Using CRISPR to upgrade schistosomiasis (carried by liver flukes)?

Sharing an interesting project that I recently read about. The Defense Department has allocated $16.4 million to this project and George Washington University got $3.6 million for their portion of the project which will “focus on developing a skin-applied treatment for prophylaxis against exposure to rapidly neutralize agents and which is quickly reconfigurable to address new threats.”

“We are genetically modifying the organisms responsible for the neglected tropical disease, schistosomiasis, to instead serve as a platform for delivering antibodies to frontline personnel who risk exposure to biological pathogens or harmful chemicals,”

So they are modifying an organism to delivery antibodies….but it will work externally via a skin applied treatment??? Once they modify this organism as a topical delivery system couldn’t it deliver almost anything topically?

It was the “quickly reconfigurable” portion it the project mission statement that raised my eyebrows.

www.eurekalert.org...

a reply to: Buvvy

Seems interesting. They are starting with a wearable material then moving to topical.

I would wonder how they keep this from transferring to others via touch. Seems like a really bad idea in some ways....

a reply to: Buvvy

Why does Khan worms come to mind?

I think the grant is being spread out to different locations. It sounded like some areas are working on a fabric and others are working on a topical version of the modified schistosomiasis - parallel development pathways.

I support our government focusing on countermeasures to biological warfare; however, once the delivery system is perfected it could be feasibly used to deliver our own topically applied biological warfare agents.

When they say topically applied I immediately think something that could be delivered via aerosolized particles / gas.

I couldn’t help thinking of Val Kilmer in “Real Genius” when he and the other students found out the spinning laser mirror they developed was going to be used as a weapon and not for the good of mankind.



seems to be the a reply to: Vasa Croe

I vividly remember that scene…so creepy watching the worm slither into his ear. I don’t think they are modifying the flukes themselves….just the organisms that the flukes carry.

a reply to: infolurker

So they are developing a living suit and goo that is biologically active and can deliver whatever antibodies or chemical countermeasures they program the organisms genetics to deliver? This could lead to anything form original Star Trek ‘Miri’ to a ‘Return of the Living Dead’. This could kill all life or keep the dead alive to continue to fight a war.

This can go wrong in so many different ways. First question, does that lab have a nuclear self district?

The beginning of ‘The Stand’ also comes to mind.

Reavers

George Washington University has a BSL2 lab and it is located in downtown Washington D.C.

If things go south at least the politicians that approved the budget for this kind of biological tinkering will be impacted first.



a reply to: beyondknowledge

originally posted by: Buvvy
George Washington University has a BSL2 lab and it is located in downtown Washington D.C.

If things go south at least the politicians that approved the budget for this kind of biological tinkering will be impacted first.



a reply to: beyondknowledge

The Wildfire lab is in Washington DC. Great planning.

Someone ignored the lessons of the historic training documentaries.

a reply to: Buvvy

Like this can't go seriously wrong lol. Topical, so, visible to UV rays from the sun, which of course create genetic mutations, which then make whatever is topical into something else.

I remember when I was working on the Great Lakes 2000 project in the 90's. Some wanker said they could make a bacteria that could eat/deconstruct the PCB's, other carcinogens and pollutants on the sediment floors of the great lakes. Now what could go wrong with engineered bacteria exposed to UV light eh? lol.

I was doing the GPS/Clamshell Scoop Barge programming and the sediment depth sensors for the NRC. At least we had a plan using a scaled up version of Dr. Barden's Plasma Incinerator at Royal Military College to at least destroy the PCB's and other carcinogens. Problem was the amount of materials for remediation, we could never keep up with a 6" or 8" scraping from the lakebeds of ALL the great lakes.

So the point is, since UV can alter gene sequences or destroy them, what will happen to this "topical" material when exposed to the sun? Will it turn into surface based flesh eating bacteria, a fungus or maybe it will infect the entire wearer and kill them fast, who knows? Seems like the testing on genetically modified shxt is not being done very well these days if the covid mRNA/rDNA jabs are any example.

Cheers - Dave

Just using CRSPR on an organism opens up the door to possible mutations. There have been several studies lately; that have found more collateral genetic damage in crspr edited cells.

CRISPR was designed to eliminate ultraspecific genetic defects like these by cutting through targeted sequences of DNA with a scalpel-like enzyme called Cas9. After Cas9 severs DNA in the appointed spot, that segment of DNA naturally starts to repair itself. Through this method, problem genes can be swiftly removed, and sometimes custom genetic sequences can even be added into the break site before the DNA seals itself up again.

Previous studies of CRISPR have not shown many unforeseen genetic mutations caused by this precise slicing action, but those studies may not have been looking hard enough, Bradley said.

"The consequences of [CRISPR-induced mutations] can be literally millions of base pairs away from the break site," Bradley said.

In their new study, Bradley and his colleagues used CRISPR to edit a series of mouse-derived stem cells, then systematically looked at the cells' DNA base pairs, moving farther and farther away from the cut site. Through this meticulous approach, the researchers found that roughly 15 percent of the studied cells were being mutated so much that they lost their function.

"In the simplest form, these mutations are deletions of large amounts of DNA," Bradley said (in some cases, thousands of DNA base pairs went missing after being manipulated by CRISPR). "But there are much more complex versions as well."

For example, Bradley said, the team detected cases where sequences of genetic code were "scrambled" or inserted into the strand backward. In some cases, long sequences of DNA that should have been thousands of base pairs away were inadvertently stitched into the CRISPR cut site. In other cases, sequences of code nowhere near the cut site — some located millions of base pairs away — were similarly mutated.

After looking at many different locations along the cell's DNA, the team then turned to other types of cells, including human-derived stem cells grown in the lab, to see if the damage pattern was repeated. Their observations remained consistent: About 15 percent of CRISPR-manipulated cells were being unintentionally mutated in dramatic ways.

www.livescience.com...