#CRISPRbabies: Notes on a Scandal
2018; Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.; Volume: 1; Issue: 6 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1089/crispr.2018.29039.spr
ISSN2573-1602
Autores Tópico(s)Innovation and Socioeconomic Development
ResumoThe CRISPR JournalVol. 1, No. 6 First CutOpen AccessCreative Commons license#CRISPRbabies: Notes on a Scandalis corrected by#CRISPRbabies: Notes on a Scandal Ryder SP. CRISPR J 2018;1:355–357. DOI: 10.1089/crispr.2018.29039.sprSean P. RyderSean P. Ryder*Address correspondence to: Sean P. Ryder, Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Pharmacology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, 364 Plantation Street, LRB-906, Worcester MA 01605, E-mail Address: sean.ryder@umassmed.eduDepartment of Biochemistry and Molecular Pharmacology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester Massachusetts.Search for more papers by this authorPublished Online:20 Dec 2018https://doi.org/10.1089/crispr.2018.29039.sprAboutSectionsPDF/EPUB Permissions & CitationsPermissionsDownload CitationsTrack CitationsAdd to favorites Back To Publication ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail Protecting the innocents—What will become of the twin girls whose DNA was recklessly mutated to destroy the CCR5 gene?Like almost everyone, I was stunned by the birth announcement of genetically modified twins, Lulu and Nana. A Tweet pointed me to the MIT Technology Review scoop1 that, along with a subsequent Associated Press article confirming the births,2 revealed something shocking: Chinese researcher He Jiankui (Southern University of Science and Technology) had used CRISPR*-Cas9 gene editing technology to mutate (sic) the DNA of human embryos—embryos that were then implanted and brought to term. Though CRISPR pioneer Jennifer Doudna (HHMI/UC Berkeley) warned us this might happen,3 I had trusted that my fellow scientists would ensure that human trials involving embryonic genome editing would be done transparently, ethically, and with strong moral purpose.Alas, it quickly became clear this was not the case. The first direct comments from Dr. He were released in an unusual way: through a series of YouTube videos. He explained his choice to mutate CCR5—the gene encoding a highly conserved chemokine receptor implicated in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) uptake into T cells—by claiming that "protecting against HIV requires the simplest gene surgery, which is to remove just a few DNA letters," and because "100 million people naturally have a genetic variation that disables CCR5" (see https://youtu.be/aezxaOn0efE). As such, his goal was not to correct a disease-causing variant to save a life. Instead, it was to destroy a normal gene using the simplest editing strategy, hoping to improve upon an otherwise healthy embryo. This set off the "designer baby" warning alarms and raised one particularly critical question: what exactly was done to these children?When I found out (again through Twitter) that Dr. He planned to present his work at the International Summit on Human Genome Editing in Hong Kong (see the accompanying First Cut by Kevin Davies), and that the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine would be streaming the talk live, I joined as many as 1.8 million people (the figure reported by summit co-host Lap-Chee Tsui) watching the webcast around the world. We learned that He had indeed injected CRISPR-Cas9 with a guide RNA targeting CCR5 into embryos. He assessed the extent of editing using pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, implanted those embryos into the mother (named Grace), and monitored the pregnancy through birth. He then sequenced DNA from their placenta, umbilical cord, and cord blood to assess on- and off-target mutations.The unpublished data, as yet unverified, indicated that Lulu carries a non-edited allele of CCR5, as well as a variant that has a 15 bp in-frame deletion ("−15"). Nana carries a 4 bp deletion ("−4") and a single base insertion ("+1"). Moreover, Lulu has evidence of an off-target mutation in an intergenic region, and both babies appear to exhibit mosaicism in sequencing chromatograms (as pointed out on Twitter by Gaetan Burgio [Australian National University]). Importantly, neither baby carries the well-studied CCR5Δ32 variant protective against HIV (see Fig. 1).4–6FIG. 1. The membrane topology of CCR5 and variants Δ32, Nana "+1," Nana "−4", and Lulu "−15" are shown relative to a membrane bilayer. Loops are not drawn to scale. Sequences present in the variants that are not present in the unedited version of CCR5 are shown. Sequences in red are unique to the given variant. TM1 represents the first transmembrane helix. The position of CRISPR targeting is marked.As noted in his YouTube video, He relied upon non-homologous end joining to introduce imprecise insertions and deletions near the position where the Δ32 mutation appears. Both of Nana's frameshift mutations, "−4" and "+1", are predicted to produce non-functional truncated proteins. The "+1" mutation is most similar to Δ32: it produces a similar C-terminus but adds 11 additional amino acids not found in the unedited or the Δ32 variants. The "−4" mutation shifts to a different frame, resulting in a shorter variant that has a different amino-acid sequence at the C-terminus. And the "−15" mutation in Lulu is in-frame, leading to the deletion of five amino acids near the HIV binding site. He predicts this will inhibit HIV uptake, but that hasn't been demonstrated in any model system, let alone humans. His clear assumption is that any mutation that inactivates CCR5 will confer a protective benefit.Is that assumption reasonable? Fyodor Urnov (Altius Institute) points out that Carl June et al. demonstrated that editing of CCR5 in CD4+ T cells protects against HIV infection in vitro in a NOG mouse model of HIV infection and in HIV patients.7,8 Here, zinc finger nucleases were targeted to the first transmembrane span of CCR5 (see Fig. 1), leading to a wide variety of indels that would almost certainly inactivate the protein in a way that would prevent membrane insertion. By contrast, Nana's mutations retain four transmembrane spans, and Lulu's all seven.But are the new mutations safe? He justified his work by saying that ∼100 million people have the non-functioning CCR5Δ32 allele. Yet, while Δ32 is relatively abundant in the population (minor allele frequency ∼0.073 in the ExAC database),9,10 other naturally occurring frameshifting indels are not (1 × 10−5 to 9 × 10−4 in ExAC). Moreover, Δ32 may cause harm, as the allele seems to increase risk for West Nile virus infection (reviewed in Lim et al.11).To be clear, the mutations that He made are not Δ32. They are never-before-seen variants of unknown significance. They might inactivate CCR5 activity and block HIV uptake, but they might also incur new risks. It is not reasonable to rely upon the work of June et al. to justify the safety of these new variants because (1) he targeted a different region of CCR5, and (2) edited T cells, not a zygote.7 What is safe in a CD4+ T cell may not be safe in a developing embryo, or a baby, or in other tissues. He could have assessed the safety of these mutants in a mouse model, as he did for a different mutation, "−23," but he did not. He could have followed the strategy of June et al. to assess efficacy of the mutations,7,8 but he did not. Instead, he appears to have relied on hunches and hopes. As a result, Lulu and Nana—living, human babies—are now the experiment.It is my fervent hope that Lulu and Nana will lead long healthy lives. It is certainly possible, even plausible, that they will remain healthy based upon what is known about CCR5. However, there are enough uncertainties about the function of the mutations to raise clear scientific objections to the work, in addition to the moral and medical objections. I pray that Lulu and Nana are never exposed to HIV. I hope we never have a chance to find out if the experiment "worked." To me, the best outcome is that the babies are unaffected by the procedures of the He lab. Worse outcomes are possible.Based upon the mutations present, Dr. He reversed the names of the babies in his pre- and post-birth data slides. As such, it is impossible to assign a name to a specific genotype without ambiguity. I've used the identities listed on his post-birth data slide throughout this manuscript.AcknowledgmentsI thank Jen Phillips, Gaetan Burgio, Fyodor Urnov, Paul Knoepfler, and several other Twitter users for helpful discussions and explanations; Bob Matthews for encouragement; and Erik Sontheimer, Nick Rhind, and Brian Kelch for comments on a draft of this article. Work in the Ryder Lab is funded by NIH Grant GM117237 to S.P.R. and GM117008 to Francesca Massi and S.P.R.Author Disclosure StatementThe author declares that apart from using CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing technology in his own research on Caenorhabditis elegans embryogenesis. He has no conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise.References1. Regalado A. Chinese scientists are creating CRISPR babies. MIT Technology Review. November 25, 2018. Availiable online at https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612458/exclusive-chinese-scientists-are-creating-crispr-babies/ (accessed December 6, 2018). Google Scholar2. Marchione M. Chinese researcher claims first gene-edited babies. Washington Post, November 26, 2018. Available online at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/ap-exclusive-first-gene-edited-babies-claimed-in-china/2018/11/25/bb9b74de-f124-11e8-99c2-cfca6fcf610c_story.html?utm_term=.8e546caa068a (accessed December 6, 2018). Google Scholar3. Doudna JA, Sternberg SH. A Crack In Creation. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2017. Google Scholar4. Samson M, Libert F, Doranz BJ, et al. Resistance to HIV-1 infection in caucasian individuals bearing mutant alleles of the CCR-5 chemokine receptor gene. Nature 1996;382:722–725. DOI: 10.1038/382722a0. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar5. Liu R, Paxton WA, Choe S, et al. Homozygous defect in HIV-1 coreceptor accounts for resistance of some multiply-exposed individuals to HIV-1 infection. Cell 1996;86:367–377. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar6. Dean M, Carrington M, Winkler C, et al. Genetic restriction of HIV-1 infection and progression to AIDS by a deletion allele of the CKR5 structural gene. Hemophilia Growth and Development Study, Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study, Multicenter Hemophilia Cohort Study, San Francisco City Cohort, ALIVE Study. Science 1996;273:1856–1862. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar7. Tebas P, Stein D, Tang WW, et al. Gene editing of CCR5 in autologous CD4 T cells of persons infected with HIV. New Engl J Med 2014;370:901–910. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1300662. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar8. Perez EE, Wang J, Miller JC, et al. Establishment of HIV-1 resistance in CD4+ T cells by genome editing using zinc-finger nucleases. Nat Biotechnol 2008;26:808–816. DOI: 10.1038/nbt1410. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar9. Lek M, Karczewski KJ, Minikel EV, et al. Analysis of protein-coding genetic variation in 60,706 humans. Nature 2016;536:285–291. DOI: 10.1038/nature19057. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar10. Genomes Project C, Auton A, Brooks LD, et al. A global reference for human genetic variation. Nature 2015;526:68–74. DOI: 10.1038/nature15393. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar11. Lim JK, Glass WG, McDermott DH, et al. CCR5: no longer a "good for nothing" gene—chemokine control of West Nile virus infection. Trends Immunol 2006;27:308–312. DOI: 10.1016/j.it.2006.05.007. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar* Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byLive very long and prosper? Transhumanist visions and ambitions in 2021 and beyond…6 May 2022 | Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 38, No. 5-6Is Malaysia Ready for Human Gene Editing: A Regulatory, Biosafety and Biosecurity Perspective11 March 2021 | Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, Vol. 9Toward precise CRISPR DNA fragment editing and predictable 3D genome engineering30 October 2020 | Journal of Molecular Cell Biology, Vol. 12, No. 11" Designer babies ?!" A CRISPR ‐based learning module for undergraduates built around the CCR5 gene10 August 2020 | Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, Vol. 49, No. 1Reproduction5 February 2021Introducing Chemistry Students to Emerging Technologies in Gene Editing, Their Applications, and Ethical Considerations12 June 2020 | Journal of Chemical Education, Vol. 97, No. 7Ordo-Responsibility for Germline Gene Editing Robert Ranisch, Tina Rudolph, Hans-Joachim Cremer, and Nikolaus Knoepffler17 February 2020 | The CRISPR Journal, Vol. 3, No. 1Reexamining the Ethics of Human Germline Editing in the Wake of ScandalMayo Clinic Proceedings, Vol. 95, No. 2Lessons Learned From Failures and Success Stories of HIV Breakthroughs: Are We Getting Closer to an HIV Cure?31 January 2020 | Frontiers in Microbiology, Vol. 11Being Born in the Era of Genomics6 December 2020Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 1465, No. 1Why Human Embryo Editing Should Be Banned Kiran Musunuru16 December 2019 | The CRISPR Journal, Vol. 2, No. 6Liver targeted gene therapy: Insights into emerging therapiesDrug Discovery Today: Technologies, Vol. 34Integration moderner Lehrmethoden in den Humangenetik-Unterricht in Tübingen2 December 2019 | medizinische genetik, Vol. 31, No. 3Heritable Genome Editing and the Downsides of a Global Moratorium Kerry Lynn Macintosh9 October 2019 | The CRISPR Journal, Vol. 2, No. 5The hidden cost of genetic resistance to HIV-13 June 2019 | Nature Medicine, Vol. 25, No. 6Related articles#CRISPRbabies: Notes on a Scandal Ryder SP. CRISPR J 2018;1:355–357. DOI: 10.1089/crispr.2018.29039.spr21 Feb 2019The CRISPR Journal Volume 1Issue 6Dec 2018 Information© Sean P. Ryder 2018; Published by Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.To cite this article:Sean P. Ryder.#CRISPRbabies: Notes on a Scandal.The CRISPR Journal.Dec 2018.355-357.http://doi.org/10.1089/crispr.2018.29039.sprcreative commons licensePublished in Volume: 1 Issue 6: December 20, 2018Open accessThis Open Access article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and the source are cited.PDF download
Referência(s)