners in the field of, naturally also the first time to see this article. After reading, the heart only feel is……

but we were shocked not that it scared personal conclusions, but,

this study is really doing too outrageous……

In fact, for this conclusion we start to refuse, after all, 2017 is already CRISPR/Cas9 begin large-scale application of the fifth year, theis also a I’m Graduate School the fifth year（cry）around the world there have been thousands of laboratories do thousands of studies, and this was much to the collective neglect of so many genetic mutations.

then look at the research of the content, the entire lab of people instantly are bad.

these people did one? Simple to say, they use the CRISPR/Cas9 technology to edit the two mice of the gene, and then put the two rats and the same“inbred”rat than a bit of genes, the results found that in addition to the CRISPR/Cas9 targeting sites outside there are a thousand more gene differences, and thus concluded that CRISPR/Cas9 will lead to unexpected mutations.

eh it? At first glance a watch like no problem. A problem, to understand the problem in which, first of all to understand what’s called of mice inbred lines. We all know that, in most cases, you and next door to the old King gene the difference was relatively far away, and you and your parents brothers and sisters of the gene is relatively close. Then the person and the human gene is also more similar to some? You can, for example, between brothers and sisters consanguineous marriages, give birth to the children between the gene would be more similar.

and the human to the mouse to do things more exaggerated some, some of the mice family is continuous inbreeding over ten generations, then these mice family genes will be very very very similar, so the mice family is called a“mice inbred”in. However, even the inbred inside of the mice between each of the genes or there are so little differences, not to mention each generation of mice more or less there will be some new mutation.

while this essay the biggest problem is that it completely didn’t consider the mice between already existing genetic differences, to put all who can find genes on different places all the blame CRISPR/Cas9 lead to mutations.

I never thought the rest of the year turned out to be in a first-tier journal to see commit this mistake of the research.

good��, The old driver of course also possible to turn the car, this epic rollover field in history is not without precedent. But this time, a rollover is what is the impact of a little big. In General, even if the journal editors and blind, but the researchers are not collectively stupid, do not fly the research will usually be ignored. But this time don’t know why, papers side of the world is the media blowing on the day, the General population don’t have this ability to identify, a look at the top journals are saying, will naturally think gene editing no future, then there is the beginning of the stock plunge of that scene.

seeing the scenes fast losing control, the countries of the world scientists to the natural-method of sending the rejected letter is simply comparable to Harry Potter acceptance letter[4-10]。 To this end the natural-method of before before and after after several papers editorial comments, it is directly attached to the original back, repeatedly described the conclusion of this article have a problem.

why should I? Because, according to the Academia of practice, only one of the articles on all major authors agree to the withdrawal of the draft of the case to be withdrawn draft. Edit do this on the meaning is very obvious, is to advise you to take the initiative to withdraw the draft well, we all leave a face. However, absolutely did not expect this time met a nails–more than six months, Alexander G. Bassuk, etc. several corresponding author’s disagrees with the withdrawal of the draft.

then there came the year 3 May 30, fantasy results-the natural-a method of final basic is a unilateral decision, in the communication the authors all agree with the case, forced the withdrawal of the draft of this thesis, can be considered to break the academic routine.

but this thing is not yet finished, academia there is a problem not satisfied, so pulpy article, when is the How is the nature-the method of receiving it? The withdrawal of the draft of the statement probably meant is that this article originally is a peer-reviewed, just those commenters who just are don’t know much about mice, inbred?![11]。

Well, I’ll pretend to believe it.

anyway, this storm is actually on our lab also no big impact.

well, there is in fact little……

a senior is last year’s knockout of the chromosome that bit when a saw the paper, immediately a clap thigh to say, Emma is a good opportunity to Ah, I immediately with the very rigorous scientific method re-do some paper work, and then draw a negative conclusion to refute it, not just white picked up aNature methods.

The results of the work just spread out, the article on the withdrawal of the draft.

author business cards

reference:

1. Schaefer, K. A., Wu, W. H., Colgan has, D. F., Tsang, S. H., Bassuk, A. G., & Mahajan, V. B. (2017). Unexpected mutations after CRISPR-Cas9 editing in vivo. Nature methods, 14(6), 547-548.

2. Kim, D., Bae, S., Park, J., Kim, E., Kim, S., Yu, H. R., … & Kim, J. S. (2015). Digenome-seq: genome-wide profiling of CRISPR-Cas9 off-target effects in human cells. Nature methods, 12(3), 237.

3. Kleinstiver, B. P., Pattanayak, V., Prew, M. S., Tsai, S. Q., Nguyen, N. T., Zheng, Z., & Joung, J. K. (2016). High-fidelity CRISPR–Cas9 nucleases with no detectable genome-wide off-target effects. Nature, 529(7587), 490.

4. Kim, S. T., Park, J., Kim, D., Kim, K., Bae, S., Schlesner, M., & Kim, J. S. (2018). Response to “Unexpected mutations after CRISPR–Cas9 editing in vivo”. Nature methods.

5. Wilson, C. J., Fennell, T., Bothmer, A., Maeder, M. L., Reyon, D., Cotta-Ramusino, C., … & amp; Albright, C. F. (2018). Response to “Unexpected mutations after CRISPR–Cas9 editing in vivo”. Nature methods.

6. Lareau, C., Clement, K., Hsu, J. Y., Pattanayak, V., Joung, J. K., Aryee, M. J., & Pinello, L. (2017). “Unexpected mutations after CRISPR-Cas9 editing in vivo” are most likely the pre-existing sequence variants and not nuclease-induced mutations. bioRxiv, 159707.

7. Schaefer, K. A., Wu, W. H., Colgan has, D. F., Tsang, S. H., Bassuk, A. G., & Mahajan, V. B. (2017). Response to Editas: Unexpected mutations after CRISPR-Cas9 editing in vivo. bioRxiv, 154450.

8. Caleb A. Lareau, Kendell Clement, Jonathan Y Hsu, Vikram Pattanayak, J Keith Joung, Martin J Aryee & Luca Pinello. (2018). Response to “Unexpected mutations after CRISPR–Cas9 editing in vivo”. Nature methods.

9. Reynald M Lescarbeau, Bradley Murray, Thomas M Barnes & Nessan Bermingham. (2018). Response to “Unexpected mutations after CRISPR–Cas9 editing in vivo”. Nature methods.

10. Lauryl M J Nutter, Jason D Heaney, K C Kent Lloyd, Stephen A Murray, John R. Seavitt, William C Skarnes, Lydia Teboul, Steve D M Brown & Mark Moore. (2018). Response to “Unexpected mutations after CRISPR–Cas9 editing in vivo”. Nature methods.

11. Retraction note: doi:10.1038/nmeth. 4293

shell science people

welcome to the personal forwarded to the circle of friends

this article from the fruit shell network

from the paper to science, only a step

Reprint

please contact sns@guokr.com

contributor