Hygeia AnalyticsLogo

Menu

Skip to content
  • Home
  • About Hygeia
    Analytics
    • Dynamic Presentations
    • Keywords and Site Map
    • Hygeia Analytics – Who We Are
    • Why Hygeia?
    • Funding and “Sound Science”
    • Acronyms and Glossary
    • Sign-Up for Updates
  • Nutrition
    • Introduction and Nutrition 101
      • Good Fat Bad Fat
      • Fatty Acids
        • Primer on the Fatty Acids in Milk
      • Impact of Livestock Feeding
    • Antioxidants
      • Organic Farming Elevates Antioxidants
      • Maximizing Antioxidant Intake
    • Organic vs. Conventional Foods
      • Milk and Dairy Products
        • 2018 Grassmilk Paper
        • PLOS ONE Study
        • Dairy Meta-Analysis
      • Multi Food Meta-Analyses
        • Meat Products
        • Plant-Based Foods
        • Smith-Spangler et al.
        • Dangour et al.
        • The Organic Center Report
      • Food Specific Comparisons
        • General
        • Fruits and Vegetables
        • Wine and Wine Grapes
    • Considering Nutritional Quality
      • Impact of Genetics and Production Systems
      • New Tool for Food Security
      • Transforming Jane Doe’s Diet
      • Nutritional Quality Index
    • Nutrient Decline
    • Other Choices and Challenges
      • Human Health
      • Dietary Choices
  • Pesticides
    • Usage
      • Pesticide Use Data Sources
        • Pesticide Use Indicators
      • PUDS – The Pesticide Use Data System
    • Dietary Risks
      • The Dietary Risk Index (DRI)
    • Risk Assessment and Regulation
      • Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA)
      • Glyphosate/Roundup Case Study
      • The Lowdown on Roundup
      • Does Glyphosate/Roundup Cause Cancer?
      • 2019 Glyphosate Genotoxicity Paper
    • Impacts of GE on Pesticide Use
    • Environmental, Human Health, and Other Impacts of Pesticides
  • Ag Biotech
    • Key Historical Documents – Donald Duvick
    • Key Historical Documents – Arpad Pusztai
    • Herbicide Resistant Crops
    • Weed Resistance
    • Bt Transgenic Crops
    • Resistant Insects
    • Health Risks and Safety Assessments
    • Regulation of GE Crop Technology
    • Marketing, Economics, and Public Relations
    • Patenting and Intellectual Property Issues
    • Labeling
  • Other Issues
    • Animal Products
    • The Future of Food
    • Global Food Security
    • Natural Resources and Climate Change
    • Alternatives to Industrial Ag
    • Policy and Politics
    • Scientific Integrity
    • Soil Health
    • Yields
  • Recent Posts
    • Hot Science
    • In The News
    • Hygeia’s Blog
  • Special
    Coverage
    • Organic Apples in Washington State
    • Dicamba Drift Crisis
    • Organic Food Consumption Lowers Cancer Risk
    • Organic Integrity

Mathematical Model Predicts Errors in Crispr-Cas9 DNA Targeting

Posted on February 14, 2018 in GMOs, Hot Science | 542 Views

When the Crispr-Cas9 system to target DNA for genetic engineering (GE) was first identified, it was seen as a game-changer.  Crispr-Cas9 is a natural defense mechanism used by bacteria to protect them from viruses that works at the cellular level by targeting and removing viral DNA.

Scientists first began to see its potential for GE in the early 2010s, and have since learned how to “program” Crispr-Cas9 to locate and cut DNA that matches a sample of the RNA it carries.  This has huge implications for agricultural GE, and testing quickly began on applications for many crops including oranges, potatoes, rice, soybeans, tomatoes, and wheat.  For much more on agricultural applications see this 2016 article.

However, additional research would show that the process isn’t perfect.  Viruses adapt quickly, so Crispr-Cas9 learned to be flexible and would remove DNA that was similar to the target RNA, but with a slightly different genetic code.  Good for bacteria, but not so much for accurate human-driven genetic modifications.

Further digging revealed that the location of the discrepancy on the DNA chain made a difference. The closer to the end, the more likely Crispr-Cas9 is to remove the section, while if mismatches occur earlier and/or more frequently in the genetic sequence, the process stops.

Once scientists dialed in the energy balance governing this process, mathematical modeling was able to step in to make predictions about how likely a certain section will be targeted and removed by Cas9, helping predict likely errors.

This new tool should help scientists predict this hiccup in the development of Cripr-Cas9.  How much more of a challenge awaits those trying to achieve accuracy in this kind of genetic targeting remains to be seen.

Sources:

Delf University of Technology, “Mathematics explains why Crispr-Cas9 sometimes cuts the wrong DNA,” Press Release, February 7, 2018.

Maywa Montnegro, “Crispr is coming to agriculture – with big implications for food, farmers, consumers, and nature,” Ensia, January 28, 2016.

Posted in GMOs, Hot Science | Tagged Future of Food

Related Posts

FAQs re Biden-Harris Ag and EPA Transition Priorities→

So What About the Integrity of the U.S. Organic Grain Supply?→

This Monster Dose of Innovation is Reason for Hope→

Are We Ready for Grassland 2.0?→

Back to the Future for Plant Breeders in Africa? A Fresh Look at One Scientist’s Dilemma→

Secretary Purdue Needs a Weed-Management 101 Briefing→

Flashback — The Triumph of “Merchants of Doubt”→

Embracing Change for Good Causes — Reflections on a Provocative IDDRI Report→

©2016 Hygeia-Analytics.com. All Rights Reserved.

Menu