Nature: NgAgo基因编辑争议升级, 有人已用于实验？

海归学者发起的公益学术平台

分享信息，整合资源

交流学术，偶尔风月

11月23日，Nature 网页在线发表新闻评论，再次介绍围绕河北科技大学韩春雨教授NgAgo基因编辑技术可重复性的争议，题为：

NgAgo gene-editing controversy escalates in peer-reviewed papers

报道并披露有人已经运用NgAgo展开实验用于自己的研究，并希望能尽快发表。该报道作者为 David Cyranoski，是Nature负责亚太地区报道的记者，基于上海。此前，他曾于8月8号在Nature撰文对此事进行深入报道，题为：

Replications, ridicule and a recluse: the controversy over NgAgo gene-editing intensifies

新鲜出炉的这篇Nature新闻报道，主要围绕最近新出现的两篇NgAgo文献展开。一篇是20位生物学家致信Protein & Cell 编辑，表明无法重复NgAgo基因编辑，详见此前知社报道：NgAgo首篇学术评论出炉, Nature报道中国CRISPR临床癌症试验。在信件中，他们呼吁韩春雨团队澄清疑问，提供重复实验所必须的更多的信息：

We therefore urge the authors of the original paper to clarify the uncertainty surrounding NgAgo and provide all the necessary details for replicating the initial, very important results.

Nature最新的报道对此做了注解。Protein & Cell信件作者之一的北京大学魏文胜教授在接受采访的时候称：“It simply doesn't work, period,”

Nature新闻也介绍了南通大学刘东课题组和复旦大学王永明教授在Cell Research所发表的原创性论文，称没有发现NgAgo基因编辑，但可以基因敲低，从而影响斑马鱼眼睛的发育，详见知社报道：NgAgo第二篇原创论文出炉, 基因编辑证实还是证伪? 然而，此前曾质疑NgAgo的澳大利亚国立大学生物学家Gaetan Burgio对刘东教授的论文也提出了质疑，认为NgAgo不可能在如此低的温度下工作，斑马鱼的眼睛发育影响可能是由其他毒性造成的。

不过大家最关心的，还是到底是否有人能够重复NgAgo的基因编辑。在8月8号的专题报道中，David Cyranoski曾采访几位不愿透露姓名的生物学家，他们称能够重复实验：

One researcher in China, who works independently from Han’s research group and who doesn’t want his name to be entangled in the public controversy, told Nature that he had tested NgAgo in a few kinds of cell and found that it was able to induce genetic mutations at the desired sites — a finding that he verified by sequencing. He adds that the process was less efficient than CRISPR–Cas9, and requires tweaking to improve the efficiency. “But, in short, it worked,” he says.

Two more Chinese scientists, who also asked not to be named, say they have initial results showing that NgAgo works but still need to confirm with sequencing.

三个月过去了，情况有无变化呢？ David Cyranoski对他们进行了回访。一位称已经将NgAgo用于自己的实验，希望能尽快发表：

One of the few scientists who previously told Nature he had corroborated Han’s findings – but has not published these results – now says that he is using NgAgo for experiments related to his research, and that he hopes to publish soon. 

而另一位则遇到一些困难：

But another who previously noted positive initial results with NgAgo says now that the “data are confusing” and “we cannot make a conclusion”. 

两人依然都不愿意透露姓名，害怕被卷入争议，受到骚扰。至于争议的主角韩春雨教授呢？ 据说已发现了他人不可重复的原因，正在确认之中，以便得到能让批评者满意的数据；这需要更多的时间。韩教授对媒体也提出了批评：

Han told Nature he has discovered a problem that would not have been obvious to others and that could explain why others are having difficulty replicating his results. He says that he is currently running confirmatory experiments so that he can publish data and a protocol that satisfies his critics. “I cannot say right now because the media in China jumps on everything I say,” he told Nature. “I need a little bit of time.”

大多数关注此事的人，心中恐怕早已有了自己的判断，所等待的，不过是印证自己判断的证据和消息。我们非常期待声称自己能够重复的学者，以恰当的方式，早日公开出来。对于中国的科学和科学界而言，此事的确需要有一个明确的说法。

另请关注今日头条：引文被撤稿，该怎么办？

扩展阅读

 

媒体转载请联系授权

投稿、授权、合作事宜请联系

[e-mail] 或微信ID: scholarset

回复“目录”或“分类”，浏览知社更多精华。长按二维码识别，可以关注/进入公众号进行回复。