/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10615900
Yet ANOTHER bullshit shillpost.

>>10615900
CRISPR is gay shit. Fuck off.

>>10615900
Well yeah, and the reason nothing has happened is that there is little to no evidence of "genetics" (i.e. genome) being very meaningful at all in the expression of the organism and its relation to its environment.

>>10617454
Literally wut?

>>10617454

>>10617454
t.hyper genius

>>10617454

>>10617454
the funny thing about this is that expression in biology is more less transcription and translation of the genome so saying genome doesn`t influence expression is amazing or down right retarded

>>10617454
Go back to /fit/ broseph

I know that crispr basically can cut part of your dna out, and can put part of your dna in, but can it put a gene that you don't have together and insert it into your genome?

>crispr consumer division, a division of Proctor & Gamble
>crispr injectables at the local pharmacy (apothecary for you dirty europeans)
>poops smell like febreze
>for a limited time only

>>10617454
This.

The central dogma of biology is getting cucked.

>DNA transcribed to RNA and translated to protein
>But only 1% of genome codes proteins
>What does the other 99% do?

Bacteria use CRISPR, humans have siRNAs that help form embryos. Scientists use gene KOs to verify findings also, so it has an academic use. I'm sorry it's taking more than 30 years from its discovery before we can make master race babies and, in general, a bunch of affronts to humanity and gruesome horrors with it. There's red tape around using it because you have to be super sure you're not making extra infectious diseases or wanton human experiments.

>>10619345
crispr cuts with high accuracy. The human body is already designed to repair DNA quickly, in order to prevent harm. You can induce the body to repair DNA with a fragment of your intended DNA by cutting "Sticky ends" that overlap with your intended DNA.

>>10619767
So does that mean that the cutting can cause you to have any gene in the entire human genome, even if you weren't born with it?

>>10617454
Based blue-pilled. Genetics play no role in shaping we become intelligent or how our bodies are shaped. Only culture determines that and every culture is same, so everyone is same.

Racist rightwing are the only ones pushing the idea that genetics define who we become.

>>10619380
>What does the other 99% do

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_of_UTR_Regulatory_Activity

>>10619919
yes, it's a method for introducing transgenes. But it's also used for other things, such as detecting DNA sequences without waiting half a day using the method we've used for the last ~50 years.

>>10620102
Ok last question, so presumably introducing transgenes has been able to be done before, so the real major change that crispr has introduced has been to cut the dna quickly and precisely? Thanks in advance for entertaining my retardation.

>>10621333
not him but ill answer.
CRISPR is revolutionary because of it's specificity. You give it a guide sequence of a length which has enough nucleotide combinations to be specific to a loci in the genome. This is the loci that will be affected.
Previous transgenic insertions require much more work, are experimentally strenuous, and just fail quite often. CRISPR improves upon all of those.
It's not nearly as revolutionary as some people think, but it's a pretty big deal. It makes the generation of transgenic animals, especially mammals (mice/rats) much easier. We are still decades off of any sort of non-correctional gene editing though. I very much doubt "designer babies" will be commercialized in our lifetime, and if they are it will not be nearly what people think.

>>10619955
Genetics define what you are. Circumstance determines where you are. Culture determines who you are.

For example: genetics defined you as a human. Circumstance determined you'd be born in the US to white people. Culture determined you'd be a cunt. If you'd have born to different people in a different culture you'd be less of a faggot.

>>10617454

>>10621346
Thx m8. What about advances in editing someones intelligence? Seems as if all the experts are in agreement that it will probably never happen seeing as there are hundreds of thousands of genes for intelligence, with a lot of them tied up with physical and mental attributes that aren't nice to give to a person.

>>10621352
genetics dictate your maximum potential
environment dictates whether or not you reach that potential
good example is height. someone can be genetically coded for a certain height, but if the environment doesnt provide enough nutrition for that height, you will fall short. But you cannot be above the height dictated by your genes with more nutrition.
I like your analysis too though

>>10621358
intelligence genes are not known. Anyone who says otherwise is full of it. There are certain genes which contribute to intelligence, but how they interact and play into one another is not known. It is not known how editing these gene affects overall cognition, intelligence, or memory.
there IS some evidence that memory storage could be affected with genetic manipulation, but those experiments were done in flies and have not transitioned to mammals yet.
The idea of genetically altering a baby to make it "more intelligent" is very far off. I have no doubt China is doing heavy research into it though.

>>10617454
>Somebody actually copied this shitty pasta

>>10619955
why don't Senegalese women have Chinese kids if genetics is a farce?

>>10617454
The genome is like the skeleton of the expressed phenotype but it's way more complicated gene -> trait.

It's a cheap, easy, multiplexible and generalisable genome editing tool. Better than both MAGE and TALEN's.

All these fucking pseuds hopping on the popsci hype train and then getting burned. I just makes genome engineering easier, nothing more.

>>10621346
>>10620102
I have a question too. So CRISPR can be used to quickly and efficiently modify DNA. Cool. Now how can that ability be useful when we're talking about somatic cells and about changing DNA of existing tissues amd organs? Gene therapy is still in heavy development from what I've read. So is there any way currently known that can change body cells en masse?

>>10622040
Yes, remove them from a body and put them back in. This is how Crispr therapeutics/Vertex is making a permenant cure for sickle cell. You can also use virus delivery, but that is less safe due to immune reactions and less reliable. Other things you might be able to modify easily include skin and white blood cells.

I've seen enough fly to know that a shotgun to the head can help deal with scientific mistakes.

>>10622364
Alright, so we put the modified cells back onto the tissue, but that's still one cell out of a million original ones. How can the new modification proliferate into all of the cells in that tissue?

>>10617454

>>10623398
it cant unless you do it at an embryonic stage.

>>10615900
>You can't engineer yourself to become chads.
Incorrect. In fact it takes a single gene, that when you knocked out via CRISPR, you become a chad.

OP is too much a retard to know what I'm talking about but the gene hackers here would know (pic related).

>>10623398
The applications are mostly limited to therapeutic use regarding genetic diseases. You will likely never be able to modify your whole body safely in your lifetime.

If you are very lucky, you will be able to make beneficial non-therapeutic modifications to your offspring.

>>10624103
Have fun getting a violent immune reaction to a viral vector, sci-fi poster.

>>10624404
>Have fun getting a violent immune reaction to a viral vector, sci-fi poster.
No viruses whatsoever. Inject Cas9 mRNPs in an oocyte to knockout the myostatin gene and then develop that into a human being.

>>10621361
> what is HGH

>>10625278
> oocyte
> he thinks not saying "egg" makes him sound smart

>>10625348
What kind of an oxygen thief uses the word egg instead of oocyte.