Science has managed to turn off the extra chromosome of Down syndrome. It has also opened the great ethical debate on gene editing

In the complex genetic map that surrounds the known down syndromethe problem is not that there is a lack of information in our cells, but that there is an excess. The presence of a third copy of chromosome 21 It unbalances the entire cellular system that ends up generating an entire clinic that today did not have any type of cure. But thanks to clinical advances and revolutionary gene therapies, we have found a way to turn off this gene that is extra in the cells of people with Down. A natural switch. To understand this advance, we must look at how nature itself resolves its own genetic imbalances. And, for those who do not know, in human beings sex is determined by two types of chromosomes: X and Y. If you are a woman, you will have XX chromosomes, and if you are a man, you will have XY. The problem, boiling it down to its most basic, is that always one of the ‘X’ genes must be silenced so that the genetic load is compensated in humans. And this is something that is done thanks to the gene XIST which encodes an RNA molecule that covers the chromosome and alters its chromatin, silencing de facto their genes. Something that has been developed by nature itself in order to maintain the species, and then the question is obligatory: why not use this natural switch to silence the chromosomes that generate diseases as important as Down syndrome? It’s not something new. The idea of ​​using this “switch” to be able to alter the gene expression of the chromosomes that we have in excess is not new, since in 2013 the researcher Jeanne Lawrence demonstrated for the first time that this RNA could induce the silencing of the extra chromosome 21 in human cells that were in culture in a laboratory. Later, in 2020, it was applied to neural stem cells, but the historical problem has always been the same: the very low efficiency when integrating this gene into the affected cells.. A new milestone. This has changed radically, as a team at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston has published a new article in PNAS with a solution to eradicate this bottleneck thanks to the tool CRISPR/Cas9. This system can be visualized as simple scissors that specifically cut into our DNA to eliminate something that was left over or altered. The problem is that it was not very efficient at integrating new genetic material, and to overcome this, scientists have developed a modified version of CRISPR/Cas9 that boosts the success rate of the integration of the XIST gene which will silence the third chromosome 21. Good results. Here we recognize how XIST has been integrated into 20-40% of cell lines that have trisomy 21. Furthermore, the method reliably affects only the extra copy of chromosome 21 without silencing other genes that can cause other diseases. There are problems. Despite the enthusiasm, the technique is far from being applied in humans, since one of the biggest challenges of CRISPR is the mutations off-target, That is, it acts on other genetic points that are its marked objectives. And this occurs when these ‘scissors’ cut a sequence of DNA that closely resembles its target, but which in reality is not. In this way, an error off-target It could trigger severe cellular problems or even cancer. Recent studies show that experimentation on embryos with these techniques often results in mosaicism with edited and unedited cells, as well as incomplete edits. This means that right now we have to work on having greater specificity in the genetic objectives of the therapy so that the consequences of using it are not much greater than the fact of curing a disease. Ethical shock. The controversy is served with genetic therapies in general, since right now one of the lines that are open is to eliminate this extra chromosome directly in a human embryo before implementing it in a woman so that she is not born with this disease. This is where bioethicists they point because experimenting with human embryos damages their physical integrity and poses irreversible risks for future generations. Furthermore, they underline the urgency of distinguishing between the use of CRISPR for purely therapeutic purposes, such as treating symptoms, and its use for “genetic improvement” or the selection of embryos that are much more advanced or genetically perfect. This is also added to the fact that genetic editing in embryos for reproductive purposes is currently prohibited in most countries. Images | Sangharsh Lohakare In Xataka | The surprising thing is not that we have sequenced the DNA of a Neanderthal from 11,000 years ago: it is what it has revealed

Science has managed to turn off the extra chromosome of Down syndrome. It has also opened the great ethical debate on gene editing

In the complex genetic map that surrounds the known down syndromethe problem is not that there is a lack of information in our cells, but that there is an excess. The presence of a third copy of chromosome 21 It unbalances the entire cellular system that ends up generating an entire clinic that today did not have any type of cure. But thanks to clinical advances and revolutionary gene therapies, we have found a way to turn off this gene that is extra in the cells of people with Down. A natural switch. To understand this advance, we must look at how nature itself resolves its own genetic imbalances. And, for those who do not know, in human beings sex is determined by two types of chromosomes: X and Y. If you are a woman, you will have XX chromosomes, and if you are a man, you will have XY. The problem, boiling it down to its most basic, is that always one of the ‘X’ genes must be silenced so that the genetic load is compensated in humans. And this is something that is done thanks to the gene XIST which encodes an RNA molecule that covers the chromosome and alters its chromatin, silencing de facto their genes. Something that has been developed by nature itself in order to maintain the species, and then the question is obligatory: why not use this natural switch to silence the chromosomes that generate diseases as important as Down syndrome? It’s not something new. The idea of ​​using this “switch” to be able to alter the gene expression of the chromosomes that we have in excess is not new, since in 2013 the researcher Jeanne Lawrence demonstrated for the first time that this RNA could induce the silencing of the extra chromosome 21 in human cells that were in culture in a laboratory. Later, in 2020, it was applied to neural stem cells, but the historical problem has always been the same: the very low efficiency when integrating this gene into the affected cells.. A new milestone. This has changed radically, as a team at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston has published a new article in PNAS with a solution to eradicate this bottleneck thanks to the tool CRISPR/Cas9. This system can be visualized as simple scissors that specifically cut into our DNA to eliminate something that was left over or altered. The problem is that it was not very efficient at integrating new genetic material, and to overcome this, scientists have developed a modified version of CRISPR/Cas9 that boosts the success rate of the integration of the XIST gene which will silence the third chromosome 21. Good results. Here we recognize how XIST has been integrated into 20-40% of cell lines that have trisomy 21. Furthermore, the method reliably affects only the extra copy of chromosome 21 without silencing other genes that can cause other diseases. There are problems. Despite the enthusiasm, the technique is far from being applied in humans, since one of the biggest challenges of CRISPR is the mutations off-target, That is, it acts on other genetic points that are its marked objectives. And this occurs when these ‘scissors’ cut a sequence of DNA that closely resembles its target, but which in reality is not. In this way, an error off-target It could trigger severe cellular problems or even cancer. Recent studies show that experimentation on embryos with these techniques often results in mosaicism with edited and unedited cells, as well as incomplete edits. This means that right now we have to work on having greater specificity in the genetic objectives of the therapy so that the consequences of using it are not much greater than the fact of curing a disease. Ethical shock. The controversy is served with genetic therapies in general, since right now one of the lines that are open is to eliminate this extra chromosome directly in a human embryo before implementing it in a woman so that she is not born with this disease. This is where bioethicists they point because experimenting with human embryos damages their physical integrity and poses irreversible risks for future generations. Furthermore, they underline the urgency of distinguishing between the use of CRISPR for purely therapeutic purposes, such as treating symptoms, and its use for “genetic improvement” or the selection of embryos that are much more advanced or genetically perfect. This is also added to the fact that genetic editing in embryos for reproductive purposes is currently prohibited in most countries. Images | Sangharsh Lohakare In Xataka | The surprising thing is not that we have sequenced the DNA of a Neanderthal from 11,000 years ago: it is what it has revealed

One study compares what AI does to your ability to think to boiled frog syndrome. The frog does not come out well

There are two things that the technology industry is pushing hard. On the one hand, short videos. The TikTok format ‘broke’ it a few years ago to the point that platforms like Instagram or YouTube jumped headlong into copying them. On the other hand, AI. Everything must have AI, and now a chatbot He must be our assistant at all times. In parallel, every time more studies appear that point to something disturbing. That, perhaps, our brain is eroding. In short. Months ago, a study pointed out that chatbots cause cognitive surrender, another that makes us lazy and there is even one from Microsoft itself pointing in the same direction. One of the last is the elaborated by researchers from MIT, the University of California, Oxford, and Carnegie Mellon titled “AI Assistance Reduces Persistence and Harms Independent Performance.” To test the hypothesis, they conducted three experiments in which they let part of the participants access a bot based on GPT-5 and, after ten minutes, they cut off that access. Before the results, the tests: Equation Test – 350 people had to solve those problems. Qlogic test – 670 people had to take a mathematical test, but of logical reasoning in this case. Reading comprehension test – 200 participants who had to analyze a text and complete a brief reading comprehension series. We are so-so. As we say, part of the sample had access to that bot that was deactivated in the middle of the ‘exam’, and the result was the same in all three tests. As the researchers point out, when access to AI is interrupted, not only does the participants’ performance drop, but also their perseverance. In statements to the magazine Futurismone of the researchers points out that “once we take away the AI, it is not just that they make mistakes when giving the answer, it is that they are not willing to try either.” There was a distinction between AI users: Those who wanted the easy answer were the quickest to lose interest in attempting the task when they no longer had access to the tool. Those who asked for explanations or not to “cheat” directly had better results because some did try to continue with the task. The boiled frog. That’s where the analogy of the boiled frog that applies so well to this situation. The premise is that if we put a frog in a saucepan of boiling water, the frog will jump as soon as it senses danger. However, if we put the frog in the saucepan with warm water and heat it little by little, the animal will cook. This is not the case because the frog is obviously not stupid and, as long as it cannot be thermoregulateit will jump, but the analogy serves to explain what is happening with AI and those who delegate all tasks to a chatbot so as not to have to think. Are they making us dumber? Fools, fools… wouldn’t be the word. Rather, we become lazy. We don’t think because, after all, we have AI to do it for us. Without going into the danger that it poses (because now AIs are free, but tomorrow they may take them away from us at a stroke and turn them into a paid product even for the most basic tasks), the researchers they point out that, if someone uses AI in their daily life for all types of tasks, that person runs the risk of seeing their capabilities erode to the point of creating a dependency on the system because they do not know how to do anything without it. with head. This study, like many others, is not a criticism of artificial intelligence. As we have once said, it is just another tool, but you have to have criteria when using it. As the researchers point out, performance and interest are not the same in the case of someone who uses AI as a quick response as in the case of someone who just wants a concept explained to them. What they are clear about is that their observations, apart from those of other studies, should serve as a basis when designing how to integrate chatbots into educational programs. Because we are already seeing that there are countries and institutions that are integrating AI into classrooms and the conclusion of the study is that the analytical and creative thinking that we develop during youth is vital in adulthood. “Practice makes you better, and that is precisely what AI will take away from you. We will have a generation of students and people who will not know what they are capable of, and then that will hurt both innovation and human creativity” – Rachit Dubey, computational cognitive scientist at the University of California fast food. I commented at the beginning that short videos were also affecting us and it was not a toast to the Sun. It has a lot to do with the use of AI to obtain easy answers because the bottom line is the same: not having to think. It is something related to the concept of “brain rot” and the trap of dopamine, creating that dependency. In the case of short videos with slop and empty content, another implication is that little by little they break our attention span. That is why videos on YouTube The aim is to hook you from the beginningthe songs are getting shorter and have choruses that fit into the 15 seconds of an Instagram story, microdramas are the order of the day and when you start watching a movie that is not releasing dopamine, not even five minutes pass until you pick up your phone. It’s up to us to let the frog stew until it’s cooked… or if it jumps out of the pot. Images | J. Ronald LeeChatGPT (edited) In Xataka | The big names in AI are fighting over neuroscientists like they were soccer stars

The fourth iPhone syndrome

Apple just present the new iPhone. We already have all the characteristics of the iPhone 17 and of the iPhone 17 Pro and Pro Max. Of which we have not had news is from an iPhone Plus because, simply, it does not exist anymore. Instead, we have the iPhone Air. Apple carries years obsessed with an idea: the fourth iPhone. And during all that time, Things have not done well. This year there is no iPhone 17 plusa family with warm results The one that has ended up cutting off the wings to bet on a new trend: that of ultra -launching mobiles. Because the iPhone Air does not stand out in technical characteristics if we compare it with the rest of the family, but if for something it stands out it is for a thickness of just 5.6 millimeters. Forks Apple’s weapon to stand up in an unexplored niche in which its greatest rival, Samsung, has already positioned itself with the Galaxy S25 Edge. iPhone Air and Apple’s desire Until the launch of the iPhone 5sthose of the apple only had one model every year, but in a market that advanced at high speed and with great competition, in 2013 they threw themselves into the pool with the iPhone 5C. It went so bad that they wanted to repeatbecause it was a iPhone 5but cut at a price that made it unattractive. Later they began launching larger plus models, but in 2021 they tried again to position themselves with a new product: the iPhone 12 Mini. It was an iPhone 12, but in a smaller format. The following year they repeated with the iPhone 13 Mini that solved the main problem of the previous one -autonomy -but the accounts still did not leave. Simply, the market was talking and I shouted bigger screens. The diagonal of the phones did nothing more than increase and less and less small mobiles were thrown. Even asus, whose zenfone were champions of this niche, They deposed the weapons With the latest generations, hugging the biggest screens. Apple was clear: if the market wanted large screens, that would give the market, and that’s how they created (again) Plus models. The latest generations have had iPhone 14 Plus, iPhone 15 Plus and iPhone 16 Plusmobiles that were like the ‘normal’ model, but with more screen and battery. But as the mini (although perhaps not in such a beast), the plus models have not finished curdling. The user who wants to spend the least possible money on an iPhone goes for the normal one. And the one who is willing to stretch the budget to buy the plus, If stretches a little more it reaches the PROr, with better screen, best processor and more versatile cameras. The Plus were running out of hole, but Apple’s story is clear: They sell more the more models they offer. Taking that into account, Those of Cupertino have redesigned the iPhone and have not limited themselves to launching one with a screen of different dimensions: The iPhone Air does not carry a “17” because it does not need it: it is unique. It is a new member of the family that comes to live with the rest, not in the shadow. It has only one camera, yes, but the processor is the same A19 Pro that we find on the iPhone 17 Pro and Pro Max. It is a different bet for an Apple that wants to have that fourth iPhone compatible with the rest of its range, that smartphone that is not “the cheap iPhone” or “the most pro iPhone”, but the one that attracts attention by itself. Memories of Jony Ive Apple And yes, it draws attention, but here the question will be resolved within a few months. Because the response to whether the user needs a 5.6 millimeter mobile thickness (which implies in battery limitation, for example) will be elucidated when the List of the best -selling mobiles. In the end, that Apple’s strategy is successful or not, will be responded with sales, which It was what ended the compactsbut in the absence of having that thermometer, there is something obvious: whoever wants this iPhone Air should be very clear that it needs – or wants – that extreme thinness, because The price is on complicated land: 260 euros more expensive than the iPhone 17 … and 100 euros cheaper than the iPhone 17 Pro. It will also have to be clear that It means goodbye to esim. But The iPhone Air has an ace in the sleeve: The Apple of recent years has been blamed that it is late for trends (AI is a very clear example), But with an ultra -elapsed mobile, it comes from the first to this unexplored land in which, apart from Samsung, There are other brands like Tecno. In Xataka | I don’t know any photography. But since I discovered this free app, I feel that my photos with the mobile play in another league

It affects few people, but Williams syndrome can help us understand new details about human evolution

Williams syndrome is a condition with its own “personality.” And it is not quite a way of speaking, some call it “personality of the Williams syndrome”And it is one of the features that usually characterize people with this uncommon condition. Let’s start at the beginning: What is Williams syndrome. The origin of this can be found in the genes of the people in which it manifests itself, specifically in chromosome seven. The absence of a region that covers between 25 and 28 genes is what causes the appearance of the syndrome. This absence can be hereditary. Although most cases are not inherited but the result of chance, who manifest this syndrome have a 50% chance of transmitting it to their descendants. This is because it is a Dominant autosomal inheritance. The syndrome affects a person between 18,000 and 7,500and does it similarly regardless of sex. According to Explain in The conversation Deborah Riby, expert from Durham University, this syndrome usually comes associated with some concrete facial features But also with problems that affect the health of those who are born with him, including heart problems and difficulties when feeding. This syndrome is usually rigged with intellectual disabilities that can be between mild and moderate, but perhaps their most defining feature, and is greater extraversion and trust. The “Williams Syndrome Personality“Includes traits, Riby explains, as the greatest sensitivity and consciousness that occurs in parallel to the difficulties that people with this syndrome present. “Many individuals are highly mad (…), some are music experts and the large majority are highly social. ‘Extroven‘,’ Over-amygible ‘, and’ emotionally sensitive ‘, are frequently used descriptions to describe (this personality), ” Riby details In your article. People with this syndrome, very often, present hyperacusia, an extreme auditory sensitivity that can be responsible for high levels of anxiety. Levels that in turn can be disabling. These features are rigged with A vulnerability related, and that is that people with the syndrome can be excessively confident, explained to the BBC Alyson Muotri, from the University of California, San Diego (UCSD). Contrary to autism? The different vision of social exchanges that characterizes people with this syndrome makes some see this syndrome as “The opposite of autism”. The idea that this disorder is an opposite to autism is also nuanceable, says Riby. “There are several cognitive domains that are problematic in both disorders. Deficits in nonverbal behavior such as visual contact, facial expressions, interpretation of gestures, are widely documented. Additionally, we know that both disorders are associated with difficulties in sensory processing, high anxieties and repetitive behaviors or restrictive interests,” Riby adds to your article. The existence of this type of relationship, both similarities and differences, lead to the possibility that learning more about one could lead us to better know the other. Especially, Riby proposes, knowing more details about this syndrome of such clear genetic origin can give us clues about the biological mechanisms that determine the appearance of something as complex as autism is. And this is not the only way in which this syndrome can help us advance in the knowledge of our own species. Some experts seek how to take advantage of this to find out new data on how they evolved as human traits, trust or sympathy. Studies on this syndrome have managed to link some of their features with the disappearance of one gene or another. Interestingly, experts They have not found the gene “Limiting sympathy” whose disappearance makes these people more extroverted and friendly. In Xataka | The chromosome and is disappearing … What will be of men? Image | Xataka with chatgpt /

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.