Greenwood, Veronique. “Taming the Groundcherry: With Crispr, a Fussy Fruit Inches Toward the Supermarket.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 5 Oct. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/10/05/science/groundcherries-crispr-gene-editing.html?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Ftrilobites
The processes of editing or outright replacing genes found in certain plants and animals are becoming more and more common as technology develops. Specifically, a new gene editing technology known as CRISPR has become very useful in allowing gene scientists to edit specific genes in a DNA sequence, as it is able to cut genes with greater accuracy than it's predecessors. One of the ways this new CRISPR technology is being used to improve agricultural yields and properties of certain plants is the Groundcherry, “a small, tart, edible fruit, similar in appearance to a cherry tomato, that is sometimes sold at farmer’s markets”. The article written by Veronique Greenwood on this subject begins by highlighting the market potential in supermarkets of the groundcherry and how this is limited by the fact that the “Groundcherry bushes sprawl untidily and can drop their fruits early”. Since selective breeding of plants to reduce the showing of these traits could take years, Greenwood explains how genetic editing using CRISPR has been the preferred method of achieving these desirable changes in the plant. (The exact results of the first few trials were recorded in this study). Given that groundcherries have a very similar genetic makeup to that of tomatoes, Greenwood explains how the scientists were able to use known gene sequences in the tomato DNA to more quickly identify the specific genes that they had to alter in the groundcherry sequence in order to obtain the desired changes in the plant: “They examined the groundcherry genome for analogs of known tomato genes, and found one: an analog of a gene called “SELF-PRUNING” or SP, that in tomatoes controls the shape of the plant”. By simply using CRISPR to remove this specific gene, the scientists saw “Close to 25% more weight in the fruit”. Finally, this whole process took the scientists about 2 years, significantly less than the predicted five years it would have taken if they had chosen to pursue selective breeding. When this is combined with the fact that these groundcherries would not be considered GMOs under US, Canadian and EU regulations because they only remove genetic material and do not add any, it really rounds off Greenwood’s argument that using CRISPR can be a very effective tool for breeders not just in terms of time, but also in terms of the economic impact this could have.
When seeing the incredibly successful results produced by the scientific study of altering the genes of ground cherries, it becomes quite clear that such continued success could have a significant impact on human agriculture and therefore society as a whole. If breeders are able to use CRISPR in not only a time effective but also economically advantageous manner, it could significantly reshape our ability to change the genetics of our agricultural products to the extent that it could have broad impacts on agriculture as a whole. As demonstrated in this article, the use of CRISPR can significantly reduce the number of years it usually takes to produce a plant with desirable qualities, making the idea of gene editing for agricultural products a lot more financially feasible and advantageous. This could lead to a rise in more resistant plants that could possibly withstand drastic changes to our future environment brought about by climate change.
The major flaw that can be noted in the conclusions drawn from this article, is that the only reason why using CRISPR was so significantly faster than selective breeding in this instance, was because the scientists were able to use previously known information about the genome of tomato plants to more quickly identify the relevant genes in the ground cherry DNA sequence. It is however not guaranteed, that we will always be aware of these genetic similarities when we aim to edit agricultural products with CRISPR. This could that mean that using this new technology, might not be as quick as it was in the instance presented in the article, simply because it will take the scientists longer to identify to corresponding genes. That being said however, one cannot discount the fact that as the technology becomes more commonplace, many small improvements and adaptations will surely be made to help reduce cost and time requirements to use CRISPR effectively. Overall I felt the assertations about CRISPR and its potential uses in the future made by Greenwood were grounded in reason and logic, specifically because she decided to focus on such a seemingly small instance of an application which was so easily applicable to the bigger picture. One thing I felt Greenwood could have improved upon was to give a bit more background information on CRISPR and how it exactly works to better allow us to edit DNA, as this piece of information would have been helpful to aid in the fundamental understanding which this topic requires.
Finn Seibold’s review of “Taming the Groundcherry: With Crispr, a Fussy Fruit Inches Toward the Supermarket” by Veronique Greenwood was very well-written. For example, in Seibold's summary of the article, he helps leave additional impact on the reader by not just restating the article in a more concise manner, but by giving the reader helpful information such as a little background on CRISPR and gene editing to give the reader some perspective on the novelty of the field, that of CRISPR, and exactly where CRISPR fits into the progression of the field; as well as the link to the study describing the the use of CRISPR to rapidly improve the groundcherry so that the reader can learn more about the experimentation and results supporting the article. A second aspect of Seibold's article that was well done was that unlike many “impact” paragraphs which either restate the article’s assertion of societal impact or lack substance and depth behind a novel assertion, Seibold states an original impact that certainly refers to a much more significant application of CRISPR in agriculture than the article describes (bringing not-widely-grown plants into circulation): the use of CRISPR to create crops that are more resistant to the effects of the environment change resulting from climate change. A third aspect of the article that was well done was that Seibold cites multiple specific examples of legitimate flaws in the article rather than an opinion based on a vague criticism (such as that it was too long, or included too many unnecessary details): he cites the fact that even though the article articulated the increased difficulty in selected breeding when there are not known plant relatives with the preferred trait and much time needs to be spent tracking down the plant with the right trait(s), the article fails to describe that this could also be a flaw with removing certain genes using CRISPR if the specific genes that need to be removed are not already known to exist in related plants.
ReplyDeleteOne area in which Seibold could improve his review is that he cites too many unnecessary direct quotes from the summary that could be more efficiently paraphrased. One example of this was when he included the quote about searching the groundcherry genome for known tomato analogues that could be helpful and finding the gene pertaining to tomato plant shape; since Seibold already stated in a prior sentence that tomato DNA was being compared with the groundcherry DNA to find preferable alternatives, simply citing the example of the specific shape-changing gene without including the entire quote would have been much more efficient since much of the quote restates the prior sentence with only slightly more unneeded specificity. Another area for improvement is that despite the inclusion of the insightful impact of CRISPR on creating climate change resistant plants, most of the “impact” paragraph barely went deeper than the article, merely adding in that agriculture could be “broadly impacted” whereas the article just talks about not widely grown plants, and besides that Seibold just restates the added efficiency point made in the article (adding a little by describing the financial implication of this).
One revelation I had about this article is that this is a perfect example in which the often unstated economic benefits of biological diversity, namely genetic diversity, is paramount. New technologies such as CRISPR are only as useful as the body of knowledge the scientific community has about the genes CRISPR can edit into or out of the genome; if genes that are potentially helpful for, for example, disease resistance die out because of environmental exploitation reducing genetic diversity, then much of the work put into developing better gene editing technologies will be in vain due to increasingly limited ways in which they could help. Therefore, many of the virtues of progress in biomedical sciences will only be sustained if enough of the Earth’s genetic diversity is preserved.
Finn has a really well written introduction that does a great job of zoning in on the specifics of his article without compromising readability. This is especially valuable because his article discusses a highly specialized use of CRISPR technology and none of the nuance is lost to the reader in his review. His choice of linking to the actual study also helps encourage further exploration of his topic and in a way spurred the reader’s interest further because he has made the resource available to them. Furthermore, beyond just describing the scientific implications of this new study, he analyzes the economic benefits which this finding brings and this helps contextualize a scientific study within other occupations such as agriculture.
ReplyDeleteDespite Finn’s well developed summary of his article, he could have provided a clearer definition of CRISPR so that the reader would have a better understanding of the technology itself instead of just its applications in this instance. This would also help his readers better understand how one is able to achieve such accuracy when dealing with things as small as genes. In his first paragraph he also chooses to make a lot of quotations that could have been easily paraphrased. This would make the introduction less bulky; even though the quotes were well integrated, they did not seem necessary for his overall narrative.
Sometimes it is just mind boggling to think that we as people have progressed in technology to a point where we can manipulate specific genes within DNA with such precision that we were able to create tangible change in tomatoes. From this article, I learned that the microscopic can influence the macroscopic and one day the greater world economy, and that idea of successive influence is hard to imagine and yet very real.