Naked Chicks ... that Glow

This is creepy:



Glowing in the dark, GMO chickens shed light on bird flu fight

In the realm of avian research, the chicks with the glow-in-the-dark beaks and feet might one day rock the poultry world.

British scientists say they have genetically modified chickens in a bid to block bird flu and that early experiments show promise for fighting off the disease that has devastated the U.S. poultry and egg industries.

Their research, which has been backed by the UK government and top chicken companies, could potentially prevent repeats of this year's wipeout: 48 million chickens and turkeys killed because of the disease since December in the United States alone.

But these promising chickens - injected with a fluorescent protein to distinguish them from normal birds in experiments - won't likely gatecrash their way into poultry production any time soon. Health regulators around the world have yet to approve any animals bred as genetically modified organisms (GMOs) for use in food because of long-standing safety and environmental concerns.

Bird flu has become a global concern among researchers over the past decade because of its threat to poultry and human health, and UK researchers have been toiling in genetic engineering for years to control its spread.

People who are in close contact with infected poultry are most at risk for flu infections, and scientists are concerned about the risk for a human pandemic if the virus infects someone and then mutates. No humans have been infected in the latest U.S. outbreak, but there have been cases in Asia in recent years.

"The public is obviously aware of these outbreaks when they're reported and wondering why there's not more done to control it," said Laurence Tiley, a senior lecturer in molecular virology at the University of Cambridge, who is involved in the experiments.

[...]

At Cambridge and the University of Edinburgh's Roslin Institute, scientists are using genetic engineering to try to control bird flu in two ways: by blocking initial infections in egg-laying chickens and preventing birds from transmitting the virus if they become infected.

[...]

To genetically engineer chickens, the UK researchers inject a "decoy" gene into a cluster of cells on the yolk of a newly laid egg. The egg will hatch into a chick containing the decoy gene, which it will be able to pass on to its offspring.

The decoy gene is injected into the chicken chromosome alongside the fluorescent protein that makes the birds glow under ultraviolet light, similar to glow-in-the-dark posters in college dorm rooms. The birds would not be bred to glow if they are commercialized.

When the modified birds come into contact with the flu, their genetic code is designed to trick the virus into copying the decoy and to inhibit the virus' ability to reproduce itself.

In one study with a form of decoy, scientists put 16 infected conventional chickens in contact with a mixture of 16 normal and 16 GMO chickens that contained a decoy. The GMO birds were found to be less susceptible and succumbed to infection more slowly than the conventional birds, said Tiley.

FARMER PROTECTIONS

A more flu-resistant bird could be a notable advance from the basic steps that farmers now rely on to avoid infections in barns, including banning visitors and disinfecting vehicle wheels.

Wild ducks, which can carry the virus, are thought to have spread the disease in the United States by dropping contaminated feces and feathers on farms. Humans can then transport the disease on their boots and trucks. [...]

I wish I could be more enthusiastic. The problem is, when you start genetically modifying plants or animals, you may solve a problem in the short term. But in the longer term, you may be creating bigger problems, caused by unforeseen side effects of deliberate genetic modifications, and by worse threats from diseases/insects predators that evolve themselves or change their behavior to adapt to the new genetically altered plant/animal.

Scientists may keep altering the plant or animal in response, till it becomes so modified from the original that it becomes degraded and vulnerable to something the original never had a problem with. And if the genetically modified mix with the originals, that vulnerability spreads to all of them. Our food supply could die out.

With so many people experiencing unemployment, we would be better off using people to go back to smaller farms using tried and true methods that don't degrade our food supply. But I don't see that happening, because:

1.) Agribusiness wants to keep their monopoly.
2.) Farming is hard work, and most people in advanced Western societies won't do it.

So we do the easy thing and let this continue, only to pay a worse price down the road. There has to be a better way.

     

Why Bees are Dying: Neonicotinoids

What Is Killing America's Bees and What Does It Mean for Us?

[...] Doan never really considered the possibility that the fault might not be his own until scientists at Penn State who had been testing his bees told him of news coming out of France that pointed the finger at a relatively new class of insecticides called neonicotinoids, or neonics. The first commercially successful neonicotinoid compound was synthesized by agrochemical giant Bayer CropScience in 1985, but it wasn't until the early 2000s that they began to be used extensively. Compared to older, more toxic insecticides, neonics certainly seemed to be a win-win: Though neurotoxins, they mess with insect brains far more than those of mammals, and their application is a breeze. All a farmer need do is sow a seed coated in neonics and the water-soluble chemicals get drawn back up into the plant as it grows. Referred to as systemic insecticides, they spread through the plant, making it resistant to predators. Neonics don't require repeated applications in a hazmat suit. Rain can't wash them away — but then again, neither can your kitchen faucet (unless you're eating strictly organic, you're eating neonicotinoids all the time).

Doan knew his hives had tested positive for the neonicotinoid clothianidin, but the results had seemed dubious because clothianidin wasn't even registered for use in New York state. That's when he learned that neonic-coated seeds weren't subject to the same regulations as sprayed pesticides, meaning that seeds couldn't be treated in New York, but they could be purchased elsewhere and then planted there, with no one the wiser. Furthermore, studies demonstrated that bees exposed to sublethal amounts of these neonicotinoids showed a loss in cognitive functions, including their ability to navigate home.

To Doan, this seemed like a breakthrough — a perfect explanation for why his bees hadn't just been dying, but disappearing altogether. He testified at the Environmental Protection Agency. He testified in front of Congress. He was interviewed for a Time magazine article on neonics in 2013, the very same year a report by the European Food Safety Authority showed "high acute risks" to bees from neonics and the European Union issued a ban on the three that are most widely used. Meanwhile, the Saving America's Pollinators Act, a congressional bill introduced in 2013 by Reps. John Conyers and Earl Blumenauer that would have taken neonics off the market until their safety was more definitively proven, never made it out of committee. (The bill was reintroduced this spring, but its fate remains uncertain.)

Doan waited expectantly for the EPA to step in and address the situation: "When I first started learning about this, I'm like, 'Well, the EPA's there to protect us. We don't have to worry about this, because the EPA's here to help.'"But as the years passed and the use of neonics spread, it started to seem that maybe the EPA wasn't there to help beekeepers after all. To Doan, the mystery of colony collapse disorder deepened. He no longer wondered what was killing his bees; he wondered why steps weren't being taken to save them. [...]

The EPA is doing nothing, is anyone surprised? And agribusiness is looking for new ways of pollinating without bees, or producing a genetically altered bee. Just what we need, Frankin Bees to go with our Frankinfoods.

The bee's aren't affected by the toxin immediately, the effects only start to show up 3 months later. The bees become confused, their cognitive functioning is impaired, and they can't find their way home to the hive. They can't function, and the hive dies.

And since the insecticide is systemic to the plants, we are eating it as well. What are the long term side effects of that? If it does this to bees, what would long term exposure do to people?

Read the whole things for links, details and more.

     

Re-engineering Human DNA?

Sounds like someone wants to:

Breakthrough Changes Thinking About DNA

Sept. 7, 2012 -- In what scientists call the biggest breakthrough in genetics since the unraveling of the human genome, a massive research effort now shows how the genome works.

The human genome contains 3 billion letters of code containing a person’s complete genetic makeup.

The biggest surprise is that most of the DNA in the genome -- which had been called "junk DNA" because it didn't seem to do anything -- turns out to play a crucial role. While only 2% of the genome encodes actual genes, at least 80% of the genome contains millions of "switches" that not only turn genes on and off, but also tell them what to do and when to do it.

Eleven years ago, the Human Genome Project discovered the blueprint carried by every cell in the body. The new ENCODE project now has opened the toolbox each cell uses to follow its individual part of the blueprint. The effort is the work of more than 400 researchers who performed more than 1,600 experiments.

The genome, with its 3-billion-letter code, reads from beginning to end like a book. But in real life, the genome isn't read like a book. The ENCODE data shows it's an intricate dance, with each step carefully choreographed.  [...]

OK, that's all very interesting. It's a fascinating article. But this jumped out at me:

[...] Eric D. Green, MD, PhD, director of the NIH's National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), notes that most known disease-causing DNA mutations are in the small part of the genome that encodes genes.

"Most of these known mutations cause rare diseases," Green said. "But for the great majority of diseases, it's changes in the switches themselves. Diseases that are more common probably involve multiple DNA variants outside the genes. Common diseases like hypertension, heart disease, and diabetes are probably caused by things sitting in these switches." [...]

No. The "switches" don't cause the disease. The causes are things like bad diet and lack of exercise, etc, conditions which in turn cause the body to have a natural response by triggering things in the switches.

The disease is a warning that we are doing something wrong. Dr. Green seems to be implying that if we can turn off the triggers in the switches, we can stop the disease. But if we do that, you can be sure that the imbalance that would have triggered the disease, will then manifest somewhere else, some other way, in perhaps even a worse form.

Duh! I don't need a PhD to see that.

It's an area of study that we will inevitably pursue, but how that knowledge is used should be approached very conservatively. Nature does things for a reason. Altering that should not be approached lightly. Anyway, it IS an interesting read.    

Genetically altered GloFish create controversy

Fish that glow! They are banned in California, Canada and the European Union, but it seems you can buy them as pets in most of the United States. From Wikipedia:

GloFish

The GloFish is a trademarked brand of genetically modified (GM) fluorescent zebrafish with bright red, green, and orange fluorescent color. Although not originally developed for the ornamental fish trade, it is the first genetically modified animal to become publicly available as a pet.

Early development

The original zebrafish (zebra danio) from which the GloFish was developed is a native of rivers in India and Bangladesh. It measures four centimetres long and has gold and dark blue stripes, and over 200 million have been sold in the last 50 years in the United States ornamental fish market. Despite the number of zebrafish sold, they have never established any reproducing populations in the United States, primarily because they are tropical fish, unable to survive in the U.S. climate.

In 1999, Dr. Zhiyuan Gong and his colleagues at the National University of Singapore took a gene from a jellyfish that naturally produced a green fluorescent protein and inserted it into the zebrafish genome. This caused the fish to glow brightly under both natural white light and ultraviolet light. Their goal was to develop a fish that could detect pollution by selectively fluorescing in the presence of environmental toxins. The development of the always fluorescing fish was the first step in this process. Shortly thereafter, his team developed a line of red fluorescent zebra fish by adding a gene from a sea coral, and yellow fluorescent zebra fish, by adding a variant of the jellyfish gene. Later, a team of Taiwanese researchers at the National University of Taiwan, headed by Professor Huai-Jen Tsai, succeeded in creating a medaka (rice fish) with a fluorescent green color. [...]

(Bold emphasis mine) I can see why the U.S. allows the zebra GloFish; it can't naturalize here, because the temperatures are too extreme. But I don't know about the Medaka. I believe it's a rice-paddy fish, and since there are parts of the southern U.S. where rice is grown, maybe it could naturalize?

I do know that the next time I'm at the local Walmart Superstore, I'm gonna have a look and see what they've got in the pet section.

Visit the link to Wikipedia for more info on the GloFish and the controversy surrounding it.


Related Link:

Genetically Modified Organisms In the Aquatic Trade?

[...] In Taiwan, fluorescent greenish yellow Medakas (Oryzias latipes) will be ready for their international launch in the aquatic trade. And, in several countries, research continues to find new areas for employing genetical engineering in the production of new fish varieties, often supported by government offices and research institutions.


Efforts do not only focus on improving colour and shape, but also on developing characteristics such as faster growth, resistance to infection and tolerance of lower temperatures. This last point, in particular, would certainly open up the debate on invasiveness and environmental risks. [...]

(bold emphasis mine) I think in one way these fish are really cool. But if they get released into an environment where they could be naturalized, it could get really complicated. The article says the breeders are doing everything they can to make sure the fish can't reproduce. But remember a similar argument in the movie Jurassic Park? Nature found a way to circumvent careful human planning. Fishy, scaly, amphibian type critters have all kinds of ways to insure their survival and reproduce. Genetic engineering sure is going to make the future more complicated.