Gene editing advance re-ignites debate on the merits and risks of animal to human transplantation

In Australia, and internationally, the shortage of organ and tissue donors significantly limits the number of patients with critical organ or tissue failure who are able to receive a transplant each year. The rationale for xenotransplantation - the transplantation of living cells, tissues or organs from one species to another - is to meet this shortfall in human donor material. While early clinical trials showed promise, particularly in patients with type I diabetes whose insulin dependence could be temporarily reversed by the transplantation of porcine islet cells, these benefits have been balanced with scientific, clinical and ethical concerns revolving around the risks of immune rejection and the potential transmission of porcine endogenous retroviruses or other infectious agents from porcine grafts to human recipients. However, the advent of CRISPR/Cas9, a revolutionary gene editing technology, has reignited interest in the field with the possibility of genetically engineering porcine organs and tissues that are less immunogenic and have virtually no risk of transmission of porcine endogenous retroviruses. At the same time, CRISPR/Cas9 may also open up a myriad of possibilities for tissue engineering and stem cell research, which may complement xenotransplantation research by providing an additional source of donor cells, tissues and organs for transplantation into patients. The recent international symposium on gene editing, organised by the US National Academy of Sciences, highlights both the enormous therapeutic potential of CRISPR/Cas9 and the raft of ethical and regulatory challenges that may follow its utilisation in transplantation and in medicine more generally.