At the moment crispr is not recommended for clinical trials

[Atrapasueños]

The Most Important Battle in Gene Editing: CRISPR versus TALEN

http://labiotech.eu/crispr-talen-gene-editing/

[Cas9]

In 2018 or early 2019, Excision Biotherapeutics will be using CRISPR in clinical trials. They're using it as we speak in animal studies.

Using it to go after the herpes virus is limited use of CRISPR since CRISPR can be used for all kinds of diseases other than viral. So perhaps there will be a delayed approach when it comes to using CRISPR for genetic diseases for example. But I don't see it being an issue in this limited approach for the herpes virus. Just my opinion.

[fugazi1]

5 hours ago, Atrapasueños said:

The Most Important Battle in Gene Editing: CRISPR versus TALEN

http://labiotech.eu/crispr-talen-gene-editing/

What is wrong with you? Seriously? All you post here is negative bullshit. You intentionally try to bring people down and I really wish they would ban you from these forums.

[SnowAngel]

15 minutes ago, fugazi1 said:

What is wrong with you? Seriously? All you post here is negative bullshit. You intentionally try to bring people down and I really wish they would ban you from these forums.

I couldn't agree more. His negativity truly is hurting people. Please stop, you're not helping anyone including yourself.  

[Atrapasueños]

@fugazi1Sea hombre y no insulte por mensajes en  privado si va insultar sea hombre y insulteme en publico o no tiene pantalones, 

@SnowAngelAhora es una nota de algun expertos no es mi opinión personal  no todo es positivo en las investigaciones para tener éxito se debe fracasar 

 

@ Fugazi1Sea man and do not insult by messages in private if you are insulting man and insult me in public or have no pants,

@SnowAngel Now is a note of some experts is not my personal opinion not everything is positive in research to succeed must fail

[Atrapasueños]

Entiendo su comentario pero no son mis palabras si no un artículo publicado 

 

@Cas9 I understand your comment but they are not my words if not a published article

[Cas9]

44 minutes ago, Atrapasueños said:

Entiendo su comentario pero no son mis palabras si no un artículo publicado 

 

@Cas9 I understand your comment but they are not my words if not a published article

Of course they're not your words. Did I say they were your words? Did I complain to you? I was simply providing my opinion about the article. Why? Are you bothered by my response/opinion? You seem to be overly sensitive.

[JJ2017]

14 hours ago, fugazi1 said:

What is wrong with you? Seriously? All you post here is negative bullshit. You intentionally try to bring people down and I really wish they would ban you from these forums.

This article was informative, Atrapasueños only shared an article people may find interesting in reading. if you don't wish to read it don't. 

[fugazi1]

18 minutes ago, JJ2017 said:

This article was informative, Atrapasueños only shared an article people may find interesting in reading. if you don't wish to read it don't. 

It's not about the article. He ONLY posts negative content. He intentionally seeks to generate negative discussion, and when there is a positive discussion taking place he often attempts to hijack this discussion and steer it in a negative direction. He's been called out on this several times before. I'm gonna call him out on it again. 

[Atrapasueños]

En otro tema Comentaron que una vacuna dentro de 15 años es positivo 

Mi comentario sólo fue que una vacuna dentro de 15 años no era tan positivo y después empezado los insultos en mensajes privados ahora empecé este tema para ver sus opiniones pero todo lo toman de mal manera no quieren afrontar otros puntos de vista

 

On another topic They commented that a vaccine within 15 years is positive

My comment was only that a vaccine within 15 years was not so positive and then started insults in private messages now I started this topic to see their opinions but all take it the wrong way do not want to face other points of view

[JJ2017]

That was a thread i was in and i estimated 15 years for a vaccine formula that has not been made yet, Atrapasueños you need to accept these things take time however it doesnt mean a vaccine that dramatically improves day to day living wont come out sooner e.g. Gen-003 or Ian Frazers vaccine are both estimated by 2020 and Tharavax is due for compassionate sale this month.    

[Atrapasueños]

Entiendo que la ciencia lleva su tiempo, y sobre las vacunas actuales no se si son eficaces para hsv-1 ya que su objetivo principal es el hsv-2 se sabe que estos virus son casi idénticos pero no iguales 

@JJ2017

I understand that science takes time, and on the current vaccines I do not know if they are effective for hsv-1 since its main objective is the hsv-2 it is known that these viruses are almost identical but not the same

[Atrapasueños]

Me encontré esta nota y me llevo más hacía bajo ya que excision trabaja principalmente con el hsv-1 aún que el ceo de excision en una entrevista dijo que estaban trabajando tanto hsv -1 y hsv- 2 

 

I found this note and I took it further down since excision works mainly with hsv-1 even though the tom malcolm  of excision in an interview said that they were working both hsv -1 and hsv- 2

[valleynovascotia]

Any chance this will be out within 10 years if so that would be something to look forward too?

[Voyager2]

Good article from Europe. It pointed out that at least three European biotecs have opted to use TALENS. Our own EDITAS and others have opted for CRISPR. That's fine. The research will determine what works best for HSV. But remember, as Keith Jerome said, even a method that knocks down the virus by only 50% can be a useful tool. It will be interesting to see what's available first: effective HSV vaccines or effective HSV gene editing.       

[JJ2017]

59 minutes ago, Voyager2 said:

Good article from Europe. It pointed out that at least three European biotecs have opted to use TALENS. Our own EDITAS and others have opted for CRISPR. That's fine. The research will determine what works best for HSV. But remember, as Keith Jerome said, even a method that knocks down the virus by only 50% can be a useful tool. It will be interesting to see what's available first: effective HSV vaccines or effective HSV gene editing.       

i personally think a Vaccine will come out 1st

[Malcolm]

I would have thought ZFNs would be the better choice. Smaller to encode, smaller in physical size, high specificity, and (likely) better able to access the latent genome.

[Atrapasueños]

Tengo una pequeña duda cuando el virus del hsv penetra el nervio se desprende de su envoltura y proteinas y sólo introduce su ADN o se introduce con toda su envoltura y proteínas?

 

@Cas9  @Evaluate  I have a slight doubt when the hsv virus penetrates the nerve is detached from its wrapping and proteins and only enters its DNA or is introduced with all its wrapping and proteins?

[Cas9]

6 hours ago, Atrapasueños said:

Tengo una pequeña duda cuando el virus del hsv penetra el nervio se desprende de su envoltura y proteinas y sólo introduce su ADN o se introduce con toda su envoltura y proteínas?

 

@Cas9  @Evaluate  I have a slight doubt when the hsv virus penetrates the nerve is detached from its wrapping and proteins and only enters its DNA or is introduced with all its wrapping and proteins?

I believe the following is accurate but you would have to check to make sure:
Typically, viruses simply inject their DNA into the cell. But I believe there's another type of entry where the entire virus, including the envelope, enters the cell. But in that scenario. once it's in the neuron, the viral envelope is discarded. So in either case, only the viral DNA remains. Of course once the latent virus starts replicating, those replicated viruses will have their viral envelopes as they proceed to exit the neuron and infect skin cells.

[snippy43]

https://www.asianscientist.com/2017/04/in-the-lab/crispr-ncas9-highly-accurate/

[Whyyyyy]

4 minutes ago, snippy43 said:

https://www.asianscientist.com/2017/04/in-the-lab/crispr-ncas9-highly-accurate/

Thanks for sharing! Realistically how far off is this? And how expensive would it be? (I know there's no definite answers)...just curious.

[Ajuda]

Each step evolved is a lot of hope. It is very exciting to see this technology being developed, I do not know how far it is from being effectively tested on humans. Reports from 2018. After receiving a therapeutic vaccine, whatever it may be, I will have more patience with gene editing. For now, still half anxious.

[snippy43]

5 hours ago, Whyyyyy said:

Thanks for sharing! Realistically how far off is this? And how expensive would it be? (I know there's no definite answers)...just curious.

the article illustrates the advancements in gene editing.  scientists are able to verify the accuracy of their work and with steady adjustments to the "crispr" process are minimizing off-target changes

[Whyyyyy]

7 minutes ago, snippy43 said:

the article illustrates the advancements in gene editing.  scientists are able to verify the accuracy of their work and with steady adjustments to the "crispr" process are minimizing off-target changes

All of this is just way over my head! I take it crispr is huge in the advancement of science though! 

[snippy43]

4 minutes ago, Whyyyyy said:

All of this is just way over my head! I take it crispr is huge in the advancement of science though! 

yes.  crispr is the latest method for gene editing.  changes for accuracy occur relatively quick.  it is relevant as there are many labs using crispr for hsv vaccine development.