|
Here are some of the articles we’ve been reading this month.
Article: Colorectal cancer risk linked to gut microbiome alterations (Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health News). “A long-term study finds that colorectal cancer–associated microbial and metabolic signatures persist more than a decade after precancerous polyps are removed, suggesting the gut microbiome may help sustain elevated cancer risk—and could be modified through diet and lifestyle.”
Article: In a First, Scientists Precisely Edit Human Embryo Genes (New York Times). “Using base-editing tools in early human embryos, researchers corrected disease-causing DNA letters with far fewer chromosomal errors than traditional CRISPR, sharpening both hopes for future therapies and anxieties about designer babies.”
Article: Ending animal testing threatens growth of xenotransplantation (STAT). “As gene-edited pig organs edge closer to routine human use, a transplant surgeon warns that sweeping bans on animal research could stall life-saving xenotransplantation by cutting off critical primate testing.”
Article: Blood test can find thousands of genetic conditions in pregnancy, say scientists (The Guardian). “A new non-invasive fetal sequencing test reads fragments of fetal DNA in maternal blood to detect thousands of serious genetic disorders, promising to reduce invasive procedures but raising concerns about uncertainty, anxiety, and overdiagnosis.”
Article: Google Wants to Release 32 Million Mosquitoes in California and Florida. Here’s Why (Smithsonian Magazine). “Google’s Debug program plans to flood neighborhoods with Wolbachia-infected, non-biting male mosquitoes whose sterile matings could dramatically shrink local populations of dengue- and Zika-carrying insects, sparking debate over deliberate species suppression.”
Article: The Researcher Who Didn’t Want to Know (New York Times). “Nancy Wexler, who helped find the Huntington’s disease gene and enabled predictive testing, reflects on why she delayed learning her own genetic fate even as she devoted her career to the families it devastates.”
Article: Infants and Genetic Screening (New York Times Opinion). “An opinion writer examines whether rapidly expanding genomic tests for babies will truly help families—or instead medicalize childhood, strain ethics frameworks, and outpace our ability to interpret what all those risk variants mean.”
Article: CRISPR gene-editing for crops: Precision tool or new risk? (Deutsche Welle). “As the EU moves to relax rules on CRISPR-edited plants, proponents tout resilient, climate-ready crops while critics warn that off-target DNA damage and corporate control could repeat the mistakes of earlier GMOs.”
Article: CRISPR’s next act: the companies editing the epigenome to treat disease (Nature News Feature). “Start-ups are harnessing CRISPR-based epigenetic editors to dial genes up or down without changing DNA sequences, hoping reversible tweaks to the genome’s ‘software’ can treat conditions from high cholesterol to rare muscle disorders.”
Note: Views expressed in shared articles are the authors’ own and do not necessarily reflect the views of our organization.
|
