Heritable human genome editing: Research progress, ethical considerations, and hurdles to clinical practice.

Our genome at conception determines much of our health as an adult. Most human diseases have a heritable component and thus may be preventable through heritable genome editing. Preventing disease from the beginning of life before irreversible damage has occurred is an admirable goal, but the path to fruition remains unclear. Here, we review the significant scientific contributions to the field of human heritable genome editing, the unique ethical challenges that cannot be overlooked, and the hurdles that must be overcome prior to translating these technologies into clinical practice.

Retained chromosomal integrity following CRISPR-Cas9-based mutational correction in human embryos.

Human germline gene correction by targeted nucleases holds great promise for reducing mutation transmission. However, recent studies have reported concerning observations in CRISPR-Cas9-targeted human embryos, including mosaicism and loss of heterozygosity (LOH). The latter has been associated with either gene conversion or (partial) chromosome loss events. In this study, we aimed to correct a heterozygous basepair substitution in PLCZ1, related to infertility. In 36% of the targeted embryos that originated from mutant sperm, only wild-type alleles were observed. By performing genome-wide double-digest restriction site-associated DNA sequencing, integrity of the targeted chromosome (i.e., no deletions larger than 3 Mb or chromosome loss) was confirmed in all seven targeted GENType-analyzed embryos (mutant editing and absence of mutation), while short-range LOH events (shorter than 10 Mb) were clearly observed by single-nucleotide polymorphism assessment in two of these embryos. These results fuel the currently ongoing discussion on double-strand break repair in early human embryos, making a case for the occurrence of gene conversion events or partial template-based homology-directed repair.

Porcine germline genome engineering.

Germline editing, the process by which the genome of an individual is edited in such a way that the change is heritable, has been applied to a wide variety of animals [D. A. Sorrell, A. F. Kolb, Biotechnol. Adv. 23, 431-469 (2005); D. Baltimore et al., Science 348, 36-38 (2015)]. Because of its relevancy in agricultural and biomedical research, the pig genome has been extensively modified using a multitude of technologies [K. Lee, K. Farrell, K. Uh, Reprod. Fertil. Dev. 32, 40-49 (2019); C. Proudfoot, S. Lillico, C. Tait-Burkard, Anim. Front. 9, 6-12 (2019)]. In this perspective, we will focus on using pigs as the model system to review the current methodologies, applications, and challenges of mammalian germline genome editing. We will also discuss the broad implications of animal germline editing and its clinical potential.

Various repair events following CRISPR/Cas9-based mutational correction of an infertility-related mutation in mouse embryos.

PURPOSE: Unpredictable genetic modifications and chromosomal aberrations following CRISPR/Cas9 administration hamper the efficacy of germline editing. Repair events triggered by double-strand DNA breaks (DSBs) besides non-homologous end joining and repair template-driven homology-directed repair have been insufficiently investigated in mouse. In this work, we are the first to investigate the precise repair mechanisms triggered by parental-specific DSB induction in mouse for paternal mutational correction in the context of an infertility-related mutation. METHODS: We aimed to correct a paternal 22-nucleotide deletion in Plcz1, associated with lack of fertilisation in vitro, by administrating CRISPR/Cas9 components during intracytoplasmic injection of Plcz1-null sperm in wild-type oocytes combined with assisted oocyte activation. Through targeted next-generation sequencing, 77 injected embryos and 26 blastomeres from seven injected embryos were investigated. In addition, low-pass whole genome sequencing was successfully performed on 17 injected embryo samples. RESULTS: Repair mechanisms induced by two different CRISPR/Cas9 guide RNA (gRNA) designs were investigated. In 13.73% (7/51; gRNA 1) and 19.05% (4/21; gRNA 2) of the targeted embryos, only the wild-type allele was observed, of which the majority (85.71%; 6/7) showed integrity of the targeted chromosome. Remarkably, for both designs, only in one of these embryos (1/7; gRNA 1 and 1/4; gRNA2) could repair template use be detected. This suggests that alternative repair events have occurred. Next, various genetic events within the same embryo were detected after single-cell analysis of four embryos. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest the occurrence of mosaicism and complex repair events after CRISPR/Cas9 DSB induction where chromosomal integrity is predominantly contained.

Germline genome editing of human IVF embryos should not be subject to overly stringent restrictions.

This paper critiques the restrictive criteria for germline genome editing recently proposed by Chin, Nguma, and Ahmad in this journal. While praising the authors for resisting fervent calls for an outright ban on clinical applications of the technology, this paper argues that their approach is nevertheless unduly restrictive, and may thus hinder technological progress. This response advocates for weighing potential benefits against risks without succumbing to excessive caution, proposing that ethical oversight combined with genetic scrutiny at the embryo stage post-editing can enable responsible use of the technology, ultimately reducing the burden of genetic diseases and enhancing human health, akin to how IVF transformed reproductive medicine despite strong initial opposition.

When Is Something an Alternative? A General Account Applied to Animal-Free Alternatives to Animal Research.

The first "R" from animal research ethics prescribes the replacement of animal experiments with animal-free alternatives. However, the question of when an animal-free method qualifies as an alternative to animal experiments remains unresolved.Drawing lessons from another debate in which the word "alternative" is central, the ethical debate on alternatives to germline genome editing, this paper develops a general account of when something qualifies as an alternative to something. It proposes three ethically significant conditions that technique, method, or approach X must meet to qualify as an alternative to Y: (1) X must address the same problem as Y, under an appropriate description of that problem; (2) X must have a reasonable chance of success, compared to Y, in solving the problem; and (3) X must not be ethically unacceptable as a solution. If X meets all these conditions, its relative advantages and disadvantages determine whether it is preferable, indifferent, or dispreferable as an alternative to Y.This account is then applied to the question of whether animal-free research methods qualify as alternatives to animal research. Doing so breaks down the debate around this question into more focused (ethical and other) issues and illustrates the potential of the account.

A critical view on using "life not worth living" in the bioethics of assisted reproduction.

This paper critically engages with how life not worth living (LNWL) and cognate concepts are used in the field of beginning-of-life bioethics as the basis of arguments for morally requiring the application of preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and/or germline genome editing (GGE). It is argued that an objective conceptualization of LNWL is largely too unreliable in beginning-of-life cases for deriving decisive normative reasons that would constitute a moral duty on the part of intending parents. Subjective frameworks are found to be more suitable to determine LNWL, but they are not accessible in beginning-of-life cases because there is no subject yet. Conceptual and sociopolitical problems are additionally pointed out regarding the common usage of clear case exemplars. The paper concludes that a moral requirement for the usage of PGD and GGE cannot be derived from the conceptual base of LNWL, as strong reasons that can be reliably determined are required to limit reproductive freedom on moral grounds. Educated predictions on prospective well-being might still be useful regarding the determination of moral permissibility of PGD and/or GGE. It is suggested that due to the high significance of subjective experience in the normativity of beginning-of-life bioethics, the discipline is called to more actively realize the inclusion of people with disabilities. This regards for instance research design, citation practices, and language choices to increase the accessibility of societal debates on the reproductive ethics of genetic technologies.

CRISPR/Cas9 technology: applications in oocytes and early embryos.

CRISPR/Cas9, a highly versatile genome-editing tool, has garnered significant attention in recent years. Despite the unique characteristics of oocytes and early embryos compared to other cell types, this technology has been increasing used in mammalian reproduction. In this comprehensive review, we elucidate the fundamental principles of CRISPR/Cas9-related methodologies and explore their wide-ranging applications in deciphering molecular intricacies during oocyte and early embryo development as well as in addressing associated diseases. However, it is imperative to acknowledge the limitations inherent to these technologies, including the potential for off-target effects, as well as the ethical concerns surrounding the manipulation of human embryos. Thus, a judicious and thoughtful approach is warranted. Regardless of these challenges, CRISPR/Cas9 technology undeniably represents a formidable tool for genome and epigenome manipulation within oocytes and early embryos. Continuous refinements in this field are poised to fortify its future prospects and applications.

Heritable genome editing: ethical aspects of a developing domain.

In the past decade, scientific developments in human germline genome editing (GGE) have reinvigorated questions about research ethics, responsible innovation, and what it means to do good in the field of reproductive biology and medicine. In recent years, it has become part of the ethical debate on GGE whether categorical objections about (un)naturalness, dignity, respect for the gene pool as common heritage, are and should be supplemented by more pragmatic questions about safety, utility, efficacy, and potential 'misuse', which seem to become more dominant in the moral discussion. This mini-review summarizes the morally relevant aspects of the rapidly developing domain of GGE, focusing on reproductive applications and with special attention to the ethical questions pertaining to how this technology may affect the interests of those that come to be by means of it. While vital, this encompasses more than safety considerations. Taking this perspective, it will be crucial to engage with normative questions about how GGE maps on the importance of accommodating future parents' preference to have genetically related children, and how far we should go to facilitate this. Similarly, a comprehensive ethical debate about 'appropriate application' of GGE cannot shake off the more fundamental question about how notions like 'normalcy', 'quality of life', and 'disability' can be conceptualized. This is crucial in view of respecting persons whichever traits they have and in view of acceptable boundaries to parental responsibilities.

Responsible governance of human germline genome editing in China†.

Considerable improvements have been made to gene editing technology, which has been increasingly applied to research involving humans. Nevertheless, human heritable germline genome editing is associated with a series of potential ethical, legal, and social risks, which have generated major controversies and discussions worldwide, especially after the "gene-edited babies" incident. Influenced by this incident, China has realized the importance of ethical governance in the field of life science and technology, has accelerated legislative and policy efforts in this field, and has gradually moved toward the direction of "precautionary" ethical governance. Black letter analysis, big data public opinion analysis, and other research methods are used in this paper. This paper explores the scientific background, ethical debates, and latest developments regarding China's regulatory framework for human germline gene editing after the "gene-edited babies" controversy and provides several recommendations on the future governance system of human germline gene editing in China. This paper argues that in recent years, the ethics governance of germline genome editing in China has been accelerated and great changes have been made. However, the regulatory system for germline genome editing requires further improvement in three aspects: coordination of legislation and agencies, establishment of an ethics review system at high levels, and public participation and education.

Should germline genome editing be allowed? The effect of treatment characteristics on public acceptability.

STUDY QUESTION: To what extent do characteristics of germline genome editing (GGE) determine whether the general public supports permitting the clinical use of GGE? SUMMARY ANSWER: The risk that GGE would cause congenital abnormalities had the largest effect on support for allowing GGE, followed by effectiveness of GGE, while costs, the type of application (disease or enhancement) and the effect on child well-being had moderate effects. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Scientific progress on GGE has increased the urgency of resolving whether and when clinical application of GGE may be ethically acceptable. Various expert bodies have suggested that the treatment characteristics will be key in determining whether GGE is acceptable. For example, GGE with substantial risks (e.g. 15% chance of a major congenital abnormality) may be acceptable to prevent a severe disease but not to enhance non-medical characteristics or traits of an otherwise healthy embryo (e.g. eye colour or perhaps in the future more complex traits, such as intelligence). While experts have called for public engagement, it is unclear whether and how much the public acceptability of GGE is affected by the treatment characteristics proposed by experts. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: The vignette-based survey was disseminated in 2018 among 1857 members of the Dutch general public. An online research panel was used to recruit a sample representing the adult Dutch general public. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: A literature review identified the key treatment characteristics of GGE: the effect on the well-being of the future child, use for disease or enhancement, risks for the future child, effectiveness (here defined as the chance of a live birth, assuming that if the GGE was not successful, the embryo would not be transferred), cost and availability of alternative treatments/procedures to prevent the genetic disease or provide enhancement (i.e. preimplantation genetic testing (PGT)), respectively. For each treatment characteristic, 2-3 levels were defined to realistically represent GGE and its current alternatives, donor gametes and ICSI with PGT. Twelve vignettes were created by fractional factorial design. A multinominal logit model assessed how much each treatment characteristic affected participants' choices. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The 1136 respondents (response rate 61%) were representative of the Dutch adult population in several demographics. Respondents were between 18 and 89 years of age. When no alternative treatment/procedure is available, the risk that GGE would cause (other) congenital abnormalities had the largest effect on whether the Dutch public supported allowing GGE (coefficient = -3.07), followed by effectiveness (coefficient = 2.03). Costs (covered by national insurance, coefficient = -1.14), the type of application (disease or enhancement; coefficient = -1.07), and the effect on child well-being (coefficient = 0.97) had similar effects on whether GGE should be allowed. If an alternative treatment/procedure (e.g. PGT) was available, participants were not categorically opposed to GGE, however, they were strongly opposed to using GGE for enhancement (coefficient = -3.37). The general acceptability of GGE was higher than participants' willingness to personally use it (P < 0.001). When participants considered whether they would personally use GGE, the type of application (disease or enhancement) was more important, whereas effectiveness and costs (covered by national insurance) were less important than when they considered whether GGE should be allowed. Participants who were male, younger and had lower incomes were more likely to allow GGE when no alternative treatment/procedure is available. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Some (e.g. ethnic, religious) minorities were not well represented. To limit complexity, not all characteristics of GGE could be included (e.g. out-of-pocket costs), therefore, the views gathered from the vignettes reflect only the choices presented to the respondents. The non-included characteristics could be connected to and alter the importance of the studied characteristics. This would affect how closely the reported coefficients reflect 'real-life' importance. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This study is the first to quantify the substantial impact of GGE's effectiveness, costs (covered by national insurance), and effect on child well-being on whether the public considered GGE acceptable. In general, the participants were strikingly risk-averse, in that they weighed the risks of GGE more heavily than its benefits. Furthermore, although only a single study in one country, the results suggests that-if sufficiently safe and effective-the public may approve of using GGE (presumably combined with PGT) instead of solely PGT to prevent passing on a disease. The reported public views can serve as input for future consideration of the ethics and governance of GGE. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): Young Academy of the Royal Dutch Academy of Sciences (UPS/RB/745), Alliance Grant of the Amsterdam Reproduction and Development Research Institute (2017-170116) and National Institutes of Health Intramural Research Programme. No competing interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

The implications of the gender-based prohibitions relating to human germline genome editing in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act.

RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the implications of the gender-based prohibitions relating to human germline genome editing (hGGE) in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology (HFE) Act 1990, as amended in 2008? DESIGN: A three-phase primary research design consisting of a mixed-methods online public survey of 521 UK citizens aged 16-82 years, 13 semi-structured interviews with experts and professionals involved in the future of hGGE, and structured interviews with 21 people affected by genetic conditions. The research was conducted between March 2018 and October 2019. RESULTS: Gender-based prohibitions in the HFE Act weaken its intent to prevent germline cells that have been altered from resulting in a pregnancy and the possible birth of people with edited genomes. This weakness could become increasingly problematic as genome editing technologies develop and social advances seek to eradicate gendered expectations and gendered binaries. CONCLUSION: The HFE Act should be amended to avoid gender-based discrimination and the potential gender-based prohibitions have to circumvent germline genome editing being used before the technology is considered safe enough to prevent disease.

Affecting future individuals: Why and when germline genome editing entails a greater moral obligation towards progeny.

Assisted reproductive technologies have greatly increased our control over reproductive choices, leading some bioethicists to argue that we face unprecedented moral obligations towards progeny. Several models attempting to balance the principle of procreative autonomy with these obligations have been proposed. The least demanding is the minimal threshold model (MTM), according to which every reproductive choice is permissible, except creating children whose lives will not be worth living. Hence, as long as the future child is likely to have a life worth living, prospective parents may be allowed to use preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) to select embryos with genetic diseases or disabilities. Assuming a consequentialist person-affecting view of morality, this paper investigates whether the MTM is an appropriate tool to guide procreative decisions given the continuous development of reproductive genetic technologies. In particular, I consider germline genome editing (GGE) and I argue that its application in human reproduction, unlike PGD, should be conceived as person-affecting towards future progeny. I claim that even if we assume the plausibility of the MTM within PGD, we are committed to accepting that a greater moral obligation towards progeny should guide procreative decisions if GGE were available. In this case, the MTM should no longer be considered an appropriate instrument to guide procreative choices. Finally, I investigate when we face this greater moral obligation, concluding that it applies only when prospective parents have already engaged in the in vitro fertilization process.

Does human genome editing reinforce or violate human dignity?

Germline genome editing is often disapproved of at the international policy level because of its possible threats to human dignity. However, from a critical perspective the relationship between this emerging technology and human dignity is relatively understudied. We explore the main principles that are referred to when 'human dignity' is invoked in this context; namely, the link with eugenics, the idea of a common genetic heritage, the principle of equal birth and broader equality and justice concerns. Yet the concept is also used in favour of germline genome editing as it might improve the overall well-being of future generations. We conclude that dignity concerns do not justify a complete ban on safe heritable genome editing but should inform the implementation of side constraints to ensure that the value judgements about human traits that are inherent in this practice do not result in a diminished basic respect for those people affected by them.

Using the therapy and enhancement distinction in law and policy.

In a first major study, the UK's Royal Society found that 76% of people in the UK are in favour of therapeutic germline genomic editing to correct genetic diseases in human embryos, but found there was little appetite for germline genomic editing for non-therapeutic purposes. Assuming the UK and other governments acted on these findings, can lawmakers and policymakers coherently regulate the use of biomedical innovations by permitting their use for therapeutic purposes but prohibiting their use for enhancement purposes? This paper examines the very common claim in the enhancement literature that the therapy v enhancement distinction does little meaningful work in helping us think through the ethical issues, a claim that has significant implications for these lawmakers and policymakers who may wish to regulate genomic editing techniques to reflect the findings of this important study. The focus of this paper is on germline genomic editing as one of the main themes in this special issue.

Germline genome editing versus preimplantation genetic diagnosis: Is there a case in favour of germline interventions?

CRISPR is widely considered to be a disruptive technology. However, when it comes to the most controversial topic, germline genome editing (GGE), there is no consensus on whether this technology has any substantial advantages over existing procedures such as embryo selection after in vitro fertilization (IVF) and preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). Answering this question, however, is crucial for evaluating whether the pursuit of further research and development on GGE is justified. This paper explores the question from both a clinical and a moral viewpoint, namely whether GGE has any advantages over existing technologies of selective reproduction and whether GGE could complement or even replace them. In a first step, I review an argument of extended applicability. The paper confirms that there are some scenarios in which only germline intervention allows couples to have (biologically related) healthy offspring, because selection will not avoid disease. In a second step, I examine possible moral arguments in favour of genetic modification, namely that GGE could save some embryos and that GGE would provide certain benefits for a future person that PGD does not. Both arguments for GGE have limitations. With regard to the extended applicability of GGE, however, a weak case in favour of GGE should still be made.

Lipofection-Based Delivery of CRISPR/Cas9 Ribonucleoprotein for Gene Editing in Male Germline Stem Cells.

Gene editing in the murine germline is a valuable approach to investigate germ cell maturation and generate mouse models. Several studies demonstrated that CRISPR/Cas9 alters the genome of cultured male mouse germline stem cells delivered by electroporation of plasmids. Recently, we showed proof-of-principle that gene knockout can be effectively targeted in mouse germline stem cells by lipofecting Cas9:gRNA ribonucleoproteins. In this protocol, we describe a simple, fast, and cheap workflow for gene editing via the lipofection of non-integrative ribonucleoproteins in murine male germline stem cells.

Evaluation of guide-free Cas9-induced genomic damage and transcriptome changes in pig embryos.

Cas9 protein without sgRNAs can induce genomic damage at the cellular level in vitro. However, whether the detrimental effects occur in embryos after Cas9 treatment remains unknown. Here, using pig embryos as subjects, we observed that Cas9 protein transcribed from injected Cas9 mRNA can persist until at least the blastocyst stage. Cas9 protein alone can induce genome damage in preimplantation embryos, represented by the increased number of phosphorylated histone H2AX foci on the chromatin fiber, which led to apoptosis and decreased cell number of blastocysts. In addition, single-blastocyst RNA sequencing confirmed that Cas9 protein without sgRNAs can cause changes in the blastocyst transcriptome, depressing embryo development signal pathways, such as cell cycle, metabolism, and cellular communication-related signal pathways, while activating apoptosis and necroptosis signal pathways, which together resulted in impaired preimplantation embryonic development. These results indicated that attention should be given to the detrimental effects caused by the Cas9 protein when using CRISPR-Cas9 for germline genome editing, especially for the targeted correction of human pathological mutations using germline gene therapy.

Lipofection of Non-integrative CRISPR/Cas9 Ribonucleoproteins in Male Germline Stem Cells: A Simple and Effective Knockout Tool for Germline Genome Engineering.

Gene editing in male germline stem (GS) cells is a potent tool to study spermatogenesis and to create transgenic mice. Various engineered nucleases already demonstrated the ability to modify the genome of GS cells. However, current systems are limited by technical complexity diminishing application options. To establish an easier method to mediate gene editing, we tested the lipofection of site-specific Cas9:gRNA ribonucleoprotein (RNP) complexes to knockout the enhanced green fluorescent protein (Egfp) in mouse EGFP-GS cells via non-homologous end joining. To monitor whether gene conversion through homology-directed repair events occurred, single-stranded oligodeoxynucleotides were co-lipofected to deliver a Bfp donor sequence. Results showed Egfp knockout in up to 22% of GS cells, which retained their undifferentiated status following transfection, while only less than 0.7% EGFP to BFP conversion was detected in gated GS cells. These data show that CRISPR/Cas9 RNP-based lipofection is a promising system to simply and effectively knock out genes in mouse GS cells. Understanding the genes involved in spermatogenesis could expand therapeutic opportunities for men suffering from infertility.

CRISPR-Cas and Its Wide-Ranging Applications: From Human Genome Editing to Environmental Implications, Technical Limitations, Hazards and Bioethical Issues.

The CRISPR-Cas system is a powerful tool for in vivo editing the genome of most organisms, including man. During the years this technique has been applied in several fields, such as agriculture for crop upgrade and breeding including the creation of allergy-free foods, for eradicating pests, for the improvement of animal breeds, in the industry of bio-fuels and it can even be used as a basis for a cell-based recording apparatus. Possible applications in human health include the making of new medicines through the creation of genetically modified organisms, the treatment of viral infections, the control of pathogens, applications in clinical diagnostics and the cure of human genetic diseases, either caused by somatic (e.g., cancer) or inherited (mendelian disorders) mutations. One of the most divisive, possible uses of this system is the modification of human embryos, for the purpose of preventing or curing a human being before birth. However, the technology in this field is evolving faster than regulations and several concerns are raised by its enormous yet controversial potential. In this scenario, appropriate laws need to be issued and ethical guidelines must be developed, in order to properly assess advantages as well as risks of this approach. In this review, we summarize the potential of these genome editing techniques and their applications in human embryo treatment. We will analyze CRISPR-Cas limitations and the possible genome damage caused in the treated embryo. Finally, we will discuss how all this impacts the law, ethics and common sense.