Ethics and regulatory considerations for the clinical translation of somatic cell human epigenetic editing

Epigenetic Therapies in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: Concepts, Visions, and Challenges

Breast cancer, the most frequent malignancy in women worldwide, is a molecularly and clinically very heterogeneous disease. Triple-negative breast cancer is defined by the absence of hormone receptor and growth factor receptor ERBB2/HER2 expression. It is characterized by a more aggressive course of disease and a shortage of effective therapeutic approaches. Hallmarks of cancer cells are not only genetic alterations, but also epigenetic aberrations. The most studied and best understood alterations are methylation of the DNA base cytosine and the covalent modification of histone proteins. The reversibility of these covalent modifications make them attractive targets for therapeutic intervention, as documented in numerous ongoing clinical trials. Epidrugs, targeting DNA methylation and histone modifications, might offer attractive new options in treating triple-negative breast cancer. Currently, the most promising options are combination therapies in which the epidrug increases the efficiency of immuncheckpoint inhibitors. This review focusses exclusively on DNA methylation and histone modifications. In reviewing the knowledge about epigenetic therapies in breast cancer, and especially triple-negative breast cancer, the focus is on explaining concepts and raising awareness of what is not yet known and what has to be clarified in the future.

Comparative ethical evaluation of epigenome editing and genome editing in medicine: first steps and future directions

Targeted modifications of the human epigenome, epigenome editing (EE), are around the corner. For EE, techniques similar to genome editing (GE) techniques are used. While in GE the genetic information is changed by directly modifying DNA, intervening in the epigenome requires modifying the configuration of DNA, for example, how it is folded. This does not come with alterations in the base sequence ('genetic code'). To date, there is almost no ethical debate about EE, whereas the discussions about GE are voluminous. Our article introduces EE into bioethics by translating knowledge from science to ethics and by comparing the risks of EE with those of GE. We, first (I), make the case that a broader ethical debate on EE is due, provide scientific background on EE, compile potential use-cases and recap previous debates. We then (II) compare EE and GE and suggest that the severity of risks of novel gene technologies depends on three factors: (i) the choice of an ex vivo versus an in vivo editing approach, (ii) the time of intervention and intervention windows and (iii) the targeted diseases. Moreover, we show why germline EE is not effective and reject the position of strong epigenetic determinism. We conclude that EE is not always ethically preferable to GE in terms of risks, and end with suggestions for next steps in the current ethical debate on EE by briefly introducing ethical challenges of new areas of preventive applications of EE (III).

Is epigenome editing non-inheritable? Implications for ethics and the regulation of human applications

Epigenome editing offers ethical advantages with non-inheritable gene expression control. However, concerns arise regarding potential transgenerational effects in humans. Ethical and regulatory evaluation is crucial, considering recent advancements and enhanced understanding of transgenerational epigenetics in both mammals and humans.

Toward the Development of Epigenome Editing-Based Therapeutics: Potentials and Challenges

The advancement in epigenetics research over the past several decades has led to the potential application of epigenome-editing technologies for the treatment of various diseases. In particular, epigenome editing is potentially useful in the treatment of genetic and other related diseases, including rare imprinted diseases, as it can regulate the expression of the epigenome of the target region, and thereby the causative gene, with minimal or no modification of the genomic DNA. Various efforts are underway to successfully apply epigenome editing in vivo, such as improving target specificity, enzymatic activity, and drug delivery for the development of reliable therapeutics. In this review, we introduce the latest findings, summarize the current limitations and future challenges in the practical application of epigenome editing for disease therapy, and introduce important factors to consider, such as chromatin plasticity, for a more effective epigenome editing-based therapy.

CRISPR-Cas9: el debate bioético más allá de la línea germinal

El sistema CRISPR-Cas9 es una tecnología de edición genética que, además de ampliar las posibilidades en investigación científica, despierta reflexiones asociadas a la dignidad humana, el control biológico, la terapia y la mejora genética. Se revisaron las discusiones bioéticas asociadas a los desafíos y las repercusiones que suscita su aplicación. Como resultado, los cuestionamientos bioéticos tienden a problematizar la aplicación en organismos no humanos, en la investigación básica y en la línea somática y germinal humana. Para concluir, falta incrementar los niveles de seguridad y efectividad para que los beneficios superen los riesgos y, de esta forma, sea posible disminuir las preocupaciones bioéticas y aumentar la credibilidad en el uso de la técnica.

Auditing the Editor: A Review of Key Translational Issues in Epigenetic Editing

Currently, most advances in site-specific epigenetic editing for human use are concentrated in basic research, yet, there is considerable interest to translate this technology beyond the bench. This review highlights recent developments with epigenetic editing technology in comparison with the canonical CRISPR-Cas genome editing, as well as the epistemic and ethical considerations with preemptive translation of epigenetic editing into clinical or commercial use in humans. Key considerations in safety, equity, and access to epigenetic editing are highlighted, with a spotlight on the ethical, legal, and social issues of this technology in the context of global health equity.