Scientific discoverers have formal authority to propose names for new findings subject to governing nomenclature bodies.
the verdict
INSUFFICIENT LEANING
refutedsupported
the weight of evidence
2 sources for · 0 against
The retrieved sources contain examples of discoverers proposing names for biological discoveries, but they do not specifically document or establish the formal authority and regulatory role of governing nomenclature bodies over these proposals.
The development of a method for genome editing based on CRISPR-Cas9 technology was awarded The Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2020, less than a decade after the discovery of all principal molecular components of the system. For the first time in history a Nobel prize was awarded to two women, Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer Doudna, who made key discoveries in the field of DNA manipulation with the CRISPR-Cas9 system, so-called "genetic scissors". It is difficult to overestimate the importance of the technique as it enables one not only to manipulate genomes of model organisms in scientific experiments, and modify characteristics of important crops and animals, but also has the potential of introducing revolutionary changes in medicine, especially in treatment of genetic diseases. The original biological function of CRISPR-Cas9 system is the protection of prokaryotes from mobile genetic elements, in particular viruses. Currently, CRISPR-Cas9 and related technologies have been successfully used to cure life-threatening diseases, make coronavirus detection tests, and even to modify human embryo cells with the consequent birth of babies carrying the introduced modifications. This intervention with human germplasm cells resulted in wide disapproval in the scientific community due to ethical concerns, and calls for a moratorium on inheritable genomic manipulations. This review focuses on the history of the discovery of the CRISPR-Cas9 system with some aspects of its current applications, including ethical concerns about its use in humans.
2022 A HISTORY OF THE DISCOVERY OF THE MAIN COMPONENTS OF THE CRISPR–Cas9 SYSTEM CRISPR – clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats – were first discovered in the sequences of DNA from Escherichia coli bacteria and described in 1987 by Ishino et al. [ 1 ] from Osaka University (Japan). At that time sequencing of these difficult-to-study DNA fragments took several months, but neither their origin nor their significance in the bacterial cell were understood by their discoverers.
The authors used a set of previously published data on the sequencing of mitochondrial plasmids from Vicia faba L. beans [ 20 ], and their conclusions were further cited by Mojica et al. [ 21 ], but these observations were not confirmed in later studies [ 8 ]. At the time of initial discoveries, a variety of different acronyms was used for CRISPR by individual scientific groups, which presently complicates the search for early articles on the topic. The current name for CRISPR first appeared in Jansen et al. [ 22 ] in 2002 and was suggested by Mojica in correspondence between the two collaborating scientific groups.
Keith Joung (Harvard School of Medicine, USA) [ 38 ]. In the last article [ 38 ], the described work was carried out on zebrafish rather than human cells but, importantly, the use of the CRISPR–Cas9 system on germline cells was demonstrated for the first time. FIRST CRYSTALLOGRAPHIC STUDIES The most studied protein from the Cas group is the Cas9 nuclease; in the ~20 years since the discovery of the cas genes more than 20,000 articles in the PubMed system mention the name Cas9 in one context or another.
Patent and Trademark Office Appeal Board in February 2022 again confirmed the priority of Zhang and the Broad Institute in the position of the patent holder
GENE THERAPY AND ETHICAL ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH IT The haste with which competing laboratories sought to bring their research to the public’s attention, as well as the race to patent this technology, were indicators of the significance of this scientific breakthrough. Undoubtedly, one of the main driving forces that motivated many scientists to take part in research using this particular technology was the potential of modifying human cells, both somatic and germline.
One of the first steps in initiating formal discussions was taken by Doudna, who organized a conference on scientific, medical, legal, and ethical issues related to the genomic modification, held in the Napa Valley in California in January 2015. A subsequent report of the results of the conference was published in March 2015 in the journal Science [ 46 ], which essentially carried recommendations to strongly discourage work on introducing heritable changes in human embryonic cells, at least for the duration of active discussions of the social, environmental and ethical consequences of such manipulations.
However, in numerous interviews with journalists Rebrikov emphasized that he would only conduct such experiments after obtaining all necessary permits from both regulatory and ethical authorities. This significantly distinguished his approach from He’s, who informed the scientific community about the birth of babies with a modified genome post factum .
Another promising application for CRISPR–Cas9 in the future could be the treatment of infectious diseases caused by such pathogens as, for example, HIV and human papillomavirus [ 65 ]. CONCLUSIONS The discovery of CRISPR–Cas9 as an immune system in prokaryotes at the turn of the 20th-21st centuries – a finding at first glance only relevant to microbiology – has led to a revolution in the field of genomic manipulations.
The development of CRISPR–Cas9 technology is a good example of how discoveries made in the course of basic research can change entire fields of science and technology, expanding the horizons of the possible. This ground-breaking technique is a worthy continuation of such exciting scientific events as the publication of the double-stranded structure of DNA by Watson and Crick in 1953, the birth of the first child by in vitro fertilization in 1978, and the cloning of Dolly the sheep in 1996.
In the coming years the scientific community will watch with interest the development of legislation and ethical principles in the application of the CRISPR–Cas9 system in genome editing, as well as in what other areas of science this promising technology will find its application.
Corals, like other cnidarians, are venomous animals that rely on stinging cells (nematocytes) and their toxins to catch prey and defend themselves against predators. However, little is known about the chemical arsenal employed by stony corals, despite their ecological importance. Here, we show large differences in the density of nematocysts and whole-body hemolytic activity between different species of reef-building corals. In the branched coral Stylophora pistillata, the tips of the branches exhibited a greater hemolytic activity than the bases. Hemolytic activity and nematocyst density were significantly lower in Stylophora that were maintained for close to a year in captivity compared to corals collected from the wild. A cysteine-containing actinoporin was identified in Stylophora following partial purification and tandem mass spectrometry. This toxin, named Δ-Pocilopotoxin-Spi1 (Δ-PCTX-Spi1) is the first hemolytic toxin to be partially isolated and characterized in true reef-building corals. Loss of hemolytic activity during chromatography suggests that this actinoporin is only one of potentially several hemolytic molecules. These results suggest that the capacity to employ offensive and defensive chemicals by corals is a dynamic trait within and between coral species, and provide a first step towards identifying the molecular components of the coral chemical armament.
Sci Rep Sci Rep 1579 scirep Scientific Reports 2045-2322 Nature Publishing Group PMC5762905 PMC5762905.1 5762905 5762905 29321526 10.1038/s41598-017-18355-1 18355 1 Article The chemical armament of reef-building corals: inter- and intra-specific variation and the identification of an unusual actinoporin in Stylophora pistilata Ben-Ari Hanit 1 2 Paz Moran 1 Sher Daniel dsher@univ.haifa.ac.il 1 1 0000 0004 1937 0562 grid.18098.38 Department of Marine Biology, Leon H.
As their name attests, the physical structure of most coral reefs is composed of hermatypic (reef-building) stony corals. As a result of anthropogenic stress and global climate change, hermatypic corals are increasingly facing challenges such as loss of zooxanthellae due to bleaching 1 , 2 , increased microbial loads 3 – 8 , competition with macroalgae 9 , and the potential for nutrient limitation and loss of exoskeleton due to ocean acidification 10 . Under each of these scenarios, reef-building corals may need to rely even more on offensive or defensive chemicals to survive in a changing world 2 , 11 .
After identifying consistent differences between hermatypic corals, we focused further studies on Stylophora pistillata , one of the most abundant corals in the Indo-Pacific and a commonly used model for studying various aspects of coral physiology, genetics and ecology (e.g. 47 – 53 ). In particular, we assessed to what extent the number of nematocysts and hemolytic activity differ within colonies of this branching coral. Finally, using bioassay-guided column chromatography and mass spectrometry, we identify a new group of coral-derived hemolysins belonging to the actinoporin family.
Results Coral species differ widely in nematocyst density and tissue hemolytic activity To assess the extent to which reef-building corals produce and deliver toxins, we collected fragments from seven abundant reef-building organisms (six anthozoan corals and the hydrozoan “fire coral” Millepora sp ) from the Gulf of Aquaba (N 29° 30.211′ E 34° 55.068), at the northern tip of the Red Sea. For clarity, we refer to all these organisms, including Millepora sp, as “corals”, using the genus name throughput the manuscript. As shown in Fig.
Nevertheless, the most abundant protein in each of these pools (comprising 48-90% of the total ion current) was identified as an actinoporin with high identity (60%) to the hemolytic toxin Sticholysin-2 from the sea anemone Stichodactyla helianthus 58 (see below). There was no other protein shared among all three pools. These results strongly suggest that the actinoporin is the hemolysin responsible for the majority of the hemolytic activity in these pools. We thus propose the rational nomenclature of Δ-Pocilopotoxin-Spi1 (Δ-PCTX-Spi1) for this hemolysin, the first hemolytic toxin to be partially isolated and characterized in true reef-building corals 59 .
are known to cause painful stings when touched, leading to their common name, “Fire Corals”. Previous studies have shown that fire corals produce phospholipase A2 toxins (PLA2s) 37 , 38 , and one might expect that these membrane-disrupting enzymes would cause hemolysis. However, while several publications describe the purification or partial purification of PLA2s from cnidarians, none of these proteins have been shown to be hemolytic 87 , 88 . Our own experiments with commercially-available bee venom PLA2 revealed high phospholipase activity but no hemolysis (not shown).
We therefore propose that the Millepora PLA2s are not hemolytic, and that, similar to jellyfish and some sea anemones 16 , Millepora have lost the ability
We propose that these can be considered as quantitative functional traits related to prey capture or defense from predators. Our results reveal large and consistent differences in these two traits, both between stony coral species and within colonies of Stylophora . Furthermore, these traits are dynamic over time, as seen in the reduction in both traits in Stylophora colonies maintained in water tables compared to colonies from the wild, and we propose that these changes are related to predation pressure.
Material and Methods Coral collection and maintenance All coral colonies and coral fragments were collected from an in situ coral nursery near the Interuniversity Institute for Marine Sciences (IUI N 29° 30.211′ E 34° 55.068) at a 5–12 m depth located at the Gulf of Eilat, a northeastern extension of the Red Sea (Fig. 1 ). The use of corals for this research was approved by the Israel Nature and Parks Authority (authorizations 2012/38770, 2014/40464 and 2015/40869).
Everything we examined (2)
This check searched the claim as stated. It did not run a separate search for evidence against it.