Talk:Gene therapy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.

This article is within the scope of the Chemical and Bio Engineering WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Chemical and Bio Engineering. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
This article was selected on the Medicine portal as one of Wikipedia's best articles related to Medicine.

Contents

[edit] Deletion of unnecessary redirects

Hey, could somebody delete the redirect pages "Gene Therapy" and "Human gene therapy" we really only need this one article - Zvesoulis 20:46, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. As far as I know, mods are the ones who delete things but you could mail them or something with this reason, they should comply. Tyciol 14:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Human gene therapy and Gene Therapy would need to go through the Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion process. I think you would find little support for their deletion, though, unless you can argue that the existence of the redirects creates confusion or presents an undue burden to people searching Wikipedia for particular articles. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ashanti de Silva

I think this article should include info on Ashanti de Silva, who was the first gene therapy "success story". -Mjklin July 4, 2005 15:15 (UTC)

"supplement an effective mutant" isnt supplant the intended word? -Whistlingmonkey
I think a better idea would be to make a brief mention of this case and give him/her their own wiki. I'm afraid I'm not familiar with it, could you make mention of the link? Feel comfortable adding a mention yourself. Tyciol 14:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits

Organ transplantation is often considered to be the "original" form of gene therapy, that is, the insertion of foreign genes into a host to recover function. Many diseases which look to gene therapy for a potential cure can only be palliated by transplantation, sometimes of multiple organs.

removed since that just makes no sense to me, like saying buying a rebuilt engine is a form of engine repair (it's a form of AUTO repair, but not engine repair) - 165.247.224.196

I'd agree, because gene therapy would be modifying host cells. Organ transplant instead removes host cells and replaces them with alien cells (albeit, of the same species) so the effects are very much more hard to predict than modifying a single gene or two through gene therapy. It's more likely to be rejected and cause complications. Gene therapy is much safer, the only risk it has that organ transplant doesn't is the creation of side effects not priorly experienced by humans, which isn't really that horrible since you could probably predict a lot of them in the petri dish. Tyciol 14:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Organ transplants are considered a form of gene therapy because it is replacing an organ with defective genes with an organ with functioning genes. Furthermore gene therapy is neither safer nor more effective than organ transplants at the moment, for the most part gene therapy is in its infancy, there have been many many unintended/unforseen consequences of gene therapy - for instance two children getting leukemia as a result of the retrovirus inserting itself near the promoter of the p53 tumor supressor gene effectively disrupting the promoter. Before extolling the virtues of Gene therapy (which is lookin fantastic but is by no means there yet) please do your research. I would suggest http://www.pubmed.gov . skorpion 03:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

However, if one is stabbed through the heart, it is not the genes the genes that are defective, but the heart itself. You could never, at least, with a mere organ transplant, hope to provide one with a heart that had genes that were not "defective"; that is to say, those that would allow the organ to be stabbed without consequences. By the greatest of technicalities, perhaps, but it is not for the sake of effective genes that transplants are performed. And what of the speculation of growing genetically identical organs, from clones? Is that gene therapy 76.105.251.120 (talk) 08:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Using Herpesviruses

Why hasn't anyone mentioned the use of herpesviruses in gene therapy?

Why don't you do it? skorpion 23:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non-viral Delivery Methods

Due to certain problems using retroviruses there is a lot of research into non-viral delivery methods at the moment ie liposome mediated delivery

If I get the time I will do some research and rectify this, but in the meantime someone might want to do it for me. skorpion 03:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I have started the addition of a section on non-viral vectors. Have thus far covered nked DNA and Oligodeoxynucleotides. Still to come is lipoplexes and polyplexes and possibly a mention of hybrid methods. I will link to my sources when I am finished in a few hours time. skorpion 07:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Just had another read of what I werote and realised I need to dumb it down a bit. Will do that when I finsh the revision. skorpion 13:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, as of this point what I was going to add is finished. It is referenced as well. Can someone please read over it, check wording and selling mistakes. skorpion 06:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Copy edit tag added skorpion 06:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The last thing this article needs is dumbing down. Someone really needs to dumb it up, but I don't have time. ----Seans Potato Business 14:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Content taken from another source without credit

From the bad formating of the "probelems" list at the bottom it was clear it had been coppied from another source. A quick google brings up this, which is word-for-word identical. As a government website, is this in the public domain? Either way, the source should be credited. EAi 14:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I hate to see things taken verbatim, but I do believe that publications of the US government are considerred in the public domain. However, I'm not sure if that blanket copyright coverage applies to organizations such as Oak Ridge National Laboratory, which are parts of the government managed by private sector companies. Nonetheless, I've added a reference to this material ... though I am not the source of the original input to the article. Regards, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested Copyediting, Section: "Non-Viral Methods".

I corrected the apparent spelling errors and checked many of the scientific terms against Google, seems alright. The terminology is pretty hard to follow; Elaborate more and consider using less-specialized terms. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 04:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Viral vectors

I suggest creating a new article on viral vectors using the material in this article as the foundation. Viral vectors are an important tool widely used in research as well as gene therapy. In that case there should just be a breif reference left in this article. Peter Znamenskiy 10:23, 21 Mayb 2006 (UTC)

I dunno about that, if we can find enough find enough articles to link to a vectors page - yeah maybe, but if you are going to move the viral vectors, move the non-viral ones too as they are becoming increasingly common in research. If it did happen I would call it Vectors in gene technology or something similar - and redirect viral vectors etc there. However what about pages like cationic lipids etc (if there isnt a page there the should be) as they have been created primarily for use in gene technology.) Viridae 13:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Creation of a new article that would deal with viral vectors generically would be fine, but leaving only a minor reference here to that article would not be OK. The use of viral vectors in gene therapy is a major issue with regard to the public's perception and the medical side effects of gene therapy. Therefore, a full section should remain here that deals with the matter of viral vectors in the context of gene therapy (a revision or replacement of current content), aided by a {{main}} reference to the new article that deals with the subject of viral vectors specifically and thoroughly; where the new article ventures into 'uses in gene therapy', a reciprocal {{main}} would be in order referring to this article. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, point taken. I've reread the section carefully and most of the material is in fact specific for gene therapy. I'll start on a general viral vector article and leave the material here. Peter Znamenskiy 00:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] siRNA more common and useful than oligodeoxynucleotides

I recommend that the section on oligodeoxynucleotides be reviewed and short interrupting RNA be discussed. Interruption at DNA level, from memory, is difficult and ineffective, where as transcriptional knock outs due to siRNA-mRNA interactions have been shown to be very efficient. siRNA techniques are very new, may have to search Pubmed reather than Google to confirm this. Cheers everyone.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.224.23.251 (talk • contribs) .

The oligodeoxynucleotides papers were got from pubmed. I am at a loss as to how siRNA will be used - that seems to be a more severe modification than normal gene therapy, especially considering the effect of that sort of treatment to reduce total RNA as well as the target (or so I have heard). But then again, im in Phytopathology so what would I know :P ViridaeTalk 12:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

In the French gene therapy XSCID trial the three patients in which leukemia was reported have all been sucessfully treated. (no refs). The statement that they developed leukemia may be taken the wrong way. SCID is surely worse than leukemia?

80.177.16.166 23:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Latest News section

I just tagged the most recent research section for cleanup because as it is now, there are many missing links that could be used (like NIH should link to its article) and the references are in a flat format (and not even a correct one). The section text could be cleaned up to be more layman-friendly too. ju66l3r 17:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rough English

Lots of grammatical edits are needed in this article. The grammar is pretty rough, to be honest. For example, there are sentences of the type "The Subject Verbs the Predicate, however Another Sentence Is Running On Here." I changed one instance, but there's a lot more to be done, if any brave soul cares to edit the article. Spoxjox 18:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] possible consequences?

I realize that if properly designed gene therapies based on viral delivery shouldn't effect reproductive cells and therefore won't enter the gene pool, but what's to stop a retrovirus from becoming endemic? An endemic retrovirus has a comparable and potentially worse effect than a retrovirus that can violate the Weismann barrier. Certainly giving everyone the same functional gene isn't that scary, but eliminating genetic diversity has had historically bad results. Vicarious 12:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

    1. The viruses used in gene therapy are incapable of causing disease. The gene(s) responsible for the disease they cause are ripped out, and we use the extra room for the "good genes" which can cure illnesses.
    2. There is some evidence for gene therapies crossing the Weismann barrier, but this is a good thing. If someone with cystic fibrosis was cured with gene therapy, if the Weismann barrier could be crossed, his/her children would be free of the disease as well. The treatment spreads from an individual to the population :)
    3. We are reducing genetic diversity -- by eliminating alleles responsible for causing disease. This is no different than eradicating smallpox and polio. Surely their genetic diversity was not missed! Danierrr (talk) 08:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry if i sound like an asshole but...

What kind of modifications is the gene therapy going to be able to do in a human body?

I was talking with a friend about this kind of medical technologies, and she told me that this therapy could be used in the future to treat transsexual patients, heal diseases like AIDS or cancer, and many things like that, is this true? And sorry if i sound like an ignorant but i want to get more data on this. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.202.47.25 (talk) 17:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't see how it would work on AIDS and to make a transexual change sex "naturally" you'd have to use some star trek method of beaming the right chromosomes into every single cell of thier body. However one possible use might be treating Cystic Fibrosis. People with this form mucus in thier lungs which prevents easy breathing and also lets bacteria grow. By 'sorting out' the genes in these cells the disease would be cured and eventually the mucus would clear away. That's a very basic description. 86.142.175.177 (talk) 15:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    1. Trans-sexuality is not a disease, and the genetic basis for it is still unknown.
    2. Gene therapy is not useful for treating/curing infectious diseases like HIV. Adenoviruses (a common gene therapy vector) are currently being used in HIV Vaccine Trials -- this isn't gene therapy though, it's just injecting HIV material so the immune system can make antibodies to destroy any HIV in the body.
    3. Like the user above me states, well-understood genetic diseases like cystic fibrosis and thalassemia are first on the to-treat list. It really is as simple as adding three bases into one gene (for CF.) The problem is aiming for one very specific part of that gene -- and overcoming a huge amount of ethical and religious opponents. Danierrr (talk) 08:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Religious concerns

Hello, an anonymous editor raised the point about religious concerns here, which I then reworded here. I understand the point that the anon editor is trying to make, and I think it's a valid objection, though not one I personally share. It would help if there were a cited source for this, particularly because religion is such a touchy subject. --Kyoko 21:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New developments

Found this on Salon, redirected from AP:

http://www.salon.com/wires/ap/scitech/2008/04/27/D90AECH00_vision_restored/index.html

It is related to the last mentioned case of gene therapy use in treating eyesight problems.

Hope someone can update, as I am not an experienced editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.129.111.158 (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I have added that yesterday under 2008 title. vcpk (talk) 15:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Merged into the 2007 section, as it relates to the same trial. Neıl 龱 09:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)