Locator: 49983CRISPR.
Supercomputer Doudna: link here.
Reading this week:
- Matt Ridley's Genome, 1999; notes here; and,
- The Code Breaker: Jennifer Doudna, Gene Editing, and the Future of the Human Race, Walter Isaacson, c. 2021. Notes here.
- an early post on CRISPR: link here. This was back in 2018! Whoo-hoo!
- CRISPR was all the rage in the 2010s. All of a sudden, the acronym is seldom heard/read in mainstream media.
- History of Israel, Bright, 1959.
- Dead Sea Scrolls: discovered, 1946 - 1956.
I had forgotten I wrote this in 2018:
Bonus Note For The Granddaughters
CRISPR.
CRISPR-Cas9.
Until this week, I knew nothing of significance about CRISPR. For whatever reason I mentioned CRISPR to our 14-year-old granddaughter on the way to school the other day, and she became incredibly animated. She loved "CRISPR" and knew more about it than I did.
Whatever she knows about CRISPR she learned on her own. I doubt they have yet studied it in high school, although it's possible it's been mentioned
I'll have fun talking to her about CRISPR over the next few weeks.
CRISPR is part of the DNA genome. Back in 1993, a biologist studying bacteria in Spanish swamps, found bacteria whose DNA contained repeated sequences of DNA that did not correspond to anything previously seen.
Because of the nature of these repeated sequences (clusters, regularly interspersed, and short palindromic repeats) he labeled them CRISPR for short.
It turns out that these palindromic repeats of "meaningless" genome were actually pieces of viral DNA -- viruses that had invaded bacteria as pathogens (bacteriophages -- to eat bacteria).
It is hypothesized that by incorporating this "meaningless" viral genome, bacteria are more quickly able to defend against a virus from attacking it (a second time).
And like everything else in biology, there is more to the story.
Molecular biology dogma: DNA makes RNA makes protein.
CRISPER makes RNA but this RNA does not make a protein. By itself, the CRISPR-RNA is worthless.
But, as it turns out, as in a Rudyard Kipling "just so" story, bacteria also contain an enzyme (or protein) called Cas9 -- short for CRISPER-associated protein 9. If the biologists had had a sense of humor, it would be easier to remember as"Mama Cass protein" -- CRISPR-associated protein that loves to eat.
But a very special way of eating.
As noted above CRISPER-RNA by itself is worthless.
But with the Cas9 enzyme "stuff happens." Cas9 enzyme is a "cutter."
CRISPER-RNA guides Cas9 enzyme to the virus with the corresponding DNA genome.
At the viral DNA genome, the Cas9 enzyme gets to work, cutting out the viral genome that corresponds to CRISPR-RNA.
Pretty clever, huh?
Know who connected the dots, figured this out?
A Danish yogurt company. Yup, Danisco -- a Danish yogurt company.
Danisco is now owned by Dow Dupont.
Researchers now use CRISPER-Cas9 to target any region/gene in any DNA genome and cut it out / remove it. By removing a gene, researchers are better able to discern the purpose of a previously non-understood gene.
If a bacteria is able to do what a bacteria normally does and now loses a certain function because it has lost a certain gene, scientists have a pretty good idea of what that gene must be responsible for.
Likewise, researchers can do that to any mammalian genome.
Much, much more to the story but I now have enough to share with our granddaughter and still be able to keep up with her.
This was from "Diary" in the current issue of London Review of Books. Another source is here.
That 14-year-old granddaughter is now a sophomore STEM student at Stanford University, California, ROTC.
*******************************
CRISPR
A bacterial immune system commonly associated with targeting DNA viruses.
So, the natural question was whether CRISPR targets RNA viruses?
My hunch is RFK, Jr., and his HHS would no longer "advocate" for CRISPR in use against a "novel" Covid or the next seasonal influenza pandemic.
How the CRISPR process works:
*****************************
Update -- February 25, 2026
AI prompt: CRISPR.
Getting a lot of press at the time Doudna/Charpentier won the Nobel Prize for CRISPRcas9, it's an interesting story and a huge, huge genetic breakthrough. But at the end of the day, except for use by researchers in genetic research CRISPR technology seems to have very, very few applications, e.g., sickle cell disease and thalassemia. I'm not disparaging what has been accomplished, it just seems to have, for an investor, over-promised and underdelivered. Thoughts?
Reply:
I stand by my original statement. It is interesting to note that the chatbot spoke in broad platitudes (for lack of a better word) without naming one specific breakthrough -- but rather vague, broad brush - cancer research; agricultural (corn) -- and that was about it.
Ticker: CRISPR Technologies (founded by Emmanuelle Charpentier; a Swiss company) --
- CRSP has gone from around $15 in 2017 to around $60 in 2026;
- CRSP hit a high of $200 on January 16, 2021 -- coming out of Covid-19;
- CRSP's market cap is a relatively disappointing $6 billion
- MRNA, with a market cap of $20 billion has probably done much, much worse for investors.
Corn, Iowa production:
- 2015: 192 bushels / acre
- 2025: at best, around 210 bushels / acre; the average more likely to be about 200 bushels / acre
- one of two years with record-setting production
Based on total production (bushels), the two record corn production years in Iowa are 2025 (2.77 billion bushels) and 2016 (2.74 billion bushels). While 2025 set the all-time record, 2016 was the previous record holder, making these the top two, with 2025 yielding 210 bushels per acre. 2016 would still like be considered pre-CRISPR.
AI is unable to quantify to what degree CRISPRcas9 has contributed to the increase in production on an acreage basis, it appears weather is still the dominant variable, along with the use of fungicides, now, almost imperative that fungicides be used across the board.
