Biologists Engineer Spiders to Spin Glowing Red Silk
CRISPR-modified spiders have bright and colorful silk. And also no eyes.
Researchers have, for the first time ever, used CRISPR gene editing on spiders. While the genetically-modified critters lack the ability to give you spidey senses, they do spin glowing silk.
In a study published in the journal Angewandte Chemie, researchers at the University of Bayreuth created the world's first CRISPR-modified spiders, some of which produced red fluorescent silk, and some of which had no eyes.
CRISPR-Cas9 is a powerful gene editing system that has revolutionized our ability to treat disease and probe the human genome. CRISPR has been used to edit the genomes of animals, plants, and microbes, and now, a species of common house spider (Parasteatoda tepidariorum).
Genetically modifying arachnids posed a unique set of challenges. A lot of spiders like to eat each other, so breeding them can be, well, tough. They also have very complex genomes—which were duplicated early in spider evolution.
After some early failed attempts, the researchers settled on injecting the CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing machinery, along with a gene for red fluorescent protein, into unfertilized spider eggs. The goal was to insert, or 'knock in' the red fluorescent protein gene into the part of the spider genome that produces a protein found in silk.
That was easier said than done. The process required the researchers to anesthetize female spiders and drive a tiny needle into their abdomens. After recovery, they bred the female spiders with the males of the same species.
The next generation of spiders, they found, spun colorful, fluorescent red silk, showing that the researchers had successfully edited the spider genome.
'We have demonstrated, for the first time worldwide, that CRISPR-Cas9 can be used to incorporate a desired sequence into spider silk proteins, thereby enabling the functionalisation of these silk fibres,' Thomas Scheibel, senior author on the study and a biochemist at the University of Bayreuth, said in a statement.
The researchers also experimented with CRISPR-KO, a gene editing tool that knocks out, or inactivates, a specific gene. They used this to knock out a gene called 'so,' which was thought to be important for eye development.
The gene was, indeed, important. The resulting CRISPR-KO-modified offspring were born sans eyes (or with fewer eyes than normal). What's creepier, eight eyes or no eyes?
Spider silk is stronger than steel, featherlight, and has tear resistance, making it a particularly useful material for things like clothes and surgical sutures. The researchers said that this experiment could open the door to create silk with new properties.
'The ability to apply CRISPR gene-editing to spider silk is very promising for materials science research – for example, it could be used to further increase the already high tensile strength of spider silk,' Scheibel said.
So, maybe some glowing red clothes are in our future.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 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
9 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.
Medscape
12 hours ago
- Medscape
Add-On D-Serine Shows Promise in Severe Depression
D-serine as an adjunctive treatment did not outperform placebo overall in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD), a new trial showed. However, depressive symptoms and anhedonia were significantly alleviated among patients with severe MDD, particularly among those on higher doses of standard medications. METHODOLOGY: Researchers conducted a 6-week, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial including 44 adult inpatients (mean age, 43.55 years; 45% women) diagnosed with moderate to severe MDD from Basel, Switzerland. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either D-serine (2 g/d) or placebo alongside standard treatment. The primary outcome was the change in clinician-rated depressive symptoms from baseline to post-intervention, measured using the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. Secondary outcomes were self-reported depressive symptoms, anxiety, and anhedonia, measured using the Beck Depression Inventory-II, State-Trait Anxiety Inventory-1, and Snaith-Hamilton Pleasure Scale, respectively. TAKEAWAY: Both D-serine and placebo groups showed a significant reduction in symptoms across all measures, with no significant differences observed in the overall sample. In the subgroup analysis, D-serine significantly alleviated depressive symptoms in participants with severe MDD ( P = .02), with a trend towards reduction in anhedonia. = .02), with a trend towards reduction in anhedonia. In the D-serine group, clinical improvements were correlated with higher baseline depression severity and higher doses of standard medication. No serious adverse events were reported. IN PRACTICE: "DS [D-serine] may offer therapeutic benefits for patients with severe MDD, particularly when used alongside greater doses of TAU [treatment as usual] medication. These findings support the potential of DS as a synergistic adjunctive strategy to enhance the therapeutic effect of pharmacological interventions, especially in severe cases," the authors wrote. SOURCE: This study was led by Lukas Sempach, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland. It was published online on May 26 in the Journal of Affective Disorders . LIMITATIONS: The small sample size limited the study's generalisability and reduced its power to detect small to moderate treatment effects, particularly in patients with severe depression. Additionally, the relatively low dose of D-serine used, along with its metabolism, may have limited its engagement with N-methyl-D-aspartate receptors. DISCLOSURES: This study was supported by the Gertrud Thalmann Foundation of the University Psychiatric Clinics Basel and the Stiftung zur Förderung der gastroenterologischen und allgemeinen klinischen Forschung sowie der medizinischen Bildauswertung. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.
