Hereditary genes - can they be "fixed"?

the_syco

Hi,
Sorry if this is posted in the wrong forum, but it looked like the most right one.

Since such hereditary things such as loss of hearing, or loss of sight can be passed on from father to son, I'm wondering if someone fixed their sight (with laser), would their loss of sight still be in the gene's, and passed on, or would the fact that your eyes were "cured" or "fixed" mean that the gene passed on wouldn't pass on the loss of sight?

dearg_doom

No, if your problem was cured you would still pass it on as the problem isn't physical, it's in your genes. And more importantly you would need to repair your sexual reproductive genes for the cure to pass on.

With genetic engineering and all these days some are hoping this could stop the 'problem' by 'fixing' the defective genes.

But this raises a ****load of ethical and even metaphysical issues;

eg: do you have the right to alter your sexual genes knowing that the alteration would never affect you, but your offspring, who are(or will be) independent individuals who should be able to make up their own minds etc...

Or on a metaphysical level, your genes ARE you, if you change them, you are changing youreslf, which is a pretty dodgy concept both religiously and in relation to who you actually are...


These are just examples I've read, of course if the technology worked with no ill-effects and was totally perfect it would be brilliant.

I don't have an opinion either way as it doesn't affect me(touch wood:)) but it's an interesting topic.

Capt'n Midnight

Any surgical fix would not be inheritable.

But:
Retroviruses can integrate in to the hosts DNA and could be modified and used to carry genes, which would be inheritable amongst the type of cells infected, and possibly of those in the germline. Of course we have no idea of the long term stability of such a technique on later generations. The problem here is we still know little of the interaction of other genes.

http://web.uct.ac.za/depts/mmi/jmoodie/hiv2.html

Kernel

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Any surgical fix would not be inheritable.

But:
Retroviruses can integrate in to the hosts DNA and could be modified and used to carry genes, which would be inheritable amongst the type of cells infected, and possibly of those in the germline. Of course we have no idea of the long term stability of such a technique on later generations. The problem here is we still know little of the interaction of other genes.

http://web.uct.ac.za/depts/mmi/jmoodie/hiv2.html

So if I had a genetic condition, and was injected with a retrovirus / fixed gene, my DNA would be changed over a course of time? What kind of timeframe before the genetic defect was fixed? Or is that possible, would it only take effect for my offspring and not me?

DrIndy

perhaps - but this is fraught with problems currently. There was an attempt to cure cystic fibrosis with a virus. They used a common cold virus (adenovirus) as it is ideal for linking up to respiratory mucosa and delivering its payload (normally the mechanisms for duplication, but now the correct gene). It was less than successful as the body mounted an immune response and nullified its benefit.

There is a HUGE problem with using retroviruses to treat diseases. We don't know enough what to do to control them and ensure that they deliver ONLY the payload. Retroviruses require some of the normal genes to ensure they link up, but then when they have done so, what if they start replicating?

Likewise, there was genetic research being done to create the perfect bacterium with only the essential genes to survive, perfectly compact and very efficient at growing - however, this is also the perfect biological weapon and so research was rapidly halted.

Kernel

DrIndy wrote:

perhaps - but this is fraught with problems currently. There was an attempt to cure cystic fibrosis with a virus. They used a common cold virus (adenovirus) as it is ideal for linking up to respiratory mucosa and delivering its payload (normally the mechanisms for duplication, but now the correct gene). It was less than successful as the body mounted an immune response and nullified its benefit.

Hmmm interesting.. I have to admit to not knowing much about the workings of genetics at all. To demonstrate my ignorance, if the virus delivers the 'payload' (which is the fixed gene?) to a DNA strand, does that gene go to all the DNA in our body? If so, could the immune system be artificially compromised (perhaps by injecting the patient with full blown AIDS...) temporarily to allow the virus to do it's work?

DrIndy wrote:

There is a HUGE problem with using retroviruses to treat diseases. We don't know enough what to do to control them and ensure that they deliver ONLY the payload. Retroviruses require some of the normal genes to ensure they link up, but then when they have done so, what if they start replicating?

If they start replicating the defective gene? Or?

DrIndy wrote:

Likewise, there was genetic research being done to create the perfect bacterium with only the essential genes to survive, perfectly compact and very efficient at growing - however, this is also the perfect biological weapon and so research was rapidly halted.

I have some growing in a coffee cup I have left unwashed for 3 years, it's coming along nicely! I'll deploy it if the government don't repeal the bin tax.

Capt'n Midnight

DrIndy wrote:

Likewise, there was genetic research being done to create the perfect bacterium with only the essential genes to survive, perfectly compact and very efficient at growing - however, this is also the perfect biological weapon and so research was rapidly halted.

Reminds me of the reseach into putting genes for cellulose into E Coli can't remember if it was for waste disposal or cheap substrate. If it had worked then the bacteria in our gut could be able to digest roughage and we could all die of malnutrition caused by a permenant case of diarrhea, though you could try to eat dirt or other inert material. They stopped that research too.