2. @carlzimmer posed this question a few weeks ago, and I finally got around to giving a rough answer.https://twitter.com/carlzimmer/status/1069074379722670080 …
ಈ ಥ್ರೆಡ್ ತೋರಿಸಿ
1. What is the probability that the mutations carried by CRIPR twins Lulu and Nana are already present in the human population? http://www.jjbpopgen.org/blog/are-the-mutations-carried-by-the-reported-crispr-babies-lulu-and-nana-new-in-the-human-population …
-
-
-
3. See the blog post for the long form, but the short answer is that the 1 base pair insertion and 4 base pair deletion carried by Nana are very likely to have arisen as de novo mutations within the current generation
ಈ ಥ್ರೆಡ್ ತೋರಿಸಿ -
4. and almost certain to be present somewhere in the population, whether as de novos or inherited variants.
ಈ ಥ್ರೆಡ್ ತೋರಿಸಿ -
5. The 15 base pair deletion carried by Lulu has only a ~5% chance of having arisen as a de novo in the current generation, and roughy a 15% chance of being present at least once either de novo or inherited
ಈ ಥ್ರೆಡ್ ತೋರಿಸಿ -
6. I had to make some pretty significant approximations to get to these answers, so they should be treated as such, but the exercise does make clear just how much mutational variation is dumped into a large population like ours, ever generation
ಈ ಥ್ರೆಡ್ ತೋರಿಸಿ -
7. And it's also worth saying that the answer to this question has no bearing on the wisdom of He's premature human experimentation
ಈ ಥ್ರೆಡ್ ತೋರಿಸಿ -
8. But I do think it's a useful thing to know as we as a profession and as a society start to confront the consequences of this technology
ಈ ಥ್ರೆಡ್ ತೋರಿಸಿ
ಸಂವಾದದ ಮುಕ್ತಾಯ
ಹೊಸ ಸಂವಾದ -
-
-
and dammit I misspelled "CRISPR" in this tweet. oh well....
ಈ ಥ್ರೆಡ್ ತೋರಿಸಿಧನ್ಯವಾದಗಳು. Twitter ಇದನ್ನು ನಿಮ್ಮ ಕಾಲರೇಖೆಯನ್ನು ಉತ್ತಮಗೊಳಿಸಲು ಬಳಸುತ್ತದೆ. ರದ್ದುಗೊಳಿಸುರದ್ದುಗೊಳಿಸು
-
-
-
Thanks! Nice work. Could you estimate the chances that a current human carries both the +1 and -4 mutations ? That is probably far less likely.
-
1. I'm not sure any quantitative answer to that question is really approachable. Doing so would require dealing with the distribution of possible frequencies the mutations might be at in the population, which I managed to avoid having to deal with for the present/absent question.
-
2. (actually, it's even worse that that, because one would also need to account for population structure; i.e. even in the unlikely event that both mutations are present at some appreciable frequency, we would expect them to be geographically restricted)
-
3. But the overwhelmingly most likely case is that, conditional on both being present, both are found at *very* low frequency within the population, which would make their probability of being found in the same individual vanishingly small.
ಸಂವಾದದ ಮುಕ್ತಾಯ
ಹೊಸ ಸಂವಾದ -
-
-
This is very interesting but it would be helpful to draw a conclusion. I assume the one you're intending is NOT that because a potentially deleterious mutation exists somewhere in the 7 billion of us, it is OK to intentionally introduce it in an infant
-
in the blog Jeremy says "The procedure should not have been done...The procedure is unethical for a whole host of reasons” so I think that’s not the conclusion.
-
I believe it but putting it upfront might have been wise
ಸಂವಾದದ ಮುಕ್ತಾಯ
ಹೊಸ ಸಂವಾದ -
-
-
this is a brilliant thread. thank you!!
#crisprbabies#CRISPRಧನ್ಯವಾದಗಳು. Twitter ಇದನ್ನು ನಿಮ್ಮ ಕಾಲರೇಖೆಯನ್ನು ಉತ್ತಮಗೊಳಿಸಲು ಬಳಸುತ್ತದೆ. ರದ್ದುಗೊಳಿಸುರದ್ದುಗೊಳಿಸು
-
-
-
This appears to relate to the question of whether or not there is life in the universe aside from that on earth. The answer is simple: We don’t know.
ಧನ್ಯವಾದಗಳು. Twitter ಇದನ್ನು ನಿಮ್ಮ ಕಾಲರೇಖೆಯನ್ನು ಉತ್ತಮಗೊಳಿಸಲು ಬಳಸುತ್ತದೆ. ರದ್ದುಗೊಳಿಸುರದ್ದುಗೊಳಿಸು
-
-
-
ಧನ್ಯವಾದಗಳು. Twitter ಇದನ್ನು ನಿಮ್ಮ ಕಾಲರೇಖೆಯನ್ನು ಉತ್ತಮಗೊಳಿಸಲು ಬಳಸುತ್ತದೆ. ರದ್ದುಗೊಳಿಸುರದ್ದುಗೊಳಿಸು
-
ಲೋಡಿಂಗ್ ಸಮಯ ಸ್ವಲ್ಪ ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಳ್ಳುತ್ತಿರುವಂತೆನಿಸುತ್ತದೆ.
Twitter ಸಾಮರ್ಥ್ಯ ಮೀರಿರಬಹುದು ಅಥವಾ ಕ್ಷಣಿಕವಾದ ತೊಂದರೆಯನ್ನು ಅನುಭವಿಸುತ್ತಿರಬಹುದು. ಮತ್ತೆ ಪ್ರಯತ್ನಿಸಿ ಅಥವಾ ಹೆಚ್ಚಿನ ಮಾಹಿತಿಗೆ Twitter ಸ್ಥಿತಿಗೆ ಭೇಟಿ ನೀಡಿ.