The article mentions that Crispr could be investigated in the future to address hormonal imbalances due to epigenetic changes involving DNA methylation. This is noted at the end of the article.
The beginning discusses the importance of the gut in hormone production.
Bump, this deserves some more attention.
Bump
Please can you do the survey man?
If there is any real interest in some of these possible relations, this should be looked at systematically.
We can obviously only do so much with this atm, especially when it comes to Crispr.
Also with whats currently on the market, probiotics should be treated like drugs. Know what your looking at and why.
As far as SCFAs there are 3 at a ratio of 60:20:20 there could be an imbalance here as well or reduction that could drive things like immunity and metabolism in different directions.
^Also this might be a stopgap if there was any type of resolution, because of the fact that these are bacterial metabolites. SCFAs might not always be beneficial depending on how they could drive health and disease. Some bacteria can manufacture one SCFA from another, acetate to butyrate is one example of this.
As far as bacteria itself you’d maybe be looking at reduced numbers vs increased. Meaning certain bacteria could become dominant that shouldn’t be or not kept in check.
Id also say you do not need to have altered bowel functions to realize possible shifts that could manifest themselves in numerous ways.
Plenty of bacteria can “pinch hit” for one another, take carb digestion for example.
This doesnt mean this might not manifest itself in other ways outside of gi function,
especially when it comes to mental symptoms.
You’ve literally just seen that possible result in a Finasteride study.
Interesting. There are definitely some pieces of the puzzle.
I wasn’t aware CRISPRcas9 can be used for epigenetic modifications.
I wonder how well targeted this could be?
@Simonsays it might be worth looking at Jaenisch he modified Crispr to change stem cells then grafted these to a rats brain. It reversed methylation for 3 months with no reversal. He has called for more interest in this work.
Also
The genome editing tool, Casilio, can be used to efficiently remove methyl groups from DNA and activate expression of methylation-silenced genes in experimental systems.
Very interesting. Maybe someone with a good scientific knowledge should contact him he is also studying the role of epigenetics in other diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s.
Maybe we can raise his interest for PFS, PSSD, finally he seems to have an interest in epigenetic changes in brain affected diseases - we fall into that category.
CRISPR has been used to alter methylation status of particular genes in experimental studies.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2019&q=crispr+methylation&hl=en&as_sdt=0,39
I’m not sure of the specificity of the effects in these experiments and we still lack a definite therapeutic target.
We talk a lot about methylation of genes (Melcangi pointed to SRD5A2 as one of interest) – but I don’t think this has been shown?
Before CRISPR modification can be contemplated I believe we need to know what gene(s) have been methylated.
Before CRISPR modification can be contemplated I believe we need to know what gene(s) have been methylated.
+1
Actually i had a very aggressive comment on this thread till i remembered that Meclangi actually showed (Even when the tested number was small), that we have highly methylated 5ar 2 promoter…
Saying that i will urge everyone to pleeeeeeeeeeeeeease STOP repeating the AR methylation theory, becuz we literally have ZERO evidence about it whatsover…
I wished we could concentrate more on Baylor (Concentrate might mean i have to travel myself to the USA.)
I have not said that I don’t think CRISPR is the answer. And I have not said anything about “having a seat at the table.” Who would disagree with that?
Even if we had a shiny CRISPR machine and $5 million dollars, I don’t think a therapy can be developed without first identifying what genes need to be manipulated. To my knowledge, those genes have not been identified. That is my point.
More fundamentally, as far as I know we have no confirmation that PFS is related to methylation of a gene at all, let alone whether reversing the methylation will mitigate PFS.
We need to show Crispr researchers what genes are methylated ASAP. Our situation will be very interesting to them as it impacts on key hormonal systems linked to aging.
Every other genetic condition is going to be following these Crispr developments. At some point they will all be banging on the same doors wanting experiments conducted. Then you have more diseases than Crispr scientists and that’s not good. Resting on our laurels risks putting us at the back of the queue.
Casilio researcher has 3 million dollars to spend. He could be studying our methylated genes instead we are reading about him studying someone else’s.
Even if you don’t think Crispr is the answer you will agree it’s better to have a seat at the table than none at all. Out of sight out of mind.
Sorry I forgot I set the message to you it was meant for everyone to consider so I’ve deleted it and reposted.
Haha yes not much chance of getting a Crispr study without identifying the genes first. Sorry I thought that was very obvious to everyone hence I didn’t mention it. Yes in order to see the sunset we must first have a sunrise, and we are certainly missing one of those.
Anyway the purpose of the Crispr articles is to show some possibilities for the future. If it gives the community hope then so be. I will leave it there and won’t continue in any further debates in this thread.