Results for crispr translation from Italian to English

sistemi crispr/cas
crispr cas systems

proteine associate crispr
crispr associated proteins

il dibattito sull'editing del genoma non è nuovo, ma ha riacquistato l'attenzione in seguito alla scoperta che crispr ha il potenziale per rendere tale editing più accurato e persino "facile" rispetto alle tecnologie precedenti.
due to the possibility of off-target effects (edits in the wrong place) and mosaicism (when some cells carry the edit but others do not), safety is of primary concern. researchers and ethicists who have written and spoken about genome editing, such as those present at the international summit on human gene editing, generally agree that until germline genome editing is deemed safe through research, it should not be used for clinical reproductive purposes; the risk cannot be justified by the potential benefit. some researchers argue that there may never be a time when genome editing in embryos will offer a benefit greater than that of existing technologies, such as preimplantation genetic diagnosis (pgd) and in-vitro fertilization (ivf).4 however, scientists and bioethicists acknowledge that in some cases, germline editing can address needs not met by pgd. this includes when both prospective parents are homozygous for a disease-causing variant (they both have two copies of the variant, so all of their children would be expected to have the disease); cases of polygenic disorders, which are influenced by more than one gene; and for families who object to some elements of the pgd process.5,6 some researchers and bioethicists are concerned that any genome editing, even for therapeutic uses, will start us on a slippery slope to using it for non-therapeutic and enhancement purposes, which many view as controversial. others argue that genome editing, once proved safe and effective, should be allowed to cure genetic disease (and indeed, that it is a moral imperative).6 they believe that concerns about enhancement should be managed through policy and regulation. lastly, commenters on the issue are concerned that the use of genome editing for reproductive purposes will be regulated differently inside and outside of the u.s., leading to uses considered objectionable to the american public. these arguments cite the largely self-regulated environments of the reproductive clinics that offer pgd and ivf7,8 and the existing differences in regulations among different countries.9