I get the impression that Crispr would be possibly faster for that than the gamete selection option, but slower than the ‘find modal genome digitally, print it out to DNA’ option. I imagine its primary usefulness is eliminating known genetic diseases / introducing known good genes.
I get the impression that Crispr would be possibly faster for that than the gamete selection option, but slower than the ‘find modal genome digitally, print it out to DNA’ option.
The price of synthesing DNA is at the moment at ~1 dollar/basepair. Given the size of a human genome it’s to expensive to find the modal genome digitally and print it out the DNA.
I’m very curious how many genes can be targeted usefully. One paper succeeded in targeting 5 simultaneously in a mouse model. Given the purported accuracy that is already game changing, but if we can do 100 or 200 then maybe we can do more than merely eliminate some simple single gene disorders.
Could it be used to eliminate genetic load and create super-humans?
I get the impression that Crispr would be possibly faster for that than the gamete selection option, but slower than the ‘find modal genome digitally, print it out to DNA’ option. I imagine its primary usefulness is eliminating known genetic diseases / introducing known good genes.
The price of synthesing DNA is at the moment at ~1 dollar/basepair. Given the size of a human genome it’s to expensive to find the modal genome digitally and print it out the DNA.
Right, it’s not that practical now, but I estimate it will be in ~10 years.
I’m very curious how many genes can be targeted usefully. One paper succeeded in targeting 5 simultaneously in a mouse model. Given the purported accuracy that is already game changing, but if we can do 100 or 200 then maybe we can do more than merely eliminate some simple single gene disorders.
100 is much smaller than genetic load.