Post by seo on Aug 30, 2023 4:03:34 GMT
Of an upper arm (humerus) bone from a prehistoric woman agriculturalist. This bone is from a North African population, and did not feature in the study itself, but is an example of the type of bone and research methodology used in the study.
A ResearchGate project update warned other scientists about the faulty method nearly a year before the paper that originally reported it was retracted.
When the gene-editing technique NgAgo was introduced Switzerland Mobile Number List as an alternative to the popular CRISPR-Cas9 system, it seemed likely expand the boundaries of genetics yet again. However, when medical researcher Joseph Miano tried it, it didn’t work. Using ResearchGate to share his results in real time, Miano alerted his peers that NgAgo was seriously flawed.
This update came nearly a year before an official retraction was issued, saving other labs the time and resources they might have invested in the technology.
CRISPR-Cas9 has transformed biology research by enabling scientists to modify the genetic information of any organism – including human cells – with unprecedented ease. It quickly rose to the forefront of the fight against cancer, blood disorders, and other genetic diseases. But CRISPR-Cas9 isn’t perfect:
it can sometimes edit the wrong genes. The new NgAgo system promised greater precision and more potential applications. Miano wasn’t the only one excited about it.
The paper introducing the technology had been published in a prestigious journal, bolstering its credibility. Even renowned Harvard geneticist George Church had expressed optimism about the technique. For Han Chunyu, the reclusive biologist behind NgAgo, this enthusiasm from the scientific community meant instant stardom in China.
So Miano, who creates mouse models of human diseases for medical research, was eager to try NgAgo in his own work. His lab conducted three experiments. None of them worked.
A ResearchGate project update warned other scientists about the faulty method nearly a year before the paper that originally reported it was retracted.
When the gene-editing technique NgAgo was introduced Switzerland Mobile Number List as an alternative to the popular CRISPR-Cas9 system, it seemed likely expand the boundaries of genetics yet again. However, when medical researcher Joseph Miano tried it, it didn’t work. Using ResearchGate to share his results in real time, Miano alerted his peers that NgAgo was seriously flawed.
This update came nearly a year before an official retraction was issued, saving other labs the time and resources they might have invested in the technology.
CRISPR-Cas9 has transformed biology research by enabling scientists to modify the genetic information of any organism – including human cells – with unprecedented ease. It quickly rose to the forefront of the fight against cancer, blood disorders, and other genetic diseases. But CRISPR-Cas9 isn’t perfect:
it can sometimes edit the wrong genes. The new NgAgo system promised greater precision and more potential applications. Miano wasn’t the only one excited about it.
The paper introducing the technology had been published in a prestigious journal, bolstering its credibility. Even renowned Harvard geneticist George Church had expressed optimism about the technique. For Han Chunyu, the reclusive biologist behind NgAgo, this enthusiasm from the scientific community meant instant stardom in China.
So Miano, who creates mouse models of human diseases for medical research, was eager to try NgAgo in his own work. His lab conducted three experiments. None of them worked.