Gene-editing damages DNA more than thought: study

Agencies
July 17, 2018

Paris, Jul 17:  A revolutionary gene editing technique hailed as the future of disease eradication and mooted for a Nobel Prize may be less precise and cause more cell damage than previously thought, researchers said Monday.

Lab experiments using mouse and human cells revealed that the CRISPR-Cas9 technique "frequently" caused "extensive" gene mutations, a study team reported.

"This is the first systematic assessment of unexpected events resulting from CRISPR-Cas9 editing," said Allan Bradley of the Wellcome Sanger Institute in England, where the team conducts research.

The research showed that "changes in the DNA have been seriously underestimated before now," said Bradley, who co-authored a study published in the journal Nature Biotechnology.

The mutations have not been shown to be harmful, nor benign.

"It is important that anyone thinking of using this technology for gene therapy proceeds with caution and looks very carefully to check for harmful effects," Bradley said in a statement issued by the institute.

First unveiled about six years ago, CRISPR-Cas9 allows scientists to insert, remove and correct a faulty sequence on a strand of DNA in a cell with pinpoint precision.

It has raised hopes that one-day disease-causing genes could be removed or altered before a baby is even born.

In recent years, CRISPR-Cas9 has repeatedly been predicted to win the Nobel Chemistry Prize.

CRISPRs -- clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats -- are part of the immune defence system in bacteria, used to hone in on the exact spot on the genome where the cut should be made.

Cas9 is a protein used as "scissors" to snip through the faulty gene, which is then replaced or fixed by the cell's own DNA repair mechanism.

The technique's safety has not yet been proven, and it is not approved for use in human therapy.

So far, researchers have used it to improve hearing in mice going deaf and to fix a disease-causing mutation in cloned, early-stage human embryos.

But the new finding raises "safety implications," the team said.

They found "large genetic rearrangements such as DNA deletions and insertions" in cells, which could lead to important genes being switched on or off and causing dangerous changes.

The research also showed that standardized tests do not pick up damage to DNA caused by CRISPR-Cas9.

Experts not involved in the study said it was unclear how such large, unintended changes were not noticed before.

But, "the results give no reason to panic or to lose faith in the methods when they are carried out by those who know what they are doing," said Robin Lovell-Badge of The Francis Crick Institute, a biomedical research centre in London.

For Francesca Forzano, a consultant in clinical genetics and genomics with the Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, the work showed that CRISPR-Cas9 "is much less safe than previously thought" and that safety-monitoring techniques were "not entirely adequate".

More research is needed before any clinical application of the method is considered, said Forzano.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
April 4,2020

Washington D.C., Apr 4: While consuming a high-diet salt can result in high blood pressure, a recent study has revealed a link between salt-rich diet and weaker immune system.

The study was conducted under the leadership of the University Hospital Bonn, and the results were published in the journal Science Translational Medicine.

The research was conducted on mice that were fed a high-salt diet. Later, they were found to suffer from much more severe bacterial infections.

Human volunteers who consumed an additional six grams of salt per day also showed pronounced immune deficiencies.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has recommended a maximum amount of five grams of salt a day.

It corresponds approximately to one level teaspoon. In reality, however, many Germans exceed this limit considerably. 

Figures from the Robert Koch Institute suggest that on average men consume ten, and women more than eight grams a day.

This means that we reach for the salt shaker much more than is good for us. After all, sodium chloride, which is its chemical name, raises blood pressure and thereby increases the risk of heart attack or stroke.

"We have now been able to prove for the first time that excessive salt intake also significantly weakens an important arm of the immune system," said Prof. Dr. Christian Kurts from the Institute of Experimental Immunology at the University of Bonn.

This finding is unexpected, as some studies point in the opposite direction. For example, infections with certain skin parasites in laboratory animals heal significantly faster if these consume a high-salt diet.

The study also sheds light on the fact that the skin serves as a salt reservoir.

"Our results show that this generalization is not accurate," emphasized Katarzyna Jobin, lead author of the study.

The body keeps the salt concentration in the blood and in the various organs largely constant. Otherwise important biological processes would be impaired. The only major exception is the skin which functions as a salt reservoir of the body. This is why the additional intake of sodium chloride works so well for some skin diseases.

However, other parts of the body are not exposed to the additional salt consumed with food. Instead, it is filtered out by the kidneys and excreted in the urine.

"We examined volunteers who consumed six grams of salt in addition to their daily intake," said Prof. Kurts. This is roughly the amount contained in two fast-food meals, i.e. two burgers and two portions of French fries.

After one week, from the results, it showed that the immune cells coped much worse with bacteria after the test subjects had started to eat a high-salt diet.

In human volunteers, excessive salt intake also resulted in increased glucocorticoid levels.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
International New York Times
July 7,2020

The coronavirus can stay aloft for hours in tiny droplets in stagnant air, infecting people as they inhale, mounting scientific evidence suggests.

This risk is highest in crowded indoor spaces with poor ventilation, and may help explain superspreading events reported in meatpacking plants, churches and restaurants.

It’s unclear how often the virus is spread via these tiny droplets, or aerosols, compared with larger droplets that are expelled when a sick person coughs or sneezes, or transmitted through contact with contaminated surfaces, said Linsey Marr, an aerosol expert at Virginia Tech.

Follow latest updates on the Covid-19 pandemic here

Aerosols are released even when a person without symptoms exhales, talks or sings, according to Marr and more than 200 other experts, who have outlined the evidence in an open letter to the World Health Organization.

What is clear, they said, is that people should consider minimizing time indoors with people outside their families. Schools, nursing homes and businesses should consider adding powerful new air filters and ultraviolet lights that can kill airborne viruses.

What does it mean for a virus to be airborne?

For a virus to be airborne means that it can be carried through the air in a viable form. For most pathogens, this is a yes-no scenario. HIV, too delicate to survive outside the body, is not airborne. Measles is airborne, and dangerously so: It can survive in the air for up to two hours.

For the coronavirus, the definition has been more complicated. Experts agree that the virus does not travel long distances or remain viable outdoors. But evidence suggests it can traverse the length of a room and, in one set of experimental conditions, remain viable for perhaps three hours.

How are aerosols different from droplets?

Aerosols are droplets, droplets are aerosols — they do not differ except in size. Scientists sometimes refer to droplets fewer than 5 microns in diameter as aerosols. (By comparison, a red blood cell is about 5 microns in diameter; a human hair is about 50 microns wide.)

From the start of the pandemic, the WHO and other public health organizations have focused on the virus’s ability to spread through large droplets that are expelled when a symptomatic person coughs or sneezes.

These droplets are heavy, relatively speaking, and fall quickly to the floor or onto a surface that others might touch. This is why public health agencies have recommended maintaining a distance of at least 6 feet from others, and frequent hand washing.

But some experts have said for months that infected people also are releasing aerosols when they cough and sneeze. More important, they expel aerosols even when they breathe, talk or sing, especially with some exertion.

Scientists know now that people can spread the virus even in the absence of symptoms — without coughing or sneezing — and aerosols might explain that phenomenon.

Because aerosols are smaller, they contain much less virus than droplets do. But because they are lighter, they can linger in the air for hours, especially in the absence of fresh air. In a crowded indoor space, a single infected person can release enough aerosolized virus over time to infect many people, perhaps seeding a superspreader event.

For droplets to be responsible for that kind of spread, a single person would have to be within a few feet of all the other people, or to have contaminated an object that everyone else touched. All that seems unlikely to many experts: “I have to do too many mental gymnastics to explain those other routes of transmission compared to aerosol transmission, which is much simpler,” Marr said.

Can I stop worrying about physical distancing and washing my hands?

Physical distancing is still very important. The closer you are to an infected person, the more aerosols and droplets you may be exposed to. Washing your hands often is still a good idea.

What’s new is that those two things may not be enough. “We should be placing as much emphasis on masks and ventilation as we do with hand washing,” Marr said. “As far as we can tell, this is equally important, if not more important.”

Should I begin wearing a hospital-grade mask indoors? And how long is too long to stay indoors?

Health care workers may all need to wear N95 masks, which filter out most aerosols. At the moment, they are advised to do so only when engaged in certain medical procedures that are thought to produce aerosols.

For the rest of us, cloth face masks will still greatly reduce risk, as long as most people wear them. At home, when you’re with your own family or with roommates you know to be careful, masks are still not necessary. But it is a good idea to wear them in other indoor spaces, experts said.

As for how long is safe, that is frustratingly tough to answer. A lot depends on whether the room is too crowded to allow for a safe distance from others and whether there is fresh air circulating through the room.

What does airborne transmission mean for reopening schools and colleges?

This is a matter of intense debate. Many schools are poorly ventilated and are too poorly funded to invest in new filtration systems. “There is a huge vulnerability to infection transmission via aerosols in schools,” said Don Milton, an aerosol expert at the University of Maryland.

Most children younger than 12 seem to have only mild symptoms, if any, so elementary schools may get by. “So far, we don’t have evidence that elementary schools will be a problem, but the upper grades, I think, would be more likely to be a problem,” Milton said.

College dorms and classrooms are also cause for concern.

Milton said the government should think of long-term solutions for these problems. Having public schools closed “clogs up the whole economy, and it’s a major vulnerability,” he said.

“Until we understand how this is part of our national defense, and fund it appropriately, we’re going to remain extremely vulnerable to these kinds of biological threats.”

What are some things I can do to minimize the risks?

Do as much as you can outdoors. Despite the many photos of people at beaches, even a somewhat crowded beach, especially on a breezy day, is likely to be safer than a pub or an indoor restaurant with recycled air.

But even outdoors, wear a mask if you are likely to be close to others for an extended period.

When indoors, one simple thing people can do is to “open their windows and doors whenever possible,” Marr said. You can also upgrade the filters in your home air-conditioning systems, or adjust the settings to use more outdoor air rather than recirculated air.

Public buildings and businesses may want to invest in air purifiers and ultraviolet lights that can kill the virus. Despite their reputation, elevators may not be a big risk, Milton said, compared with public bathrooms or offices with stagnant air where you may spend a long time.

If none of those things are possible, try to minimize the time you spend in an indoor space, especially without a mask. The longer you spend inside, the greater the dose of virus you might inhale.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
June 29,2020

Washington DC, Jun 29: Young children with narrow retinal artery diameters were more likely to develop higher blood pressure, and children with higher blood pressure levels were more likely to develop retinal microvascular impairment during early childhood, according to a new study.

The first study to show this connection in children was published today in Hypertension, an American Heart Association journal.

High blood pressure, the main risk factor for the development of cardiovascular disease (CVD), can manifest as early as childhood, and the prevalence of high blood pressure among children continues to rise. In previous studies, analysis of blood vessels in the retina has shown promise as a predictor of CVD risk among adults. In the study titled, "Retinal Vessel Diameters and Blood Pressure Progression in Children," researchers sought to predict the development of high blood pressure in children over four years based on retinal blood vessel measurements.

"Hypertension continues as the main risk factor for the development of cardiovascular diseases and mortality," says Henner Hanssen, M.D., the study's lead author and a professor in the department of sport, exercise and health at the University of Basel in Switzerland. 

"Primary prevention strategies are needed to focus on screening retinal microvascular health and blood pressure in young children in order to identify those at increased risk of developing hypertension. The earlier we can provide treatment and implement lifestyle changes to reduce hypertension, the greater the benefit for these children."

Researchers screened 262 children ages six to eight from 26 schools in Basel, Switzerland, in 2014, for baseline blood pressure and retinal arterial measurements. Both measures were taken again in 2018. Blood pressure measurements at both baseline and follow-up were performed in a sitting position after a minimum of five minutes of rest and were categorized based on the American Academy of Pediatrics' blood pressure guidelines. These guidelines utilize the same measurements as the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology 2017 Guideline for the Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Management of High Blood Pressure in Adults.

Results from the analysis indicate: children with narrower retinal vessel diameters at baseline developed higher systolic blood pressure at follow-up; retinal vessel diameters could explain 29 -31 per cent of the changes in systolic blood pressure progression between 2014 and 2018; children with higher blood pressure levels at baseline developed significantly narrower arteriolar diameters at follow-up, depending on weight and cardiorespiratory fitness; and initial blood pressure measures explained 66-69 per cent of the change in retinal arteriolar diameter from baseline to follow-up.

"Early childhood assessments of retinal microvascular health and blood pressure monitoring can improve cardiovascular risk classification. Timely primary prevention strategies for children at risk of developing hypertension could potentially counteract its growing burden among both children and adults," said Hanssen.

Researchers noted limitations of their study include that they could not confirm blood pressure measurements over a single 24-hour period, so they would not account for "white coat" hypertension, a condition where patients have high blood pressure readings when measured in a medical setting.

Developmental stage including puberty status of each child was not accounted for in the study, as well as genetic factors or birth weight - variables that could impact blood pressure development and microvascular health.

In addition, reference values for appropriate retinal vessel diameters in children do not currently exist, so future studies are needed to determine age-related normal values during childhood.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.