Scientists take step forward on quest to create super-healthy food of the future: 'Unprecedented ability to improve the nutritional quality'
Lettuce is one of the few vegetables with a low nutritional content. But the Hebrew University of Jerusalem is hoping to change that.
Professor Alexander Vainstein and his research team from the Robert H. Smith Faculty of Agriculture, Food, and Environment have created a lettuce with higher levels of vitamins and antioxidants.
They achieved these results by combining modifications in different biochemical pathways, which in turn boosted nutritional values of multiple vitamins and minerals simultaneously through one action.
The gene-editing technology used is called CRISPR, which stands for Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats. This technology differs from traditional genetic modification (GMO) because it can make targeted changes without affecting the plant's genetic code, whereas GMO introduces foreign DNA.
The result of CRISPR was improved levels of ascorbic acid (vitamin C), zeaxanthin, and beta-carotene (provitamin A) in the lettuce without affecting the crop.
"Gene-editing provides us with an unprecedented ability to improve the nutritional quality of crops without altering their growth or yield," said Prof. Vainstein. "This study is an important step toward developing healthier food options that can help address widespread nutrient deficiencies in modern diets."
Upping the nutritional quality of basic food items is a win for everyone, regardless of dietary preference. It is especially important for those who are food insecure, as it means they have to eat less to get the needed nutrients to stay healthy.
Plants are an essential part of a healthy diet, and a fully plant-based diet is considered to be one of the healthiest for longevity, mental health, sleep, and performance. Plant-based diets also produce 75% less heat-trapping gases, use 75% less land, and cause 75% less water pollution, according to Yale Environment 360.
If more vegetables and other food items are engineered to increase their nutritional value, it would have a big impact on everything from the amount of land that is used for agriculture and pastureland to our overall health.
The more land that's utilized for plant-based options and other eco-friendly foods high in nutritional value, the more the food industry can reduce its carbon footprint.
Why do you eat plant-based foods?
The health benefits
It's cheaper
It's good for the planet
I prefer the taste
Click your choice to see results and speak your mind.
Join our free newsletter for weekly updates on the latest innovations improving our lives and shaping our future, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
FDA meeting gives window into gene therapy field's angst
This story was originally published on BioPharma Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily BioPharma Dive newsletter. Anyone looking for evidence of genetic medicine's enormous promise need only read of KJ Muldoon. The 10-month-old infant headed home from a Philadelphia hospital this week, dressed in a celebratory cap and gown, after his life-threatening disease was successfully treated with a bespoke CRISPR therapy. While baby KJ is not cured, the treatment has stabilized his disease, a rare liver condition known as CSP1 deficiency, to such extent he's able to resume eating a normal diet. Doctors, who hurriedly designed and constructed KJ's custom therapy in a matter of months, have backed off supportive medications and hope he'll no longer need a liver transplant. 'Each year, 10 million babies are born with one of about 10,000 known rare genetic diseases, many of which are, in principle, now treatable with genetic medicines,' David Liu, a pioneering CRISPR scientist whose laboratory helped in KJ's treatment, said at a meeting hosted by the Food and Drug Administration Thursday. 'The opportunity created by this perfect storm moment in scientific, medical, regulatory and manufacturing innovation is to provide on-demand genetic treatments like KJ's at scale.' Yet Liu and 22 other gene therapy experts and advocates who attended Thursday's roundtable didn't travel to the regulator's headquarters in White Oak, Maryland to extol the field's advances. By and large, they came to warn of a crisis. There are now dozens of approved cell and gene therapies in the U.S., some of which offer near-curative potential for serious diseases like spinal muscular atrophy, sickle cell disease and acute lymphoblastic leukemia. However, the sector that's produced these therapies is struggling. Investors have soured on genetic medicine as developers struggle to prove they can profitably sell the complex and often hugely expensive treatments. Biotechnology companies are cutting research, laying off staff and, in some cases, shutting down. Large pharmaceutical firms are no longer willing to bet billions of dollars they can surmount the regulatory and reimbursement hurdles that stand in the way of many of these therapies. And academic labs, still bursting with promising new ideas for technologies like CRISPR, now fear their projects will wither on the vine. 'We estimate that over 100 rare disease gene therapy products that had reached clinical stage have been discontinued since 2023 — not because of treatment failure, but because of the risk of market failure,' said Terence Flotte, dean of the University of Massachusetts' T.H. Chan School of Medicine and president of the American Society of Cell and Gene Therapy. 'The scientific advances that we have witnessed are just nothing short of spectacular. It's not hyperbole,' said Crystal Mackall, a professor at Stanford University and founding director of the cancer cell therapy center there. 'Despite this unconditional scientific success, the field is really struggling to deliver these therapies to all patients who can benefit.' Their warnings found a receptive audience in FDA leadership. Commissioner Martin Makary and top official Vinay Prasad, who leads the office that oversees cell and gene therapies, were sympathetic to experts' arguments and pledged to help. 'We are going to continue the successes of the FDA in facilitating the regulatory process for these conditions and these products,' said Makary. 'We're also going to try to improve by creating more efficiencies.' Prasad, who in the past has criticized the FDA's accelerated approval of a gene therapy for Duchenne muscular dystrophy, showed support for flexible trial designs and endpoints when appropriate for the disease or treatment. He also noted the agency accepts that cell and gene therapies don't always comes with transformative potential. 'We understand that progress is not always made in a single leap,' he added. 'We will consider incremental steps forward, because those add up.' The assembled experts came with lists of possible solutions. Carl June, a famed immunologist and cell therapy researcher at the University of Pennsylvania, called for the U.S. to borrow from the two-tier regulatory system used in China, which allows for medical institutions to more rapidly start first-in-human trials under the supervision of local review boards. Don Kohn, a University of California, Los Angeles scientist who has developed gene therapies, asked the FDA to reduce the requirements for 'comparability' testing when companies transition production from academic to commercial settings. Others emphasized the importance of regulatory awards, like the priority review vouchers granted by the FDA to developers of certain therapies, who often sell them for needed capital. And many called for the agency to share more feedback and lessons learned from the applications they receive from industry. Behind all of their suggestions was a consistent concern: If regulators don't help solve the field's problems, the U.S. risks losing its leadership in developing the kinds of treatments that can cure diseases. 'If we don't adapt, the next generation of treatments will emerge abroad,' said June. 'The future of medicine with cell and gene therapy is at stake.' Their message seemed to be heard by Makary and Prasad, who noted that many of the issues raised are on their radar at FDA. Prasad, for instance, noted that they hope to redact and make available more internal documents to aid developers' understanding of what the FDA is looking for. 'This is not a horse and pony show to say we did this,' added Makary. 'This is an honest listening session.' Recommended Reading A bespoke CRISPR therapy suggests a blueprint for treating 'N-of-1' diseases
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Beyond de-extinction and dire wolves, gene editing can help today's endangered species
Have you been hearing about the dire wolf lately? Maybe you saw a massive white wolf on the cover of Time magazine or a photo of 'Game of Thrones' author George R.R. Martin holding a puppy named after a character from his books. The dire wolf, a large, wolflike species that went extinct about 12,000 years ago, has been in the news after biotech company Colossal claimed to have resurrected it using cloning and gene-editing technologies. Colossal calls itself a 'de-extinction' company. The very concept of de-extinction is a lightning rod for criticism. There are broad accusations of playing God or messing with nature, as well as more focused objections that contemporary de-extinction tools create poor imitations rather than truly resurrected species. While the biological and philosophical debates are interesting, the legal ramifications for endangered species conservation are of paramount importance. As a legal scholar with a Ph.D. in wildlife genetics, my work focuses on how we legally define the term 'endangered species.' The use of biotechnology for conservation, whether for de-extinction or genetic augmentation of existing species, promises solutions to otherwise intractable problems. But it needs to work in harmony with both the letter and purpose of the laws governing biodiversity conservation. What did Colossal actually do? Scientists extracted and sequenced DNA from Ice Age-era bones to understand the genetic makeup of the dire wolf. They were able to piece together around 90% of a complete dire wolf genome. While the gray wolf and the dire wolf are separated by a few million years of evolution, they share over 99.5% of their genomes. The scientists scanned the recovered dire wolf sequences for specific genes that they believed were responsible for the physical and ecological differences between dire wolves and other species of canids, including genes related to body size and coat color. CRISPR gene-editing technology allows scientists to make specific changes in the DNA of an organism. The Colossal team used CRISPR to make 20 changes in 14 different genes in a modern gray wolf cell before implanting the embryo into a surrogate mother. While the technology on display is marvelous, what should we call the resulting animals? Some commentators argue that the animals are just modified gray wolves. They point out that it would take far more than 20 edits to bridge the gap left by millions of years of evolution. For instance, that 0.5% of the genome that doesn't match in the two species represents over 12 million base pair differences. More philosophically, perhaps, other skeptics argue that a species is more than a collection of genes devoid of environmental, ecological or evolutionary context. Colossal, on the other hand, maintains that it is in the 'functional de-extinction' game. The company acknowledges it isn't making a perfect dire wolf copy. Instead it wants to recreate something that looks and acts like the dire wolf of old. It prefers the 'if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck' school of speciation. Disagreements about taxonomy – the science of naming and categorizing living organisms – are as old as the field itself. Biologists are notorious for failing to adopt a single clear definition of 'species,' and there are dozens of competing definitions in the biological literature. Biologists can afford to be flexible and imprecise when the stakes are merely a conversational misunderstanding. Lawyers and policymakers, on the other hand, do not have that luxury. In the United States, the Endangered Species Act is the main tool for protecting biodiversity. To be protected by the act, an organism must be a member of an endangered or threatened species. Some of the most contentious ESA issues are definitional, such as whether the listed species is a valid 'species' and whether individual organisms, especially hybrids, are members of the listed species. Colossal's functional species concept is anathema to the Endangered Species Act. It shrinks the value of a species down to the way it looks or the way it functions. When passing the act, however, Congress made clear that species were to be valued for their 'aesthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value to the Nation and its people.' In my view, the myopic focus on function seems to miss the point. Despite its insistence otherwise, Colossal's definitional sleight of hand has opened the door to arguments that people should reduce conservation funding or protections for currently imperiled species. Why spend the money to protect a critter and its habitat when, according to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, you can just 'pick your favorite species and call up Colossal'? Biotechnology can provide real conservation benefits for today's endangered species. I suggest gene editing's real value is not in recreating facsimiles of long-extinct species like dire wolves, but instead using it to recover ones in trouble now. Projects, by both Colossal and other groups, are underway around the world to help endangered species develop disease resistance or evolve to tolerate a warmer world. Other projects use gene editing to reintroduce genetic variation into populations where genetic diversity has been lost. For example, Colossal has also announced that it has cloned a red wolf. Unlike the dire wolf, the red wolf is not extinct, though it came extremely close. After decades of conservation efforts, there are about a dozen red wolves in the wild in the reintroduced population in eastern North Carolina, as well as a few hundred red wolves in captivity. The entire population of red wolves, both wild and captive, descends from merely 14 founders of the captive breeding program. This limited heritage means the species has lost a significant amount of the genetic diversity that would help it continue to evolve and adapt. In order to reintroduce some of that missing genetic diversity, you'd need to find genetic material from red wolves outside the managed population. Right now that would require stored tissue samples from animals that lived before the captive breeding program was established or rediscovering a 'lost' population in the wild. Recently, researchers discovered that coyotes along the Texas Gulf Coast possess a sizable percentage of red wolf-derived DNA in their genomes. Hybridization between coyotes and red wolves is both a threat to red wolves and a natural part of their evolutionary history, complicating management. The red wolf genes found within these coyotes do present a possible source of genetic material that biotechnology could harness to help the captive breeding population if the legal hurdles can be managed. This coyote population was Colossal's source for its cloned 'ghost' red wolf. Even this announcement is marred by definitional confusion. Due to its hybrid nature, the animal Colossal cloned is likely not legally considered a red wolf at all. Under the Endangered Species Act, hybrid organisms are typically not protected. So by cloning one of these animals, Colossal likely sidestepped the need for ESA permits. It will almost certainly run into resistance if it attempts to breed these 'ghost wolves' into the current red wolf captive breeding program that has spent decades trying to minimize hybridization. How much to value genetic 'purity' versus genetic diversity in managed species still proves an extraordinarily difficult question, even without the legal uncertainty. Biotechnology could never solve every conservation problem – especially habitat destruction. The ability to make 'functional' copies of a species certainly does not lessen the urgency to respond to biodiversity loss, nor does it reduce human beings' moral culpability. But to adequately respond to the ever-worsening biodiversity crisis, conservationists will need all available tools. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Alex Erwin, Florida International University Read more: If it looks like a dire wolf, is it a dire wolf? How to define a species is a scientific and philosophical question How redefining just one word could strip the Endangered Species Act's ability to protect vital habitat One green sea turtle can contain the equivalent of 10 ping pong balls in plastic Alex Erwin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Yahoo
12 hours ago
- Yahoo
GenEditBio Announces First Patient Dosed in Investigator-Initiated Trial of GEB‑101, World's First In Vivo CRISPR-Cas Ribonucleoprotein-Based Genome Editing Investigational Therapy for TGFBI Corneal Dystrophy
HONG KONG, BEIJING and BOSTON, June 6, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- GenEditBio Limited ("GenEditBio"), a clinical-stage biotechnology start-up company focusing on genome editing therapeutic solutions through the discovery of novel and precise Cas nucleases and the development of safe and efficient cargo delivery platforms, today announced a key milestone in the development of its pipeline: First patient has been dosed in an investigator-initiated trial (IIT) of GEB-101, the Company's leading in vivo genome editing program for TGFBI corneal dystrophy. The ongoing IIT is in collaboration with Prof Xingtao ZHOU, MD, PhD, Professor and President, and his team at the Eye & ENT Hospital of Fudan University in Shanghai, China. GEB-101 is a wholly owned program of GenEditBio. Preclinical assessment in non-human primates demonstrated that GEB-101 was well-tolerated after local intrastromal injection and had high safety profile with virtually undetectable off-target effect ( The preclinical research recently received the Excellence in Research Award at the 28th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Gene and Cell Therapy in May 2025 ( The IIT of GEB-101 is an open-label and dose-escalation clinical study to investigate the tolerability of GEB-101 when combined with standard treatment phototherapeutic keratectomy in adults with corneal dystrophy. The first patient, who received GEB-101 in May 2025, has been discharged from the collaborating hospital with no observable adverse event. This trial marks the world's first clinical study of an in vivo CRISPR-Cas ribonucleoprotein (RNP)-based genome editing investigational therapy for TGFBI corneal dystrophy. "Today, on National Sight Day, we are proud and honored to announce that we have initiated the world's first clinical study of an in vivo genome editing investigational therapy for corneal dystrophy. This key milestone represents years of effort in technology platform development and dedication from our world-class research team and clinical partners," said Zongli ZHENG, PhD, Chairman and Co-Founder of GenEditBio, "We stand at the frontier of a new era and recognize the transformative potential of this moment is not just for the Company but for the entire field of genetic medicine because the technology has the potential to extend far beyond corneal dystrophy. Our company is committed to developing fundamentally safe, efficacious and affordable in vivo genome editing therapies for genetic diseases with unmet medical needs". "This investigator-initiated trial marks a defining moment for our award-winning research team and clinical partners. Remarkably, in just one year since initiating our proof-of-concept and preclinical studies, we have successfully integrated our genome editing and delivery technologies to advance this pipeline program from the laboratory to clinical stage, showcasing our competence and dedication to rapidly translate basic research into clinical program to ultimately benefit patients," said Tian ZHU, PhD, CEO and Co-Founder of GenEditBio, "We also express our deepest gratitude to the participant who volunteers in this early stage trial to support medical innovation. As clinical data accumulate, we are positive that GEB-101 has the potential to become a new treatment option for patients with corneal dystrophy". About TGFBI Corneal Dystrophy TGFBI corneal dystrophy is a group of genetic eye disorders caused by mutations in the TGFBI gene, resulting in abnormal protein buildup in the stromal layer of cornea. Symptoms include photophobia, gradual vision loss and recurrent corneal erosions. Current treatment options include phototherapeutic keratectomy and corneal transplantation. These procedures, however, have known limitations such as recurrence and carry risks of sight-threatening complications, underscoring the need for novel therapies. About GEB-101 GEB-101, a wholly owned program of GenEditBio, is a genome editing drug candidate designed as a once-and-done treatment for TGFBI corneal dystrophy. GEB-101 is based on the CRISPR-Cas genome editing technology that targets a particular locus in the mutated TGFBI gene. GEB-101 is encapsulated in the form of RNP in engineered protein delivery vehicle (PDV), a proprietary in vivo delivery system developed by GenEditBio. GEB-101 is to be administered by intrastromal injection and is being investigated for tolerability in the IIT. About GenEditBio Established in 2021 and headquartered in Hong Kong, China, GenEditBio is a gene therapy start-up company with an overarching strategic goal of providing potentially curative, once-and-done and programmable in vivo genome editing-based therapeutic solutions (dubbed "DNA surgery") with high safety profile, unmatched precision, and affordable access for genetic diseases with unmet needs. The Company's core areas of focus include novel Cas nuclease discovery and safe and efficient cargo delivery utilizing lipid nanoparticle (LNP) and engineered protein delivery vehicle (PDV). We have research laboratories and supporting offices in Hong Kong, Beijing, and Boston. GenEditBio is financially backed by top-tier life science investors, including Qiming Venture Partners, Fangyuan Capital, Center Biotherapeutics, Lumosa Therapeutics, HKSTP Venture Fund, and others. For more information, please visit Related Previous Press Releases GenEditBio Scientist Receives Excellence in Research Award at the 28th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Gene and Cell Therapy 2025 GenEditBio to Present Preclinical Data on its Delivery Technology Platform and Drug Pipeline at the 28th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Gene and Cell Therapy Media Contact: Investors Contact: bd@ View original content: SOURCE GenEditBio Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
