geneediting – BioQuakes

Tag: geneediting

Colossal Biosciences’ recent discovery sparked both fascination and skepticism: three genetically engineered wolf pups—Romulus, Remus, and Khaleesi—have been introduced as the first step toward dire wolf “de-extinction”. These animals, which went extinct more than 10,000 years ago, have become famous in both science and popular culture. However, many scholars believe the story is more complex.. The pups are not exact genetic replicas of Aenocyon dirus (the original dire wolf species), but rather gray wolves whose genomes were edited to resemble certain physical traits of dire wolves.

Instead of reconstructing the full dire wolf genome, Colossal scientists retrieved fragmented DNA from 13,000- and 72,000-year-old fossils and compared those fragments to the complete genome of the gray wolf. They identified key differences and made 20 specific edits to gray wolf cells. For example, modifications to the CORIN gene contributed to the pups’ light-colored fur. After editing, nuclei from these cells were inserted into denucleated dog egg cells via a cloning technique known as somatic cell nuclear transfer. The resulting embryos were implanted into surrogate dogs and delivered via C-section.

While these pups exhibit dire wolf-like traits, they are not genetically identical to true dire wolves. This has sparked criticism within the scientific community. Paleoecologist Jacquelyn Gill argues that the absence of a full dire wolf genome disqualifies these animals from being considered de-extinct. Others, like Colossal’s chief science officer Beth Shapiro, defend the work as a legitimate revival of extinct characteristics, even if the animals themselves are not exact replicas.

Still, the technology involved holds real promise for conservation. Colossal is also working with endangered red wolves (Canis rufus), using similar genetic techniques to introduce lost ancestral traits and increase genetic diversity. These efforts may offer long-term solutions to preserving critically endangered species by equipping them with greater resilience to disease.

This article connects to what we’ve learned in AP Biology about how mutations in DNA affect protein function and influence phenotype. In Colossal’s study, scientists analyzed ancient DNA fragments from dire wolf fossils and compared them to the gray wolf genome to identify genetic differences at specific loci—locations of genes on chromosomes. Using this information, they edited 20 genes in gray wolf cells to match the sequences found in dire wolves. We learned a mutation is a change in the DNA sequence that can affect the structure or function of a resulting protein, and phenotype is the observable trait determined by genotype. When a gene’s nucleotide sequence is changed, it can lead to the production of a different protein during translation, altering the organism’s traits. In this study, those changes were inherited in the cells used for cloning, demonstrating how scientists can directly manipulate the genetic code to produce specific phenotypes by targeting mutations.

I think it is interesting how small changes to DNA sequences can lead to major differences in physical traits. This research shows how much information about an organism’s traits is stored at the molecular level. Do you think using gene editing to recreate traits from extinct species is a valuable scientific goal? Share your thoughts in the comments!

CRISPR: Bringing back the Woolly Mammoth

By almoeba

On April 7, 2025

In Student Post

You may have heard that the gene-editing tool CRISPR has provided hope for treating genetic diseases. Did you know that it is being used to bring back the woolly mammoth?

A company called Colossal Biosciences has been working to revive the species by using genetic modification. They started off by editing five genes in mice, with hopes of one day genetically modifying Asian elephants into woolly mammoths.

The results were cute, fluffy, mice with coats that resemble woolly mammoths. So what steps did they take to create the “mammoth” mice? They first identified mutations in mice that affect fur characteristics, such as curliness, color, and length. They found eight genes linked to these traits, one of which is also disabled in mammoths. Additionally, they identified a mutation in the mammoth genome related to hair pattern and another affecting fat metabolism. Using CRISPR, they disabled five of these genes in fertilized mouse eggs, resulting in 11 pups from 134 edited eggs.

However, much more progress needs to be made. Performing the work on Asian elephants will involve much more effort, and the results may differ significantly. With the size and slow reproduction rate of elephants the experiment will take more time and incur higher costs, but this doesn’t mean it is impossible.

In our AP biology class, we have recently learned about gene expression. Gene expression is accomplished through transcription and translation to create a protein so a trait or phenotype can be expressed. Transcription is the synthesis of RNA using information from DNA, and translation is the synthesis of a protein using information in mRNA. This flow of genetic information from DNA, to RNA, to a protein is known as “Central Dogma”. CRISPR relates to this because it can stop or alter how the gene is expressed, affecting the production of proteins.

It is so interesting to see the advances of CRISPR. I wonder, will it be used to potentially bring back other extinct species? In addition, what are the ethics behind this study? Is it necessary? What else do you think we will see in our future as CRISPR advances?

How far is too far?

By salava

On April 7, 2025

In Student Post

Colossal Biosciences is working to bring back woolly mammoths by genetically modifying Asian elephants, but progress is slow. They have successfully created mice with mammoth-like fur using CRISPR gene editing, but replicating these changes in elephants will be much harder due to their size, slow reproduction, and complex genetics. So far, only one of the genetic changes in the mice exactly matches the mammoth genome, meaning much more research is needed. Scientists warn that modifying too many genes could cause unintended problems, and some experts argue that creating a furry elephant is not the same as bringing back a true mammoth. Ethical concerns and practical challenges also raise doubts about whether this project will succeed.

The idea of bringing back woolly mammoths with the help of gene editing has caused controversy since everyone has a different perspective on this. Colossal Biosciences, is a company that is interested in doing do with woolly mammoths as they successfully created mice with fur similar to that of a mammoth. It is hard to succeed in this mission due to over 1.5 million differences within genes of a mammoth compared to an Asian elephant.

A recent study performed by Colossal showed that eight genes affected characteristics associated with fur such as color, length, etc. Scientists used CRISPR gene editing to turn off five specific genes in mice, which ultimately led to fur that is similar to that of a mammoth. Although this is progress, it is hard to also find similarities in elephants to show cross over. Mice are very small and more simple, whereas elephants are very large and have long reproducing cycles.

Additionally, many researchers recognize that extensive genetic modifications can be very complicated and come with some risks. If you change too many genes it can result in problems with their metabolism and lead to problems within the organism’s body.

Another question and complexity within gene editing is if it is ethical. Many people, specifically researchers believe that it is very invasive especially in certain situations regarding the eggs of an organism. Another argument that is made is that even if an elephant is successfully modified to have fur, it would still be an elephant, not a mammoth.

This raises curiosity if you can make a species not extinct which seems impossible, or if you can just use gene editing to make modern hybrids. This data and research portrays that scientists can attempt and succeed in replicating specific traits, but overall it is extremely difficult and complicated to just bring a species back. This shows that while science can replicate certain traits, bringing back a long-extinct species is far more complex than just altering a few genes. Advancements and new studies in genetic engineering raise many questions if it is moral as humans.

This connects to what we have learned in AP Biology since it connects to DNA. DNA is shown in all living things since it provides a set of instructions from the parents. In regards to the woolly mammoth, scientists studied the DNA of the mammoth to find genes such as fur. They then used CRISPR gene editing and they changed the DNA of mice by turning off or just modifying certain genes to make their fur look like a mammoth. Changing the DNA led to a different appearance since it changed their features. So, ultimately the DNA is changed to make the mice have a similar appearance to the woolly mammoth. I wonder if majority of people think this is ethical or unethical to the organism, and if so, how far will CRISPR go?

From Bacteria to Biotech: The Surprising Similarities in Immune Systems

By ryzouak

On April 30, 2023

In Student Post

Bacteria have always been considered harmful and something to be avoided, but according to a recent study by the University of Colorado Boulder, bacteria might just hold the key to unlocking novel approaches to treating various human diseases. The research reveals that bacteria and human cells possess the same core machinery required to switch immune pathways on and off, meaning that studying bacterial processes could provide valuable insights into the human body’s workings. Moreover, researchers found that bacteria use ubiquitin transferases – a cluster of enzymes – to help cGAS (cyclic GMP-AMP synthase) defend the cell from viral attack. Understanding and reprogramming this machine could pave the way for treating various human diseases such as Parkinson’s and autoimmune disorders.

CRISPR, a gene-editing tool, won the Nobel Prize in 2020 for repurposing an obscure system bacteria used to fight off their own viruses. This system’s buzz reignited scientific interest in the role proteins and enzymes play in anti-phage immune response. Aaron Whiteley, senior author and assistant professor in the Department of Biochemistry, said that the potential of this discovery is much bigger than CRISPR. The team discovered two key components, Cap2 and Cap3 (CD-NTase-associated protein 2 and 3), which serve as on and off switches for the cGAS response. Understanding how this machine works and identifying specific components could allow scientists to program the off switch to edit out problem proteins and treat diseases in humans.

This discovery opens new avenues of research as bacteria are easier to genetically manipulate and study than human cells. Whiteley said that the more scientists understand about ubiquitin transferases and how they evolved, the better equipped the scientific community is to target these proteins therapeutically. The study provides clear evidence that the machines in the human body that are important for just maintaining the cell started out in bacteria, doing some really exciting things. The ubiquitin transferases in bacteria are a missing link in our understanding of the evolutionary history of these proteins. Thus, this research shows the importance of studying evolutionary biology, and how it can provide valuable insights into human health.

The study highlights the similarities between bacteria and human cells in terms of their immune response, specifically, describing how cGAS (cyclic GMP-AMP synthase), a protein critical for mounting a downstream defense when the cell senses a viral invader, is present in both bacteria and humans. This similarity suggests that portions of the human immune system may have originated in bacteria, a concept explored in the evolutionary biology unit. In this past unit, we discussed the origins of life, and how all life originated from a simple bacteria cell. This bacteria cell, though many many many repeated cycles of evolution and natural selection allowed for variation within its species and the formation of new species through the processes of speciation.

CRISPR gene editing: The Benefits and the risks

By rizhu

On April 27, 2023

In Student Post

CRISPR gene editing is a precise technique that uses the Cas9 enzyme and gRNA to modify DNA sequences in an organism’s genome. This method is inspired by a natural bacterial mechanism that protects against viruses. It can change existing genes, introduce new genetic material, and revolutionize fields such as industry, agriculture, and medicine.

CRISPR gene editing was first invented in 1987 by Ishino Etal. Scientists first hypothesized that prokaryotic cells use this method as part of their adaptive immune systems. However, this method was not elucidated until 2007. This gene-editing technique uses RNA molecules to direct the Cas9 enzyme to the precise location where the DNA strands are being cut, thus allowing genetic materials to be modified or added. To be more specific, this system relies on the enzyme’s ability to cleave DNA double helix strands at a particular location, allowing scientists to modify the DNA sequence. This technique is especially beneficial to the medicinal fields due to its specificity; it can potentially treat genetic diseases such as cystic fibrosis, Alzheimer’s, Huntington’s, Parkinson’s, or cancer by modifying the immune cells and directing them to target and kill cancer cells.

Despite the benefits, CRISPR also contains some serious risks. A specific protein called p53, also known as the “guardian of the genome,” helps to detect any damage in the DNA and thus; heads the cells to stop diving to prevent any mistakes. The CRISPR technique might trigger a p53 response, in which edited cells can be “tagged” as damaged and eliminated, thus reducing the efficiency of the gene editing process. However, recent research also indicates that CRISPR can lead to cell toxicity and genome instability. In addition, CRISPR may disrupt normal cell functioning, which leads to cells being unable to detect any DNA damage or extra cell division, thus increasing the risk of further mutations.

Nonetheless, CRISPR still goes deep down into our biology field as it contains molecular biology, where it goes deep down into the cells and modifies DNA sequence. However, changing an organism’s DNA sequence using CRISPR gene-editing technology could have unintended consequences such as off-target effects, incomplete editing, and unknown long-term effects such as cancer or DNA mutation if the matching went wrong.

CRISPR Technology leads the way for potential breakthrough in cancer treatment

By englandiffusion

On April 23, 2023

In Student Post

According to The American Cancer Society, scientists can alter the structure of a particular white blood cell known as the T-cell. This method, known as CAR T-cell therapy, has long been established as a potential weapon against cancer, altering T-cells to best fight cancer based on the patient’s own characteristics. According to an article in Forbes, the genetic editing procedure that has been used to facilitate this technology has relied upon “Viral Vectors,” which according to Beckman Coulter, viral vectors are modified viruses “that can be used to deliver nucleic acids into the genetic makeup of cells.” While useful, Forbes asserts that the usage of Viral Vectors can be time-consuming and “can cost up to $50,000 per dose.” For these reasons, scientists have looked towards a new technology, known as CRISPR technology to facilitate the editing of T-cells.

According to the National Human Genome Research Institute, “CRISPR (short for “clustered regulatory interspaced short palindromic repeats”) is a technology that research scientists use to selectively modify the DNA of living organisms.” According to Forbes, this technology differs from viral vector technology in that it involves the synthesis of “RNA guides,” which allow the scientists to break a DNA sequence at a targeted point, allowing for a change, as would be required to facilitate CAR T-cell therapy. Furthermore, the article asserts that “synthesizing an RNA guide is cheaper and more efficient than cultivating retroviral vectors,” potentially allowing for the treatment to be more widespread. As stated in the Forbes article by William A. Haseltine, former professor at Harvard University, “there is potential to propel CAR T design forward by integrating contemporary innovations such as CRISPR/Cas9 technology.” It is therefore clear that the usage of CRISPR technology for CAR T-cell therapy could revolutionize cancer treatment

Many of the concepts referenced in this post involve concepts we have learned in AP bio class. For example, in the immune system section of the cell communication unit, we learned about the various types of T-cells. For example, we learned how T-killer cells kill infected cells, such as cancer cells, T-memory cells retain information to prevent further infection, and T-helper cells stimulate other T-cells. From here, we learned how T-cells, more specifically T-killer cells, can be used to fight cancer, which connects to CAR T-cell therapy’s usage of the cells for gene editing.

While CRISPR technology’s use in CAR T-cell therapy is exciting, according to Haseltine, it “still has room for improvement.” This technology is not fully developed, and will probably need years to be widespread. But still, the complete implementation of CRISPR technology in CAR T-cell therapy remains an exciting prospect.

Can We Genetically Modify Humans to Live on Mars?

By polkaryotic

On March 20, 2022

In Student Post

CRISPR is a gene-editing technique that modifies the genomes of living organisms. They do this by searching for a strand of DNA and “when the target DNA is found, Cas9 – one of the enzymes produced by the CRISPR system – binds to the DNA and cuts it, shutting the targeted gene off.” CRISPR has been used to cure people of genetic diseases.

Humans have always dreamed of being able to live freely on another planet other than earth. It has been the topic of many pop culture movies throughout history. However with the use of gene editing theoretically this is possible. In a research paper written in 2016, they state that the main problems of living in other worlds would be radiation. With the use of gene-editing they’ve found that the protein named “Dsup prevented the animal’s DNA from breaking under the stress of radiation and desiccation“. It was also able to block X-ray damage by almost 40%. Lisa Nip a scientist at MIT state that “using genetic editing tools like CRISPR to actually transform our own DNA and make ourselves more able to survive in space.” This relates to our AP Bio class as we learned about genes as well as how the genes shape our traits as human. The idea of changing our genes is incredible as we always believed that it’s just how we were born and our parent’s chromosomes determined how we are, but now with CRISPR gene-editing, they can alter our DNA structure. Then through Mitosis, we are able to multiply our DNA, and eventually, all our genes are the edited version.

CRISPR is rapidly advancing our research of gene-editing as it is the easiest and most reliable way to review gene-editing meaning that people are able to study it easily. This also means that scientist have easy access to it and are able to run many trials on DNA editing. Finally, there is a moral question to ask. Is it ethical to edit a person’s genes even if it helps them? Should we tamper with our human genetics? These questions aren’t very pressing as of now because we are still in the primary stages of gene-editing, however, some day these are going to be upon us. Thank You For reading let me know what you think about gene-editing down below.

Meeting Your Great Great Great… Grandchildren

By jednetic

On January 21, 2020

In Student Post

The MDI Biological Lab along with the Buck Institute of Research on Aging have discovered cell pathways that could increase the human lifespan by 400-500%. “The increase in lifespan would be the equivalent of a human living for 400 or 500 years.” The implications this would have are immense along with some potential drawbacks, but let’s get into the science first.

The research was conducted on C. elegans, a nematode, because “it shares many of its genes with humans and because its short lifespan of only three to four weeks.” The short lifespan allows scientists to quickly see the effects of their efforts to extend the healthy lifespan. The keyword here is “healthy” because prolonging life means nothing unless you can extend the quality as well. The scientists used a double mutant in the insulin signaling and TOR pathways. The alteration in the insulin pathway yields a 100% increase in lifespan and the TOR pathway yields a 30% increase. The incredible discovery though was that when combined the new lifespan was amplified by 500%!! The expected yield was 130%.

Here depicted is a diagram showing the meaning of a double mutant.

Researchers still say “the discovery in C. elegans of cellular pathways that govern aging, it hasn’t been clear how these pathways interact.” This discovery does lead to the mindset that the important methods of anti-aging are in the interactions between cellular pathways rather than singular pathways. This newly found interaction could also explain why scientists have had trouble discovering “the gene” the governs aging. The combinations of these treatments are described as being similar to the “way that combination therapies are used to treat cancer and HIV.”

It’s odd to picture a world where this treatment could be considered “cosmetic” in a way. Eventually, the human lifespan could expand to hundreds of years with some even living to 1000. The implications that this could have are a current problem we have of overpopulation. It is farfetched, but this would help immensely with the mission to expand into space. The ability to survive with hundreds of years on a potential “colony ship” allows humans to expand to other planets where we would be able to expand greatly. I’ll end with a question: If this treatment was 100% safe and affordable, would you get it? Why or why not?

Genetically Modified Babies?

By nucleahtide

On January 21, 2020

In Student Post

A decade or two ago, the idea of being able to modify embryos was straight out of a science-fiction movie. However, last November, Chinese scientist He Jiankui genetically modified twin girls’ embryos to have resistance to the HIV virus using a process called CRISPR. His actions have sparked a global panic, as many people feel that current regulations are not enough to keep the scientific community’s actions ethical.

To understand this issue, it is important to understand its individual components. CRISPR is a gene-editing tool that was discovered in 2007 and became widely used in 2013. Essentially, a scientist decides what portion of DNA they would like to alter, and transcribes the sequence into RNA. This RNA finds the portion of DNA with the specific code and then the Cas9 enzyme “cuts” the DNA, allowing a new sequence of DNA to take its place.

The image depicts functions of CRISPR Cas9 technology.

Dr. He used CRISPR Cas9 technology to try to block the HIV pathways in twin girls while they were still embryos. As this experiment was recent, the long-term effects of it are unclear. In addition, as these girls were not developed at the time of their gene editing, they did not give consent to have a treatment that could be detrimental to their health. Furthermore, looking at the Centers for Disease Control website, HIV is primarily acquired by the use of unsafe needles to inject drugs and sexual contact. Using clean needles and condoms can greatly decrease one’s risk of getting HIV, and if a HIV-positive person takes suppression medicines, the viral content of HIV in their blood can become undetectable. Dr. He’s actions gave the twin girls undue risk, with little possible benefit.

In the future, this method of gene editing may be used to prevent or treat genetic diseases, but people have little knowledge of the long-term implications of using this technology on embryos. At the moment, the lack of global legislation regarding this gene-editing technology leaves a lot to be wondered about the future of this tool. According to Victor Dzau who works in the United States National Academy of Medicine, “The silver lining is that the world was awakened by the conduct of Dr. He, and we are all working very, very hard with all good intentions to make sure that this doesn’t happen again—not in the fashion that He did it. And that someday, if and when the technology is ready—and I think all of us are very bullish about this technology—that it will be helping humankind in the right way, knowing the risks and knowing the benefits.” After Dr. He’s experiment, many are in favor of halting the use of CRISPR on human embryos for at least five more years, so more research can be done on the subject. However, legislation, which the world has seen little of, holds a stronger weight than mere recommendations. In Russia, Denis Rebrikov is planning to create CRISPR babies, and regulations in the country regarding his specific goals remain unclear. How will CRISPR embryo editing evolve in the coming decades? Will CRISPR gene editing be as common someday as IVF is today?

BioQuakes

AP Biology class blog for discussing current research in Biology

Tag: geneediting

Reviving Dire Wolf Traits Through Targeted Gene Editing

CRISPR: Bringing back the Woolly Mammoth

How far is too far?

From Bacteria to Biotech: The Surprising Similarities in Immune Systems

CRISPR gene editing: The Benefits and the risks

CRISPR Technology leads the way for potential breakthrough in cancer treatment

Can We Genetically Modify Humans to Live on Mars?

Meeting Your Great Great Great… Grandchildren

Genetically Modified Babies?

Archives