The trouble is, with so much choice, in those few moments after the pi ñata burst, value was subjectively ascribed relative to the basic needs of each individual the community as a whole has yet to settle on any true kind of value. In the final wake it all settles down and the value of each item changes from what the reviewers so painstakingly assessed to something a bit more representative of the communities’ opinion. There is something akin to a frenzy as the crowd tries to weigh and determine the value of every sweet or toy strewn across the floor. After some physical exertion on the part of the party goers, the piñata bursts and its contents spill to the ground. Their trust in the quality of the content is implicitly defined by their trust in the piñata builders - the reviewers. On the other hand, the goals of the piñata beating party goers are altogether different. From the perspective of those building the piñata, their role is to fill the prop with something of value. I’ve likened it to the celebration surrounding the piñata. With so much choice the question I have is, how did we get here in the first place? How CRISPR innovation affected software developmentĬRISPR, like the miRNA bubble before it, offers an interesting view into how rapid innovation affects the research community. It must be confusing for a newcomer to decide on the right software to use. Since January 2013 there have been 33 CRISPR software tools published and documented by OMICtools. At the time I thought there was room for improvement and a year later it became quite clear that others thought the same. At the end of 2014, I began developing software to make sgRNA design accessible to all. Indeed, rational sgRNA design is not possible without relying on some kind of pre-analysis. These insights are hard to appreciate without computational support. With such a sparsely targetable genome, off-targeting is less of a worry and on-targeting likely more efficient. To put this last point into perspective, the Plasmodium falciparum genome contains only 0.66 million targetable NGG PAM sites whereas the human genome has about 300 million. I attribute their success to technical expertise, thoughtful single guide RNA (sgRNA) design, and the abnormally low GC content of the Plasmodium falciparum genome. Today, that same laboratory enjoys a successful edit rate of over 90% in their work editing the genome of Plasmodium falciparum (the parasite that causes malaria). Given the timing, it shouldn’t be a surprise that the CRISPR system was involved. Two years ago I was a part of a group ( Biology of Host-parasite Interactions, Institut Pasteur, Paris ) that changed genome editing in the malaria community for the better ( Nat. This post was contributed by guest blogger Cameron MacPherson at the Institut Pasteur CRISPR software and the piñata effect
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |