ReportWire

Tag: cells

  • How Cells Resist the Pressure of the Deep Sea

    How Cells Resist the Pressure of the Deep Sea

    To study the cell membranes of deep-sea animals, the biochemist Itay Budin (center) joined forces with marine biologists Steve Haddock (right) and Jacob Winnikoff (left).

    Photographs: From left: Tamrynn Clegg; Geoffroy Tobe; John Lee

    “They are looking into an area that, to a large degree, has not been explored,” said Sol Gruner, who researches molecular biophysics at Cornell University; he was consulted for the study but was not a co-author.

    Plasmalogen lipids are also found in the human brain, and their role in deep-sea membranes could help explain aspects of cell signaling. More immediately, the research unveils a new way that life has adapted to the most extreme conditions of the deep ocean.

    Insane in the Membrane

    The cells of all life on Earth are encircled by fatty molecules known as lipids. If you put some lipids in a test tube and add water, they automatically line themselves up back to back: The lipids’ greasy, water-hating tails commingle to form an inner layer, and their water-loving heads arrange together to form the outer portions of a thin membrane. “It’s just like oil and water separating in a dish,” Winnikoff said. “It’s universal to lipids, and it’s what makes them work.”

    For a cell, an outer lipid membrane serves as a physical barrier that, like the external wall of a house, provides structure and keeps a cell’s insides in. But the barrier can’t be too solid: It’s studded with proteins, which need some wiggle room to carry out their various cellular jobs, such as ferrying molecules across the membrane. And sometimes a cell membrane pinches off to release chemicals into the environment and then fuses back together again.

    For a membrane to be healthy and functional, it must therefore be sturdy, fluid, and dynamic at the same time. “The membranes are balancing right on the edge of stability,” Winnikoff said. “Even though it has this really well-defined structure, all the individual molecules that make up the sheets on either side—they’re flowing around each other all the time. It’s actually a liquid crystal.”

    One of the emergent properties of this structure, he said, is that the middle of the membrane is highly sensitive to both temperature and pressure—much more so than other biological molecules such as proteins, DNA or RNA. If you cool down a lipid membrane, for example, the molecules move more slowly, “and then eventually they’ll just lock together,” Winnikoff said, as when you put olive oil in the fridge. “Biologically, that’s generally a bad thing.” Metabolic processes halt; the membrane can even crack and leak its contents.

    To avoid this, many cold-adapted animals have membranes composed of a blend of lipid molecules with slightly different structures to keep the liquid crystal flowing, even at low temperatures. Because high pressure also slows a membrane’s flow, many biologists assumed that deep-sea membranes were built the same way.

    Yasemin Saplakoglu

    Source link

  • Everything Can Be Meat

    Everything Can Be Meat

    Recently, a photo of rice left me confused. The rice itself looked tasty enough—fluffy, well formed—but its oddly fleshy hue gave me the creeps. According to the scientists who’d developed it, each pink-tinged grain was seeded with muscle and fat cells from a cow, imparting a nutty, umami flavor.

    In one sense, this “beef rice” was just another example of lab-grown meat, touted as a way to eat animals without the ethical and environmental impacts. Though not yet commercially available, the rice was developed by researchers in Korea as a nutrition-dense food that can be produced sustainably, at least more so than beef itself. Although it has a more brittle texture than normal rice, it can be cooked and served in the same way. Yet in another sense, this rice was entirely different. Lab-grown meat aims to replicate conventional meat in every dimension, including taste, nutrition, and appearance. Beef rice doesn’t even try.

    Maybe that’s a good thing. Lab-grown meat, also widely known as cultivated meat, has long been heralded as the future of food. But so far, the goal of perfectly replicating meat as we know it—toothy, sinewy, and sometimes bloody—has proved impractical and expensive. Once-abundant funding has dried up, and this week, Florida moved toward becoming the first state to ban sales of cultivated meat. It seems unlikely that whole cuts of cultivated meat will be showing up on people’s plates anytime soon—but maybe something like beef rice could. The most promising future of lab-grown meat may not look like meat at all, at least as we’ve always known it.

    The promise of cultivated meat is that you can have your steak and eat it too. Unlike the meatless offerings at your grocery store, cultivated meat is meat—just created without killing any animals. But the science just isn’t there yet. Companies have more or less figured out the first step, taking a sample of cells from a live animal or egg and propagating them in a tank filled with a nutrient-rich broth. Though not cheaply: By one estimate, creating a slurry of cultivated cells costs $17 a pound or more to produce.

    The next step has proved prohibitively challenging: coaxing that sludge of cells to mature into different types—fat, muscle, connective tissue—and arranging them in a structure resembling a solid cut of meat. Usually, the cells need a three-dimensional platform to guide their growth, known as a scaffold. “It’s something that is very easy to get wrong and hard to get right,” Claire Bomkamp, a senior scientist at the Good Food Institute, a nonprofit supporting meat alternatives, told me. So far, a few companies have served up proofs of concept: In June, the United States approved the sale of cultivated chicken from Upside Foods and Good Meat. However it is virtually impossible to come by now.

    The basic science of lab-grown meat can be used for more than just succulent chicken breasts and medium-rare steaks. Cells grown in a tank function essentially like ground meat, imparting a meaty flavor and mouthfeel to whatever they are added to, behaving more like an ingredient or a seasoning than a food product. Hybrid meat products, made by mixing a small amount of cultivated-meat cells with other ingredients, are promising because they would be more cost-effective than entire lab-grown steaks or chicken breasts but meatier than purely plant-based meat.

    Already, the start-up SciFi Foods is producing what has been described as a “fatty meat paste” that is intended to be mixed with plant-based ingredients to make burgers. Only small amounts are needed to make the burgers beefy; each costs less than $10 to make, according to the company—still considerably more than a normal beef patty, but the prices should come down over time. Maybe it sounds weird, but that’s not so different from imitation crab—which doesn’t contain much or any crab at all. A similar premise underlies the plant-based bacon laced with cultivated pork fat that I tried last year. Was it meat? I’m not sure. Did it taste like it? Absolutely.

    Meat can be so much more than what we’ve always known. “We don’t have to make meat the same way that it’s always come out of an animal,” Bomkamp said. “We can be a little bit more expansive in what our definition of meat is.” Beef rice, which essentially uses rice as a miniature scaffold to grow cow cells, falls into this category. It isn’t particularly meaty—only 0.5 percent of each grain is cow—but the scientists who developed it say the proportion could change in future iterations. It’s framed as a way to feed people in “underdeveloped countries, during war, and in space.”

    Eventually, cultivated meat could impart a whiff of meatiness to blander foods, creating new, meat-ish products in the process that are more sustainable than regular meat and more nutritious than plants. Beef rice is one option; meat grown on mushroom roots is in development. Even stranger foods are possible. Bomkamp envisions using the technology to make thin sheets of seafood—combining elements of salmon, tuna, and shrimp—to wrap around a rainbow roll of sushi. In this scenario, cultivated meat probably won’t save the planet from climate change and animal suffering. “It wouldn’t serve its original function of being a direct replacement for commercial meat,” Daniel Rosenfeld, who studies perceptions of cultivated meat at UCLA, told me. But at the very least, it could provide another dinner option.

    Of course, it’s in the interest of the cultivated-meat industry to suggest that cultivated meat isn’t just outright doomed. No doubt some vegetarians would cringe at the thought, as would some dedicated carnivores. But considering how much meat Americans eat, it’s not hard to imagine a future in which cultivated cells satisfy people searching for a new kind of meat product. Imagine the salad you could make with chicken cells grown inside arugula, or bread baked with bacon-infused wheat. But should those prove too difficult to produce, I’d happily take a bowl of beef rice, in all its flesh-tinged glory.

    Yasmin Tayag

    Source link

  • New Study Shows Cannabis Extract Triggers Death of Melanoma Cells | High Times

    New Study Shows Cannabis Extract Triggers Death of Melanoma Cells | High Times


    A cannabis extract slowed the growth of skin cancer cells and triggered their self-destruction, according to the results of a recently published lab study. The study by Australian researchers found that a specific experimental Cannabis sativa extract known as PHEC-66 “might have potential as an adjuvant therapy in the treatment of malignant melanoma.”

    Melanoma only accounts for about 6% of all reported cases of skin cancer, according to a report from New Atlas. However, the aggressive form of the disease is so deadly that it causes more than 80% of skin cancer deaths. Melanoma shows a high resistance to traditional cancer treatments and is prone to metastasizing, or spreading to other parts of the body.

    Previous research has shown that compounds in cannabis might have antitumor effects related to the body’s endocannabinoid system. Studies show that the CB1 and CB2 cannabinoid receptors, which are found throughout the central nervous and peripheral immune systems, affect intracellular signaling pathways that control different biological processes such as gene transcription, cell motility, and the process of programmed cell death known as apoptosis. 

    The new study, which was published last month in the peer-reviewed journal Cells, tested the effects of PHEC-66 on the growth of primary and secondary (metastatic) human melanoma cells. The researchers found that the cannabis extract impeded the growth of the skin cancer cells by interacting with CB1 and CB2 receptors.

    The research also showed that PHEC-66 inhibited the progression of cell growth and division known as the cell cycle. Additionally, the cannabis extract influenced metabolic pathways by causing an accumulation of compounds in melanoma cells that can lead to apoptosis.

    “All these actions together start the process of apoptosis and slow down the growth of melanoma cells,” the researchers wrote.

    “The damage to the melanoma cell prevents it from dividing into new cells, and instead begins a programmed cell death, also known as apoptosis,” Nazim Nassar, a co-corresponding author on the study, said in a news report from Charles Darwin University. “This is a growing area of important research because we need to understand cannabis extracts as much as possible, especially their potential to function as anticancer agents. If we know how they react to cancer cells, particularly in the cause of cell death, we can refine treatment techniques to be more specific, responsive and effective.”

    Research Could Lead To New Cancer Treatments

    The study shows that cannabis compounds could potentially be used to treat patients with melanoma. The researchers say the next step in the process is to develop methods to deliver PHEC-66 which would lead to pre-clinical trials to test the safety and effectiveness of the compound.

    “Advanced delivery systems still need to be fully developed, underscoring the importance of ongoing efforts to ensure the proper and effective use of these agents at target sites,” he said.

    Nassar noted that there is still a stigma associated with using cannabis compounds therapeutically. However, with continued research, the study’s findings have the potential to advance treatments for a wide range of medical conditions in addition to cancer.

    “Clinical uses of cannabis extracts include treatment for anxiety, cancer-related symptoms, epilepsy, and chronic pain,” said Nassar. “Intensive research into its potential for killing melanoma cells is only the start as we investigate how this knowledge can be applied to treating different types of cancers.”

    The team of scientists called for more research into the use of cannabis extracts including studies that showed the effect of cannabis compounds on skin cancer when combined with other treatments for the disease.

    “Further studies are required for a comprehensive understanding of its potential use in advanced-stage melanoma treatment, preferably involving more sophisticated models and assessing its viability within combination therapies,” they wrote.



    A.J. Herrington

    Source link

  • This Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom made a functional airship that doesn’t require energy cells

    This Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom made a functional airship that doesn’t require energy cells

    Something that always stuns me are the ways dedicated players find ways to push the limits of the games they play. Whether it’s Animal Crossing designers who know the perfect way to line up buildings to fake certain perspectives, or a Tears of the Kingdom player who created an ultra-fast flying machine by holding the fan up in a particular way, I’ve always appreciated the commitment and creativity that goes into pushing a game to its limit. I was doing the rounds on Reddit when I saw something that truly astounded me: Reddit user Scalhoun03 created a completely wind-powered airship in The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom.

    The airship requires no energy to fly — meaning no Zonai charges or energy cells are needed to run it. It can fly through the air and sustain sustain flight at high altitudes seemingly indefinitely. The original post shows the ship flying through the skies of Hyrule with no input or energy. It’s only interrupted at the end when Scalhoun03 said they accidentally bumped the control stick. You can see a video of the build in action below.

    The contraption appears to defy the laws of (Zelda) physics itself. Energy cells are a crucial and foundational aspect to building machines in the game. If you want to use Zonai devices like a fan or flame emitter, you have to increase Link’s maximum energy cell capacity. This is why you see so many of the top builders with big, long rows of tiny battery icons as they run their massive machines.

    So how does a ship fly with no Zonai charges or any energy elements? According to its creator, its propulsion relies upon a twisting forced generating by its steering stick. “Basically it uses the steering stick’s energy to power the props. When you move the steering stick it puts a twisting force on the entire build. This force is transfered to the wagon wheel axles thus running the [propellors],” Scalhoun03 said via Reddit DMs.

    Getting the materials required a journey of its own across Hyrule. Scalhoun03 scrounged up propellers from Gemimik Shrine in the Akkala Highlands region and journeyed to the Depths to collect the raft and rails. Then came the actual building.

    “The hardest part was finding the balance to keep the props spinning without interfering. The props have to be in the right positions or they hit each other. When building with auto built parts you have to be careful about how you break them off or they disappear. The raft is an auto built part and if the props are in the wrong places you risk breaking your raft.”

    Scalhoun03 emphasized how important the Hyrule Engineering subreddit and larger community was in the process of building the ship. Throughout its design, others contributed their own innovations that helped the builder hone in on its design. For example, YouTuber KingX discovered a person could build a machine that launches without any “catalyst,” like rockets or sending a ship off the side of a floating island. Others would provide feedback on clips.

    “Without the suggestions of the community, things like this are a lot more difficult to make. The community has given me motivation to keep working on powerless flight builds and I hope everyone can try them out and have fun flying around Hyrule without having to worry about anything except having fun flying!”

    Ana Diaz

    Source link

  • The Most Mysterious Cells in Our Bodies Don’t Belong to Us

    The Most Mysterious Cells in Our Bodies Don’t Belong to Us

    Some 24 years ago, Diana Bianchi peered into a microscope at a piece of human thyroid and saw something that instantly gave her goosebumps. The sample had come from a woman who was chromosomally XX. But through the lens, Bianchi saw the unmistakable glimmer of Y chromosomes—dozens and dozens of them. “Clearly,” Bianchi told me, “part of her thyroid was entirely male.”

    The reason, Bianchi suspected, was pregnancy. Years ago, the patient had carried a male embryo, whose cells had at some point wandered out of the womb. They’d ended up in his mother’s thyroid—and, almost certainly, a bunch of other organs too—and taken on the identities and functions of the female cells that surrounded them so they could work in synchrony. Bianchi, now the director of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, was astonished: “Her thyroid had been entirely remodeled by her son’s cells,” she said.

    The woman’s case wasn’t a one-off. Just about every time an embryo implants and begins to grow, it dispatches bits of itself into the body housing it. The depositions begin at least as early as four or five weeks into gestation. And they settle into just about every sliver of our anatomy where scientists have checked—the heart, the lungs, the breast, the colon, the kidney, the liver, the brain. From there, the cells might linger, grow, and divide for decades, or even, as many scientists suspect, for a lifetime, assimilating into the person that conceived them. They can almost be thought of as evolution’s original organ transplant, J. Lee Nelson, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle, told me. Microchimerism may be the most common way in which genetically identical cells mature and develop inside two bodies at once.

    These cross-generational transfers are bidirectional. As fetal cells cross the placenta into maternal tissues, a small number of maternal cells migrate into fetal tissues, where they can persist into adulthood. Genetic swaps, then, might occur several times throughout a life. Some researchers believe that people may be miniature mosaics of many of their relatives, via chains of pregnancy: their older siblings, perhaps, or their maternal grandmother, or any aunts and uncles their grandmother might have conceived before their mother was born. “It’s like you carry your entire family inside of you,” Francisco Úbeda de Torres, an evolutionary biologist at the Royal Holloway University of London, told me.

    All of that makes microchimerism—named in homage to the part-lion, part-goat, part-dragon chimera of Greek myth—more common than pregnancy itself. It’s thought to affect every person who has carried an embryo, even if briefly, and anyone who has ever inhabited a womb. Other mammals—mice, cows, dogs, our fellow primates—seem to haul around these cellular heirlooms too. But borrowed cells don’t always show up in the same spots, or in the same numbers. In many cases, microchimeric cells are thought to be present at concentrations on the order of one in 1 million—levels that, “for a lot of biological assays, is approaching or at the limit of detection,” Sing Sing Way, an immunologist and a pediatrician at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, told me.

    Some scientists have argued that cells so sparse and inconsistent couldn’t possibly have meaningful effects. Even among microchimerism researchers, hypotheses about what these cells do—if anything at all—remain “highly controversial,” Way said. But many experts contend that microchimeric cells aren’t just passive passengers, adrift in someone else’s genomic sea. They are genetically distinct entities in a foreign residence, with their own evolutionary motivations that may clash with their landlord’s. And they might hold sway over many aspects of health: our susceptibility to infectious or autoimmune disease, the success of pregnancies, maybe even behavior. If these cells turn out to be as important as some scientists believe they are, they might be one of the most underappreciated architects of human life.

    Already, researchers have uncovered hints of what these wandering cells are up to. Way’s studies in mice, for instance, suggest that the microchimerism that babies inherit during gestation might help fine-tune their immune system, steeling the newborn body against viral infections; as the rodents age, their mother’s cells may aid in bringing their own pregnancies to term, by helping them see the fetus—made up of half-foreign DNA—as benign, rather than an unfamiliar threat.

    Similarly, inherited microchimerism might help explain why some studies have found that people are better at accepting organs from their mother than from their father, says William Burlingham, a transplant specialist at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. In the early ’90s, Burlingham treated a kidney-transplant patient who had abruptly stopped taking his immunosuppressive medications—a move that should have prompted his body’s rejection of the new organ. But “he was doing fine,” Burlingham told me. The patient’s kidney had come from his mother, whose cells were still circulating in his blood and skin; when his body encountered the transplanted tissues, it saw the newcomers as more of the same.

    Even fetal cells that meander into mothers during pregnancy might buoy the baby’s health. David Haig, an evolutionary biologist at Harvard, thinks that these cells may position themselves to optimally extract resources from Mom: in the brain, to command more attention; in the breast, to stimulate more milk production; in the thyroid, to coax more body heat. The cells, he told me, might also fiddle with a mother’s fertility, extending the interval between births to give the baby more uninterrupted care. Fetal delegates could then serve as informants for future offspring that inhabit the same womb, Úbeda de Torres told me. If later fetuses don’t detect much relatedness between themselves and their older siblings, he said, they might become greedier when siphoning nutrients from their mother’s body, rather than leaving extra behind for future siblings whose paternity may also differ from theirs.

    The perks of microchimerism for mothers have been tougher to pin down. One likely possibility is that the more thoroughly embryonic cells infiltrate the mother’s body, the better she might be able to tolerate her fetus’s tissue, reducing her chances of miscarriage or a high-risk birth. “I really think it’s a baby’s insurance policy on the mom,” Amy Boddy, a biological anthropologist at UC Santa Barbara, told me. “Like, ‘Hey, don’t attack.’” After delivery, the cells that stick around in the mother’s body may ease future pregnancies too (at least those by the same father). Pregnancy complications such as preeclampsia become rarer the more times someone conceives with the same partner. And when mothers send cellular envoys into their babies, they might be able to cut Mom a break by upping a child’s sleepiness, or curbing their fussiness.

    Microchimerism may not always be kind to moms. Nelson and others have found that, long-term, women with more fetal cells are also more likely to develop certain kinds of autoimmune disease, perhaps because their children’s cells are mistakenly reassessed by certain postpartum bodies as unwanted invaders. Nelson’s former postdoctoral fellow Nathalie Lambert, now at the French National Institute of Health and Medical Research, has found evidence in mouse experiments that fetal microchimeric cells may also produce antibodies that can goad attacks on maternal cells, Lambert told me. But the situation is also more complicated than that. “I don’t think they’re bad actors,” Nelson said of the interloping fetal cells. She and her colleagues have also found that fetal cells might sometimes protect against autoimmunity, leading a few conditions, such as rheumatoid arthritis, to actually abate during and shortly after pregnancy.

    In other contexts, too, fetal cells might offer both help and harm to the mother, or neither at all. Fetally derived microchimeric cells have been spotted voyaging into the cardiac tissues of mice who have experienced mid-pregnancy heart attacks, settling the pancreases of newly diabetic mouse moms, and lurking inside human tumors and C-section scars. But scientists aren’t sure whether the foreign cells are causing damage, repairing it, or simply bystanders, discovered in these spots by coincidence.

    These questions are so difficult to answer, Way told me, because microchimeric cells are so challenging to study. They might be in all of us, but they’re still rare, and frequently hidden in tough-to-access internal tissues. Researchers can’t yet say whether the cells actively deploy to predetermined sites or are pulled into specific organs by maternal cells—or just follow the natural flow of blood like river sediments. There’s also no consensus on how much microchimerism a body can tolerate. In a vacuum of evidence, even microchimerism researchers are steeling themselves for a letdown. “A very large part of me is prepared to think that most if not all microchimerism is completely benign,” Melissa Wilson, a computational evolutionary biologist at Arizona State University, told me.

    But if microchimeric cells do have a role to play in autoimmunity or reproductive success, the potential for therapies could be huge. One option, Burlingham told me, might be to infuse organ-transplant patients with cells from their mother, which could, like tiny ambassadors, coax the body into accepting any new tissue. Microchimerism-inspired therapies could help ease the burdens of high-risk pregnancies, Boddy told me, many of which seem to be fueled by the maternal body mounting an inappropriately aggressive immune response. They might also improve the experience of surrogates, who are more likely to experience pregnancy complications such as high blood pressure, preterm birth, and gestational diabetes. The cells’ stem-esque properties could even help researchers design better treatments for genetic diseases in utero; one research group, at UC San Francisco, is pursuing this idea for the blood disorder alpha thalassemia.

    Before those visions can be enacted, some questions need to be resolved. Researchers have unearthed evidence that microchimeric cells from different sources might sometimes compete with, or even displace one another, in bids for dominance. If the same dynamic plays out with future therapies, doctors may need to be careful about which cells they introduce to people and when, or risk losing the precious cargo they infuse. And, perhaps most fundamental, scientists can’t yet say how many microchimeric cells are necessary to exert influence over a specific person’s health—a threshold that will likely determine just how practical these theoretical treatments might be, Kristine Chua, a biological anthropologist at UCSB, told me.

    Even amid these uncertainties, the experts I spoke with stand by microchimerism’s likely importance: The cells are so persistent, so ubiquitous, so evolutionarily ancient, Boddy told me, that they must have an effect. The simple fact that they’re allowed to stick around for decades, while they grow and develop and change, could have a lot to teach us about immunity—and our understanding of ourselves. “In my mind, it does alter my concept of who I am,” Bianchi, who herself has given birth to a son, told me. Although he’s since grown up, she’s never without him, nor he without her.

    Katherine J. Wu

    Source link

  • The CRISPR Era Is Here

    The CRISPR Era Is Here

    When Victoria Gray was still a baby, she started howling so inconsolably during a bath that she was rushed to the emergency room. The diagnosis was sickle-cell disease, a genetic condition that causes bouts of excruciating pain—“worse than a broken leg, worse than childbirth,” one doctor told me. Like lightning crackling in her body is how Gray, now 38, has described the pain. For most of her life, she lived in fear that it could strike at any moment, forcing her to drop everything to rush, once again, to the hospital.

    After a particularly long and debilitating hospitalization in college, Gray was so weak that she had to relearn how to stand, how to use a spoon. She dropped out of school. She gave up on her dream of becoming a nurse.

    Four years ago, she joined a groundbreaking clinical trial that would change her life. She became the first sickle-cell patient to be treated with the gene-editing technology CRISPR—and one of the first humans to be treated with CRISPR, period. CRISPR at that point had been hugely hyped, but had largely been used only to tinker with cells in a lab. When Gray got her experimental infusion, scientists did not know whether it would cure her disease or go terribly awry inside her. The therapy worked—better than anyone dared to hope. With her gene-edited cells, Gray now lives virtually symptom-free. Twenty-nine of 30 eligible patients in the trial went from multiple pain crises every year to zero in 12 months following treatment.

    The results are so astounding that this therapy, from Vertex Pharmaceuticals and CRISPR Therapeutics, became the first CRISPR medicine ever approved, with U.K. regulators giving the green light earlier this month; the FDA appears prepared to follow suit in the next two weeks. No one yet knows the long-term effects of the therapy, but today Gray is healthy enough to work full-time and take care of her four children. “Now I’ll be there to help my daughters pick out their wedding dresses. And we’ll be able to take family vacations,” she told NPR a year after her treatment. “And they’ll have their mom every step of the way.”

    The approval is a landmark for CRISPR gene editing, which was just an idea in an academic paper a little more than a decade ago—albeit one already expected to cure incurable diseases and change the world. But how, specifically? Not long after publishing her seminal research, Jennifer Doudna, who won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry with Emmanuelle Charpentier for their pioneering CRISPR work, met with a doctor on a trip to Boston. CRISPR could cure sickle-cell disease, he told her. On his computer, he scrolled through DNA sequences of cells from a sickle-cell patient that his lab had already edited with CRISPR. “That, for me, personally, was one of those watershed moments,” Doudna told me. “Okay, this is going to happen.” And now, it has happened. Gray and patients like her are living proof of gene-editing power. Sickle-cell disease is the first disease—and unlikely the last—to be transformed by CRISPR.


    All of sickle-cell disease’s debilitating and ultimately deadly effects originate from a single genetic typo. A small misspelling in Gray’s DNA—an A that erroneously became a T—caused the oxygen-binding hemoglobin protein in her blood to clump together. This in turn made her red blood cells rigid, sticky, and characteristically sickle shaped, prone to obstructing blood vessels. Where oxygen cannot reach, tissue begins to die. Imagine “if you put a tourniquet on and walked away, or if you were having a heart attack all the time,” says Lewis Hsu, a pediatric hematologist at the University of Illinois at Chicago. These obstructions are immensely painful, and repeated bouts cause cumulative damage to the body, which is why people with sickle cell die some 20 years younger on average.

    Not everyone with the sickle-cell mutation gets quite so sick. As far back as the 1940s, a doctor noticed that the blood of newborns with sickle-cell disease did not, surprisingly, sickle very much. Babies in the womb actually make a fetal version of the hemoglobin protein, whose higher affinity for oxygen pulls the molecule out of their mother’s blood. At birth, a gene that encodes fetal hemoglobin begins to turn off. But adults do sometimes still make varying amounts of fetal hemoglobin, and the more they make, scientists observed, the milder their sickle-cell disease, as though fetal hemoglobin had stepped in to replace the faulty adult version. Geneticists eventually figured out the exact series of switches our cells use to turn fetal hemoglobin on and off. But there, they remained stuck: They had no way to flip the switch themselves.

    Then came CRISPR. The basic technology is a pair of genetic scissors that makes fairly precise cuts to DNA. CRISPR is not currently capable of fixing the A-to-T typo responsible for sickle cell, but it can be programmed to disable the switch suppressing fetal hemoglobin, turning it back on. Snip snip snip in billions of blood cells, and the result is blood that behaves like typical blood.

    Sickle cell was a “very obvious” target for CRISPR from the start, says Haydar Frangoul, a hematologist at the Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville, who treated Gray in the trial. Scientists already knew the genetic edits necessary to reverse the disease. Sickle cell also has the advantage of affecting blood cells, which can be selectively removed from the body and gene-edited in the controlled environment of a lab. Patients, meanwhile, receive chemotherapy to kill the blood-producing cells in their bone marrow before the CRISPR-edited ones are infused back into their body, where they slowly take root and replicate over many months.

    It is a long, grueling process, akin to a bone-marrow transplant with one’s own edited cells. A bone-marrow transplant from a donor is the one way doctors can currently cure sickle-cell disease, but it comes with the challenge of finding a matched donor and the risks of an immune complication called graft-versus-host disease. Using CRISPR to edit a patient’s own cells eliminates both obstacles. (A second gene-based therapy, using a more traditional engineered-virus technique to insert a modified adult hemoglobin gene into DNA semi-randomly, is also expected to receive FDA approval  for sickle-cell disease soon. It seems to be equally effective at preventing pain crises so far, but development of the CRISPR therapy took much less time.)

    In another way, though, sickle-cell disease is an unexpected front-runner in the race to commercialize CRISPR. Despite being one of the most common genetic diseases in the world, it has long been overlooked because of whom it affects: Globally, the overwhelming majority of sickle-cell patients live in sub-Saharan Africa. In the U.S., about 90 percent are of African descent, a group that faces discrimination in health care. When Gray, who is Black, needed powerful painkillers, she would be dismissed as an addict seeking drugs rather than a patient in crisis—a common story among sickle-cell patients.

    For decades, treatment for the disease lagged too. Sickle-cell disease has been known to Western medicine since 1910, but the first drug did not become available until 1998, points out Vence Bonham, a researcher at the National Human Genome Research Institute who studies health disparities. In 2017, Bonham began convening focus groups to ask sickle-cell patients about CRISPR. Many were hopeful, but some had misgivings because of the history of experimentation on Black people in the U.S. Gray, for her part, has said she never would have agreed to the experimental protocol had she been offered it at one of the hospitals that had treated her poorly. Several researchers told me they hoped the sickle-cell therapy would make a different kind of history: A community that has been marginalized in medicine is the first in line to benefit from CRISPR.


    Doctors aren’t willing to call it an outright “cure” yet. The long-term durability and safety of gene editing are still unknown, and although the therapy virtually eliminated pain crises, Hsu says that organ damage can accumulate even without acute pain. Does gene editing prevent all that organ damage too? Vertex, the company that makes the therapy, plans to monitor patients for 15 years.

    Still, the short-term impact on patients’ lives is profound. “We wouldn’t have dreamed about this even five, 10 years ago,” says Martin Steinberg, a hematologist at Boston University who also sits on the steering committee for Vertex. He thought it might ameliorate the pain crises, but to eliminate them almost entirely? It looks pretty damn close to a cure.

    In the future, however, Steinberg suspects that this currently cutting-edge therapy will seem like only a “crude attempt.” The long, painful process necessary to kill unedited blood cells makes it inaccessible for patients who cannot take months out of their life to move near the limited number of transplant centers in the U.S.—and inaccessible to patients living with sickle-cell disease in developing countries. The field is already looking at techniques that can edit cells right inside the body, a milestone recently achieved in the liver during a CRISPR trial to lower cholesterol. Scientists are also developing versions of CRISPR that are more sophisticated than a pair of genetic scissors—for example, ones that can paste sequences of DNA or edit a single letter at a time. Doctors could one day correct the underlying mutation that causes sickle-cell disease directly.

    Such breakthroughs would open CRISPR up to treating diseases that are out of reach today, either because we can’t get CRISPR into the necessary cells or because the edit is too complex. “I get emails now daily from families all over the world asking, ‘My son or my loved one has this disease. Can CRISPR fix it?’” says Frangoul, who has become known as the first doctor to infuse a sickle-cell patient in a CRISPR trial. The answer, usually, is not yet. But clinical trials are already under way to test CRISPR in treating cancer, diabetes, HIV, urinary tract infections, hereditary angioedema, and more. We have opened the book on CRISPR gene editing, Frangoul told me, but this is not the final chapter. We may still be writing the very first.

    Sarah Zhang

    Source link

  • Babies in space? Scientists grow mice embryos 400 miles above Earth

    Babies in space? Scientists grow mice embryos 400 miles above Earth

    In a world first, embryos have been sent to space so that scientists can study how zero-gravity affects a growing fetus.

    The mouse embryos were sent to the International Space Station to be raised by astronauts, with the scientists discovering that the embryos were able to successfully develop, according to a paper in the journal iScience.

    This has huge implications for the future of human space travel and how reproduction and gestation are affected by zero-g, and marks “the world’s first experiment that cultured early-stage mammalian embryos under complete microgravity of ISS,” the authors of the paper said in a statement.

    The development of mouse embryos to blastocysts under microgravity on the ISS. Scientists have found that these embryos developed nearly as successfully as those on Earth.
    Teruhiko Wakayama/University of Yamanashi/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2023.108177

    The researchers, from University of Yamanashi’s Advanced Biotechnology Centre and the Japan Aerospace Space Agency (JAXA), sent the frozen mouse embryos to the ISS—orbiting at a distance of around 400 miles above the surface—via a rocket in August 2021. Astronauts aboard the ISS then thawed the embryos, which were initially at the two-cell stage and grew them for four days, around a quarter of the 20-day gestation period for a mouse, at both artificial 1-g and zero-g.

    They found that they developed normally into blastocysts, which are embryos that have differentiated into two cell types: the inner cell mass (ICM) or embryoblast, and an outer layer of trophoblast cells. The researchers then compared the development of the embryos with those cultured on Earth, finding that while those grown in space had a slightly lower survival rate, but were still successful at developing.

    “The embryos cultured under microgravity conditions developed into blastocysts with normal cell numbers, ICM, trophectoderm, and gene expression profiles similar to those cultured under artificial-1 g control on the International Space Station and ground-1 g control, which clearly demonstrated that gravity had no significant effect on the blastocyst formation and initial differentiation of mammalian embryos,” the authors wrote in the paper.

    It has long been wondered if the microgravity of space will impact the gestation of a fetus, which is a pressing question if humans are to further step toward the stars.

    “There is a possibility of pregnancy during a future trip to Mars because it will take more than 6 months to travel there,” lead author Teruhiko Wakayama of the University of Yamanashi in Japan, told New Scientist. “We are conducting research to ensure we will be able to safely have children if that time comes.”

    This study did not explore how the embryos developed post-blastocyst stage, however, which may come with a whole new swath of issues.

    embryo journey
    Graphical abstract of the paper showing the embryos’ journey.
    Teruhiko Wakayama/University of Yamanashi/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2023.108177

    Wakayama previously found in 2009 that microgravity affected a fertilized egg’s ability to implant in the uterus but did not affect the fertilization itself. Additionally, other experiments with pregnant rodents in space found that lack of gravity affected vestibular development during gestation—affecting the offspring’s balance and equilibrium—as well as impacts on fetal musculoskeletal development.

    The authors say that much more research is required into how zero-g and space environments can impact the growth of fetuses.

    embryos
    Images from the paper. (D) Thawing by astronaut under microgravity. (E–G) Blastocysts collected from the ETC cultured on ground control (E), artificial-1G on the ISS (F), and microgravity on the ISS (G).
    Teruhiko Wakayama/University of Yamanashi/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2023.108177

    “Based on these reports and our results, perhaps mammalian space reproduction is possible, although it may be somewhat affected. Unfortunately, the number of blastocysts obtained from the ISS experiment was not abundant; and we have not been able to confirm the impact on offspring because we have not produced offspring from embryos developed in space,” the authors wrote in the paper.

    “The study of mammalian reproduction in space is essential to start the space age, making it necessary to study and clarify the effect of space environment before the ISS is no longer operational.”

    Do you have a tip on a science story that Newsweek should be covering? Do you have a question about embryonic development? Let us know via science@newsweek.com.