GENETIC ENGINEER

STORIES, EVENTS & TOPICS

3/9/2012 NATSCI 2 TF 5:30PM TO 7:00PM LORENA S. MAYUGA 3rd YR - MANAGEMENT

Supergenetics: Turning Leaves Into Flowers

It took plants about 500 million years to evolve the ability to turn leaves into petals. Martin Yanofsky, a developmental biologist at the University of California at San Diego, duplicated the feat in just over a decade a milestone in plant genetics. The first step toward success came in 1990, when molecular biologists identified three plant genes called ABC. Without them plants produce leaves in place of petals, but further tests showed ABC alone can't cause flowering. Last year Yanofsky and his colleagues identified SEP, a complementary set of genes that seemed to regulate the transformation of leaf into petal. They recently proved that ABC plus SEP contains the full genetic recipe for blooming by creating a reengineered Arabidopsis plant. "All of the leaves look exactly like normal petals," Yanofsky says. This work may have more than theoretical implications. "If you switched the genes on in any flowering plant, you'd have petals all along the stem the same color as the bud on top," says Yanofsky. Such super-flowers might be useful for producing pigments and perfumes, or simply for upping the ante on Valentine's Day.

Engineered genes tricked this plant into making a leafy flower. Courtesy of University of California at San Diego

Insecticide sweet corn

Scientists have genetically modified sweet corn so that it produces a poison which kills harmful insects. This means the farmer no longer needs to fight insects with insecticides. The genetically modified corn is called Bt-corn, because the insectkilling gene in the plant comes from the bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis. Advantages:

The farmer no longer has to use insecticide to kill insects, so the surrounding environment is no longer exposed to large amounts of harmful insecticide. The farmer no longer needs to walk around with a drum of toxic spray wearing a mask and protective clothing.

Disadvantages:

This type of genetically modified corn will poison the insects over a longer period than the farmer who would spray the crops once or twice. In this way the insects can become accustomed (or resistant) to the poison. If that happens both crop spraying and the use of genetically modified Bt-corn become ineffective. A variety of insects are at risk of being killed. It might be predatory insects that eat the harmful ones or, perhaps attractive insects such as butterflies. In the USA, where Btcorn is used a great deal there is much debate over the harmful effects of Bt-corn on the beautiful Monarch butterfly.

Cotton and potatoes are other examples of plants that scientists have , genetically modified to produce insecticide.

Golden rice
Golden rice is genetically modified rice that now contains a large amount of A-vitamins. Or more correctly, the rice contains the element beta-carotene which is converted in the body into Vitamin-A. So when you eat golden rice, you get more vitamin A.

Beta-carotene gives carrots their orange colour and is the reason why genetically modified rice is golden. For the golden rice to make beta-carotene three new genes are implanted: two from daffodils and the third from a bacterium.

Advantages:

The rice can be considered a particular advantage to poor people in underdeveloped countries. They eat only an extremely limited diet lacking in the essential bodily vitamins. The consequences of this restricted diet causes many people to die or become blind. This is particularly true in areas of Asia, where most of the population live on rice from morning to evening.

Disadvantages:

Critics fear that poor people in underdeveloped countries are becoming too dependent on the rich western world. Usually, it is the large private companies in the West that have the means to develop genetically modified plants. By making the plants sterile these large companies can prevent farmers from growing plant-seed for the following year - forcing them to buy new rice from the companies. Some opposers of genetic modification see the "golden rice" as a method of making genetic engineering more widely accepted. Opponents fear that companies will go on to develop other genetically modified plants from which they can make a profit. A situation could develop where the large companies own the rights to all the good crops.

Long-lasting tomatoes
Long-lasting, genetically modified tomatoes came on to the market in 1994 and were the first genetically modified food available to consumers. The genetically modified tomato produces less of the substance that causes tomatoes to rot, so remains firm and fresh for a long time. Advantages:

Because the GM tomatoes can remain fresh longer they can be allowed to ripen in the sun before picking resulting in a better tasting tomato. GM tomatoes can tolerate a lengthier transport time. This means that market gardens can avoid picking tomatoes while they are green in order that they will tolerate the transport. The producers also have the advantage that all the tomatoes can be harvested simultaneously.

Disadvantages:

Scientists today can genetically modify tomatoes without inserting genes for antibiotic resistance. However the first genetically modified tomatoes contained genes that made them resistant to antibiotics. Doctors and vets use antibiotics to fight infections. These genes spread to animals and people, doctors would have difficulties fighting infectious diseases.

Strawberries, pineapples, sweet peppers and bananas have all been genetically modified by scientists to remain fresh for longer.

An Indonesian woman brings in harvested seaweed from her farm off the beach in Nusa Dua, Bali, Indonesia. (AP Photo/Ed Wray)

(Newser) Algae-based fuel is a step closer to reality. Scientists in California have genetically modified a microbe so that it can convert seaweed into biofuel, the Guardian reports. "Natural seaweed species grow very fast10 times faster than normal plantsand are full of sugars, but it has been very difficult to make ethanol by conventional fermentation," says a researcher. The microbe breakthrough is a "critical step" toward an alternative form of ethanol, but there's still a long way to go. "Scaling up processes using engineered microbes is not always easy. They also need to prove the economics work," the scientist adds. That could be tough: "The costs are still five times higher than they need to be to get to a reasonable fuel price," says another expert. Still, an abundance of existing seaweed farms offers promise for the future. "In China and Japan, you will see farms that are the equivalent of the Midwest cornfields in the US," says a researcher involved. Some 3% of coastal waters worldwide could provide enough ethanol to supply more than 40% of US drivers' needs, he notes.

Sockeye salmon ride home in a fisherman's cooler from the Brewster Pool, the stretch of the Columbia River near Brewster, Wash. on July 22, 2010. (AP Photo/The Spokesman-Review, Jesse Tinsley)

The FDA has declared a genetically engineered salmon safe for human consumption, putting it one brief swim away from a supermarket near you. Dubbed AquAdvantage Salmon, the Massachusetts-bred fish have been enhanced with a gene from an ocean poutan eel-like fishthat allows them to grow all year round, putting them at salable size in just 18 months. Weve been studying this fish for more than 10 years, says the companys CEO. This is an Atlantic salmon. It looks like an Atlantic salmon. It tastes like an Atlantic salmon. But critics complain that the deliberations have all been behind closed doors, and that much of the companys data has been kept under wraps, reports the Washington Post. Theres a transparency problem, says the head of a group that opposes the fishs approval. Others worry about the ecological implications if an AquAdvantage salmon escaped its fish farm and mingled with endangered wild salmon. "This is very, very complex," said an expert in genetically modified organisms.

Scientists have created genetically modified cattle that produce "human" milk in a bid to make cows' milk more nutritious.

Researchers say they are able to create cows that produce milk containing a human protein called lysozyme

The scientists have successfully introduced human genes into 300 dairy cows to produce milk with the same properties as human breast milk. Human milk contains high quantities of key nutrients that can help to boost the immune system of babies and reduce the risk of infections. The scientists behind the research believe milk from herds of genetically modified cows could provide an alternative to human breast milk and formula milk for babies, which is often criticised as being an inferior substitute. They hope genetically modified dairy products from herds of similar cows could be sold in supermarkets. The research has the backing of a major biotechnology company. The work is likely to inflame opposition to GM foods. Critics of the technology and animal welfare groups reacted angrily to the research, questioning the safety of milk from genetically modified animals and its effect on the cattle's health.

The Biggest Scientific Breakthroughs of 2008

The year 2008 closes with two enormous scientific and technological challenges unresolved: How to create renewable and benign sources of energy and how to lessen the damage we're doing to the global climate system. Those twin issues are the "greatest challenge facing modern science," according to Nobel laureate Steven Chu, the gifted physicist who has been nominated to head the Department of Energy. He will be at the center of the effort to deal with these vexing problems, and his nomination signals a new day in that effort. Clearly, those two issues dominated the world of science during 2008, a year that also saw much progress in fields as diverse as genetic engineering, the imaging of new planets outside our solar system and the maturing of social media that has altered everything from how we meet people to financing a costly and victorious campaign for the presidency of the United States. It's difficult to pick a single scientific achievement that stands out above all others because science, as a whole, doesn't work that way. Science is and always will be a work in progress. Discoveries today are built upon past discoveries as progress is achieved, inch by inch. But rarely has there been a year when two inseparable issues dominated so much of our lives.

Energy and climate moved science from the lab to our living rooms and they were the "hot button" scientific issues of 2008. The "breakthrough" in this case is not just hardware; it's a growing understanding of the urgency in solving these critical problems. Here's our list of the top 10.
Energy and Climate Change

The year the earth stood still. Polluted air, a lopsided dependence on shaky sources of foreign oil and congested highways couldn't convince Americans that it was time to get serious about new sources of energy. But more than four bucks per gallon at the gas pump did the trick.

Biofuels, hybrids and photovoltaic cells slipped into our conversations like invaders from another planet. Progress was reported from all areas of energy production but not all roads led us closer to energy independence. Corn isn't going to replace gasoline. That may be the most important energy "discovery" in 2008. Corn displaces agricultural land normally used for food production and, according to one study, it takes about 28 gallons of water to produce enough biofuel from corn to push a car just one mile. Substitute water wars for gas wars. That disappointment grew out of research that was dictated by funding. Washington thought corn was a good idea and that's where a lot of research funds went. It should be the other way around. Let discoveries chart the course; let the funding follow. Stay fluid. Throughout the year, discoveries flowed in from hundreds of labs: wearable electronic circuits that can use body movements to recharge batteries; solar panels so flexible they can be "painted" on a roof; photovoltaic cells that are twice as effective at converting sunlight to electricity; and a new generation of fuel-efficient vehicles.
The Sun Is Rising

Construction is under way on new wind farms, with huge turbines generating electricity from the passing breeze, and vast acreage is being converted to solar collectors. Scientists at several institutions made progress in creating a way to store solar energy by using solar power to split water into oxygen and hydrogen and using the hydrogen as fuel.

Embryo engineering breakthrough triggers criticism

Stem cell researchers at Cornell have genetically engineered a human embryo, a pioneering development that was immediately condemned as a big step toward designing babies. The work itself was very simple: After putting a fluorescent protein gene into an embryo all the cells in the embryo glowed after it divided, giving researchers a chance to track the changes that had been engineered. The scientists emphasized that their work was done on a nonviable embryo that could never have grown into a baby. The work, first covered by The Sunday Times, was criticized by the Center for Genetics and Society for crossing a boundary that had never been breached. Their concern is that once researchers understand how to engineer an embryo, people can design their babies with particular attributes for appearance, intelligence or athletic ability. But the scientists say the work shouldn't be misinterpreted.

Australian government gives first license to create cloned human embryos to try and obtain embryonic stem cells. (17 Sept 2008)

The in vitro-fertilization firm Sydney IVF was granted the license and reportedly has access to 7,200 human eggs for its research. If the firm is successful it would be a world first, the Australian government's National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), which granted the license. United Nations has given up its attempt to introduce a worldwide legal ban on some or all types of human cloning (3 March 2005). On Tuesday its deeply divided general assembly voted to adopt a watered-down "declaration" that condemns all forms of human cloning but is not legally binding. The declaration, which was passed by 84 votes to 34, with 37 abstentions, prohibits "all forms of human cloning inasmuch as they are incompatible with human dignity and the protection of human life". But it has been widely criticised for being imprecise and meaningless. Cloned cows may be safe to eat (12 April 2005) - claims made following health and safety tests on meat and milk from a small number of cloned cows culled from a herd of 100. Although fat content appeared to be a little higher in the clones, no other significant differences were found. Speaking on BBC World TV, Dr Patrick Dixon commented: "Although the meat may be safe, cloning cattle for farmers is a stupid thing to do from the commercial point of view. Failure rates are high, deformity and other development problems are very common, and the proceedure is expensive as well as slow. It would only be worth cloning a very special bull, to create a twins for breeding, but even then the costs might outweigh the benefits. We are very unlikely to see herds created this way, unless there is something very unique about them - for example if they had human genes added so that the cows produced something similar to breast milk. The technology exists to do this, but it is uncertain if such a product would be acceptable to mothers." Dr Dixon pointed out that cloned herds would be very vulnerable to attack by bacteria, viruses or fungi. "Unlike normal herds, cloned animals show no genetic variation, so the same strain of virus that kills one animal would be likely to kill an entire herd. Every species relies on genetic variation to for resistance to disease and cloning would create real risks to farmers if carried out on a large scale - even supposing it was possible." For more see: cloning stories and human breast milk from cows? Growing new tissue and organs - stem cell research and therapeutic cloning Bone marrow and other tissues could repair your brain, spinal cord and heart and cure diabetes or old-age blindness. Adult stem cells promise investor returns while embryonic stem cells and therapeutic cloning raise major ethical, legal, and image problems. Korean and US scientists claim human cloning breakthrough - Woo Suk Hwany of Soeul National University in Korea announced in February 2004 that he had succesfully cloned healthy human embryos, removed embryonic stem cells and grown them in mice. Just a couple of weeks ealier, Dr Panos Zavos made another of his frequent cloning announcements about attempts he and others are making to produce healthy cloned babies. The Korean and US teams are using

human cloning technology to try to create stem cell lines which can be used to study disease. While they are opposed to the abuse of human cloning technology to produce babes, their own cloning advances are making life easier for people like Zavos. Either way, most stem cell research is shifting rapidly away from human embryo cloning and use of embryonic stem cells, to adult stem cell development. Embryonic stem cells are controversial to use (many countries have banned the work), hard to grow, hard to control (can become cancerous), are rejected in the body unless made to order for an individual by cloning, or used in an immune protected site like the brain. That's why the makers of Dolly the Sheep ran out of human cloning money and went out of business. Human cloning for medical research is looking very last-century, and researchers are losing interest. Despite the UK passing laws several years ago allowing human cloning for research, not one application has yet been received. Investors really can't see the point either. Nor can many other nations including the rest of Europe, who have made human cloning illegal - even for medical research. In comparison, there is no shortage of commercial funding for adult stem cell research which is showing spectacular results in treating mice and rats with stroke, heart and spinal cord damage. Huge potential, no controversy, rapid progress, easy funding. There is nothing particularly special about an embryonic cell from the genetic point of view: the genes are the same as in adults. The only difference is the nature of the chemical bath around those genes. But as we are discovering more, you don't need to put an adult nucleus into an egg to create the right environment: in many cases we can do so in other ways. Umbilical cord cells are also a useful alternative. Professor Jonathan Slack at Bath University has managed to convert human adult liver cells into pancreas cells producing insulin, using a simple chemical switch. Others have restored normal function to rats whose spinal cords have been cut. Clinical trials using bone marrow to rebuild heart muscle have been successful. Regeneration of adult brain has been seen using adult cells in animals - and so on. Press Association copy: "Dr Patrick Dixon, an author and expert in the ethics of human cloning, dismissed the idea that today's announcement marked a breakthrough. He said: "Except in tissues like the brain, there are huge problems with rejection of these embryonic stem cells if they are introduced into adults. "It is very difficult for them to grow properly and very difficult to control them," he said. "The idea that this offers a real breakthrough is based on a scientific nonsense. "But in this supposedly spectacular benefit lies a serious risk that this technology will be

abused." He cautioned that developments in these techniques would be "handing a gift" to controversial scientists such as Dr Panos Zavos and Clonaid intent on cloning human babies. Dr Dixon said embryonic stem cell research was being overtaken by advances using adult cells. "Human cloning technology using embryonic stem cells is very last century. We do not need it. "It is being overtaken rapidly by the spectacular advances in tissue repair using adult stem cells taken from the person who is unwell. "Clinical trials are already showing results in people with heart failure while animal studies have shown successful repair in brain after stroke, heart muscle, spinal cord and other tissues." Dolly the Sheep is dead - possibly the world's most famous animal was put to sleep on 14th February 2003 after developing progressive lung disease. Dolly was cloned from a dead adult sheep using frozen cells and born on 5th July 1996. There have been many reports that Dolly may have been getting old before her time, developing arthritis and possibly other problems. Scientists are waiting for the results of a post mortem to try to understand whether Dolly's latest problems were linked to the cloning technique, which commonly causes severe abnormalities. The big worry is whether teams trying to clone human babies will accidentally create very sick children. Clonaid claims birth of first human clone (Eve) by caesarian section on 26th December 2002 and a second child in Europe (Netherlands) to a lesbian couple in early January, a third in late January to a Japanese couple who cloned their dead son, plus another to a couple from Saudi Arabia and a further child - country of origin not declared. But no evidence of any kind had been offered by mid February to substantiate their claims. Born outside the US to an American woman, Eve was apparently created using Dolly technology - a skin cell and a human egg from the "mother" who is infertile. Clonaid claims 3 other "mothers" will give birth soon, one of which is carrying a twin of a dead child. While many experts expressed doubts about the claims, Clonaid said that independent gene testing would prove the claim about Eve in less than a week. This promise was withdrawn after a lawsuit was begun in the US to make Eve a ward of court, on the basis that the "mother" was the baby girl's twin sister and the "mother" had no legal parental rights even though she had just given birth to her own twin. A similar court case was launched in the Netherlands after reports that the second birth was to a Dutch lesbian. Clonaid say that the "parents" are afraid their cloned babies will be seized and taken away from them permanently. In early February Clonaid said that testing of the Japanese baby boy was under way.

Safety of genetically engineered salmon debated

The salmon is genetically modified to grow to full-size in half the time it now takes for natural salmon. STORY HIGHLIGHTS

In genetically engineered food, DNA is taken from one organism and put into another One group estimates 75 percent of processed foods have genetically altered ingredients The FDA is studying a genetically engineered salmon

Washington (CNN) -- The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has to decide if genetically engineered salmon is safe enough for human consumption and is spending three days to consider safety and labeling issues. On Monday, the agency's Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee discussed how AquAdvantage Salmon is raised. The salmon is genetically modified to grow to full-size in half the time it now takes for natural salmon. The fish would get a growth gene from the Pacific chinook salmon and genetic material from the ocean pout, an eel-like fish, that would allow it to grow in the summer and winter. Aqua Bounty Technologies, the developer, had to file a new animal drug application for AquAdvantage salmon because the process alters the structure and/or function of the animal.

Wenonah Hauter, with the consumer watchdog group Food & Water Watch, was passionate in her rejection of the salmon, and called on the FDA to move cautiously. "This is a dangerously limited set of data. Even the FDA acknowledges problems in the sample size, what's the rush?" With genetically engineered food, genetic material -- DNA -- is taken from one organism and put it into the genetic code of another. What many consumers don't know is that for years genetically manufactured crops and food have been grown and eaten in the United States. Whether they're pose a risk has long been debated. Tomatoes, strawberries, potatoes, and corn have all been genetically altered, in fact about 45 percent of the corn and 85 percent of the soybeans grown in the United States are genetically engineered, according to the Center for Food Safety. "It has been estimated that 70-75 percent of processed foods on supermarket shelves -- from soda to soup, crackers to condiments -- contain genetically engineered ingredients," the group says. They are modified for a host of reasons -- to help resist pests, tolerate herbicides such as weed killers, resist disease such as fungi and viruses, tolerate cold and drought, and even to add vitamins and minerals to foods such as rice. The FDA has already approved one application for a genetically altered goat that produces a human drug in its milk. The drug is for patients with clotting disorders, not for ordinary human consumption. The FDA will not decide to approve this new salmon at this meeting. According to the FDA's Larisa Rudenko, this advisory committee meeting is just to lay out the advice and recommendations on safety. "We take a very careful look at the data and information that have been presented and try to identify any hazards," said Rudenko, a researcher with the FDA Animal Biotechnology Interdisciplinary Group. Committee members in general considered the salmon to be safe, but still struggled with the small size of the studies and the amount of data presented. Unlike most meetings, there was no vote at the end of the day. But on Tuesday, the FDA's Center for Food Safety and Nutrition will take up the hotly debated issue of what the label should look like if the agency approves the application.