JackD4wkins

JackD4wkins t1_jec6avt wrote

Reducing the number of cancer cells that survive the first round depends on how we encode the CRISPR enzyme. As long as we can identify a majority of oncogenic mutations - ideally 50+ - then the only limiting factor becomes dose size. With subsequent doses to catch the remaining cancer cells.

And yes theoretically a cancer could evolve to prevent lentivirus mediated transduction... luckily nature provides an near infinite number of viral vectors from which to choose, and we are already using directed evolution to breed specialized cancer-hunting viruses in massive quantities.

Edit: I appreciate you taking the time to point out limitations in the CINDELA method. It helps further improve.

1

JackD4wkins t1_jebbuwn wrote

Immunotherapies are very limited in their applicability. They only work for specific variations of specific cancers...

Transduction efficiency does not need to be 100% on the first attempt. Multiple treatments of even just 50% efficacy result in cure with just 7-8 treatments, without the devastation of chemo or radiation. Nobody requires 100% efficacy from one dose for other treatments, why people place such a high standard on transduction is a mystery to me. "If you can't cure it with one shot, then its not worth doing" is the logic of madness

1

JackD4wkins t1_jdyyu13 wrote

Crispr has been demonstrates to act at cancer causing mutation locations. Target selection is vital to success and require targeting multiple different mutations simultaneously.

Bad targeting has been rare and inconsequential in the context of current treatment side effects i.e. chemo and radiation.

Crispr can by used more than once to mop ip stragglers.

2

JackD4wkins t1_jdxt1rw wrote

A man can dream haha. I'm partial to multiple rounds of treatment personally. We ID the mutations to target, rip up those cancer cells, then target the remaining ones with different mutations. No chemo/ radiation side effects. It will not be a one-and-done. Will require multiple rounds to take down all of them. The goal is to avoid other treatment modalities completely to avoid their horrific side effects

2

JackD4wkins t1_jdxdxlh wrote

You can easily code crispr to target specific strings of DNA. Just take a sample of a patients cancer, analyze which parts of DNA are driving that specific cancer, code your crispr enzyme accordingly, pack it into a virus, and away you go... its really not complicated. Even if the virus infects a healthy cell, the crispr enzyme is specific to cancer DNA and has no effect on healthy dna. The amount of off-target effect is negligible compared to current treatments i.e. chemo and radiation.

The system combines crispr with cancer bioinformatic analysis. Check out CINDELA in sourth korea

2

JackD4wkins t1_jdwsofu wrote

Chemo is so toxic that the people administering it cannot even touch it.... and don't get me started on radiation.

These treatments are brutal, carcinogenic in their own rights, and are not even necessarily curative. Crispr enzymes coded specifically to attack cancer DNA has been proven to not affect ANY healthy cells, while selectively annihilating cancer cells in vivo.

6