GM Watch
  • Main Menu
    • Home
    • News
      • Newsletter subscription
      • Daily Digest
      • News Reviews
      • News Languages
    • Articles
      • GM Myth Makers
      • GM Reports
      • GM Quotes
      • GM Myths
      • Non-GM successes
      • GM Firms
        • Monsanto: a history
        • Monsanto: resources
        • Bayer: a history
        • Bayer: resources
    • Videos
      • Latest Videos
      • Must see videos
      • Cornell videos
      • Agriculture videos
      • Labeling videos
      • Animals videos
      • Corporations videos
      • Corporate takeover videos
      • Contamination videos
      • Latin America videos
      • India videos
      • Asia videos
      • Food safety videos
      • Songs videos
      • Protests videos
      • Biofuel myths videos
      • Index of GM crops and foods
      • Index of speakers
      • Health Effects
    • Contact
    • About
    • Donations
    • How donations will help us
News and comment on genetically modified foods and their associated pesticides    
  • News
    • Latest News
    • Newsletter subscription
    • News Reviews
    • News Languages
      • Notícias em Português
      • Nieuws in het Nederlands
      • Nachrichten in Deutsch
    • Archive
      • 2021 articles
      • 2020 articles
      • 2019 articles
      • 2018 articles
      • 2017 articles
      • 2016 articles
      • 2015 articles
      • 2014 articles
      • 2013 articles
      • 2012 articles
      • 2011 articles
      • 2010 articles
      • 2009 articles
      • 2008 articles
      • 2007 articles
      • 2006 articles
      • 2005 articles
      • 2004 articles
      • 2003 articles
      • 2002 articles
      • 2001 articles
      • 2000 articles
  • Articles
    • GM Myth Makers
    • GM Reports
    • How donations will help us
    • GM Quotes
    • GM Myths
    • Non-GM successes
    • GM Firms
      • Monsanto: a history
      • Monsanto: resources
      • Bayer: a history
      • Bayer: resources
  • Videos
    • Index of speakers
    • Glyphosate Videos
    • Latest Videos
    • Must see videos
    • Health Effects
    • Cornell videos
    • Agriculture videos
    • Labeling videos
    • Animals videos
    • Corporations videos
    • Corporate takeover videos
    • Contamination videos
    • Latin America videos
    • India videos
    • Asia videos
    • Food safety videos
    • Songs videos
    • Protests videos
    • Biofuel myths videos
    • Index of GM crops and foods
  • Contact
  • About
  • Donations

LATEST NEWS

  • Farmers and rights groups boycott food summit over big business links

  • EU Commission breaking own rules to give green light for new GMOs?

  • Australia: New South Wales ag minister sacrifices GMO discretion

  • The Monsanto Papers: Deadly secrets, corporate corruption, and one man's search for justice

  • Researchers want GMO transparency

GMWatch Facebook cornfield banner

SCIENCE SUPPORTS REGULATION OF GENE EDITING

Plant tissue cultures

GENE EDITING: UNEXPECTED OUTCOMES AND RISKS

Damaged DNA on fire

GENE-EDITED CROPS & FOODS

Help stop the new threat

GM Fed pig

LATEST VIDEOS

  • Seed keepers and truth tellers: From the frontlines of GM agriculture
  • Myths and Truths of Gene-Edited Foods
  • Dangers of gene-edited foods

News Menu

  • Latest News
  • News Reviews
  • Archive
  • Languages

Please support GMWatch

Donations

You can donate via Paypal or credit/debit card.

Some of you have opted to give a regular donation. This is greatly appreciated as it helps place us on a more stable financial basis. Thank you for your support!

CRISPR gene editing in human embryos "wreaks chromosomal mayhem" – Nature journal

Details
Published: 06 July 2020
Twitter

Human embryos against a grungy chaotic background

Lessons must be learned for plant gene editing. Report: Claire Robinson

In June we reported on a study in which the gene-editing technique CRISPR was used to edit human embryos. The study found that around half of the edited embryos contained major unintended edits in the form of deletions or additions of DNA directly adjacent to the edited gene.

Fyodor Urnov, a gene-editing expert and professor of molecular and cell biology at the University of California, Berkeley, commented on the study, “There’s no sugarcoating this. This is a restraining order for all genome editors to stay the living daylights away from embryo editing.”

The study has not yet been peer-reviewed and is published on the pre-print website bioRxiv.

Now the journal Nature has drawn attention to two more pre-print papers with similar findings to that above. Together the three papers show that the use of the gene-editing tool CRISPR–Cas9 to modify human embryos can induce large unwanted changes to the genome at or near the target site. Nature titled its article, "CRISPR gene editing in human embryos wreaks chromosomal mayhem".

It is crucial, in GMWatch's view, that regulators of gene-edited food crops take note of the findings and learn the appropriate cautionary lessons.

Under-appreciated risk of gene editing

The Nature article says the papers "give scientists a good look at what some say is an underappreciated risk of CRISPR–Cas9 editing. Previous experiments have revealed that the tool can make ‘off target’ gene mutations far from the target site, but the nearby changes identified in the latest studies can be missed by standard assessment methods."

Nature quotes Gaétan Burgio, a geneticist at the Australian National University in Canberra, as saying, “The on-target effects are more important and would be much more difficult to eliminate."

Fyodor Urnov, who was not involved in any of the latest research, told the journal, “If human embryo editing for reproductive purposes or germline editing were space flight, the new data are the equivalent of having the rocket explode at the launch pad before take-off."

Nature correctly states that major on-target changes "could be missed in many experiments, which typically look for other unwanted edits, such as single DNA-letter changes or small insertions or deletions of only a few letters. The latest studies, however, looked specifically for large deletions and chromosomal rearrangements near the target site."

Urnov told Nature, “This is something that all of us in the scientific community will, starting immediately, take more seriously than we already have. This is not a one-time fluke.”

What was found in the embryos is the same as what was previously found in animals and in human somatic cells (body cells that are not involved in reproduction, i.e. not sperm or eggs).

Plant gene editors "not looking"

The London-based molecular geneticist Dr Michael Antoniou commented on the findings, "What these researchers have found in human embryos will also be happening in gene-edited plants. But plant genetic engineers are typically fixated only on identifying off-target mutations. So they often miss unintended on-target mutations that can result in numerous outcomes, including unwanted changes in the function of the targeted gene or disruption of the function of multiple genes around the editing site."

An exception is a study that found large-scale unintended mutations at the intended editing site in CRISPR gene-edited rice plants. The researchers found that these mutations were of the same type as those found in the recent human embryo research – namely large insertions, deletions, and rearrangements of DNA at the on-target editing site. Given the extensive nature of these alterations in DNA sequence, these mutations will in all likelihood disturb the functioning of multiple genes, with unknown consequences to the plants’ biochemistry.

The researchers who conducted the rice study concluded, "early and accurate molecular characterization and screening must be carried out for generations before transitioning of CRISPR/Cas9 system from lab to field". They added, “Understanding of uncertainties and risks regarding genome editing is necessary and critical before a new global policy for the new biotechnology is established".

Dr Antoniou said, "Proponents of gene-editing in agricultural plants claim that off-target and unintended on-target mutations can be screened out prior to marketing. But GMO plant developers mostly check gene-edited plants for obvious faults like deformities or stunted growth. They do not carry out detailed molecular characterization and screening for unintended mutations, altered biochemistry, and the inadvertent production of toxins or allergens. So these could easily be missed."

He continued, "It is critical that regulators take note of the similarity of such findings in animal, human, and plant systems and keep gene-edited products regulated and labelled, using current EU GMO laws as a minimum standard."

Menu

Home

News

News Archive

News Reviews

Videos

Articles

GM Myth Makers

GM Reports

GM Myths

GM Quotes

How Donations Will Help Us

Contacts

Contact Us

About

Facebook

Twitter

RSS

Content 1999 - 2021 GMWatch.
Web Development By SCS Web Design