gene splicing

[Montilar]

I had the tv on late last night and caught an interesting show on the learning channel about some people's efforts to "clone" the tasmanian devil.

They extracted dna from a fetus which has been soaking in alcohol for over 100 years. And actually found dna, detiorated, but intact so to speak. If they could piece the millions of pieces back together, they think they can inject the dna into another living cell and voila, bring back the tasmanian devil.

Of interest was some of the background they gave on cloning. Everyone knows of Dolly the sheep and siblings. That was taking DNA from one species and actually creating a living clone.

The second step of dna splicing I hadn't heard of. Apparently camels and llammas are closely related. ( I knew this already.) but what some researchers did was take llamma dna and camel dna, inserted it into cell, then impregnated a camel. 9 or 10 months later they had a "lamel", a camel/llamma crossbreed. it was male. now they have a female one and will obviously see if it can breed, or if they are sterile like a mule (horse/donkey hybrid). If it can breed, they created another new species, if it breeds true.

One of the issues was the "lamel" was born a month or two earlier than expected. The gestation period was different from a camels, thus the mother did not produce milk. They had to hand feed it.

That second step (the splicing of dna) is the one that people fear.

[Brave]

This raises interesting questions.

- Why call it "lamel" and not "camma?"

- If there are no Tasmanian Devils, how can you create one even if you have the dna? I saw Jurassic Park but I'm still a little fuzzy on this.

- Wonder what the outcome would look like if I were to breed with Heidi Klum? Sure, it wouldn't be another species, but I wonder all the same. And none of this test-tube garbage either. I'd like to try via nature's route (and may it take a looooong time).

[Montilar]

If there are no Tasmanian Devils, how can you create one even if you have the dna? I saw Jurassic Park but I'm still a little fuzzy on this.

They take the tasmanian devil dna (if they ever get it sorted out) and inject it into a viable host cell. first they remove the host cell dna though. Then they subject the cell with the Tas dna to a shock (electrical?) to stimulate the cell,and hopefully the cell begins replicating itself.

[NavyDave]

Was it the Tasmanian devil or the Tasmanian Tiger that has been extinct for a century?

I say clone blue crab, catfish, bass and trout among other fishes so we can fill the oceans.

The Japs could clone whales to replace the ones they seem so intent on exterminating

[IONTOP]

So what's the status on this? When can we expect a tazmanian devil at our local zoo?

[MisterPinstripe]

I thought Tasmanian devils were still around... In fact I would swear to it. Tasmanian Tigers are extinct though.

[MisterPinstripe]

Tasmainian Tiger:

[roadkill]

Yeah I'm pretty sure they still live in, you know, Tasmania.

[Jumbo]

There have already been gene-spliced hyrids among us, seriously. Shhhhhh.

I didn't think it was all that good a read, but you'll find a lot of related pop-culture material on this matter in Chricton's latest, "Next."

It wasn't "bad" though, and I did like Dave in the book.

[dreamingwolf]

http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/wildlife/mammals/devil.html

the thread starter had to be talking about the tiger

[PeterMP]

I had the tv on late last night and caught an interesting show on the learning channel about some people's efforts to "clone" the tasmanian devil.

They extracted dna from a fetus which has been soaking in alcohol for over 100 years. And actually found dna, detiorated, but intact so to speak. If they could piece the millions of pieces back together, they think they can inject the dna into another living cell and voila, bring back the tasmanian devil.

Of interest was some of the background they gave on cloning. Everyone knows of Dolly the sheep and siblings. That was taking DNA from one species and actually creating a living clone.

The second step of dna splicing I hadn't heard of. Apparently camels and llammas are closely related. ( I knew this already.) but what some researchers did was take llamma dna and camel dna, inserted it into cell, then impregnated a camel. 9 or 10 months later they had a "lamel", a camel/llamma crossbreed. it was male. now they have a female one and will obviously see if it can breed, or if they are sterile like a mule (horse/donkey hybrid). If it can breed, they created another new species, if it breeds true.

One of the issues was the "lamel" was born a month or two earlier than expected. The gestation period was different from a camels, thus the mother did not produce milk. They had to hand feed it.

That second step (the splicing of dna) is the one that people fear.

I'm not sure the significance of the camel/llama hybrid this has been done before simply using AI:

6. Cama

A Cama is a hybrid between a camel and a llama. They are born via artificial insemination due to the huge difference in sizes of the animals which disallow natural breeding. A Cama usually has the short ears and long tails of a camel but the cloven hooves of a llama. Also most noticeably is the absence of the hump.

http://www.hemmy.net/2006/06/19/top-10-hybrid-animals/

It isn't clear to me what good "splicing" DNA would do, but w/o a real ref it is difficult to know what they really did.

[twa]

""It isn't clear to me what good "splicing" DNA would do, but w/o a real ref it is difficult to know what they really did.""

Maybe they wanted a hump?

Personally, the gene research scares the crap out of me.

While there is enormous potential,that potential goes both ways in pushing just what can be accomplished.

[PeterMP]

""It isn't clear to me what good "splicing" DNA would do, but w/o a real ref it is difficult to know what they really did.""

Maybe they wanted a hump?

Personally, the gene research scares the crap out of me.

While there is enormous potential,that potential goes both ways in pushing just what can be accomplished.

Gene technology is like anyother type of technology; it can be used for good or evil.

[dreamingwolf]

Gene technology is like anyother type of technology; it can be used for good or evil.

I want cloning technology to get so advanced that they can put your favorite hollywood starlett into a shake and bake box and then her clone becomes your sex slave. does that make me on the evil or good side?

[twa]

Gene technology is like anyother type of technology; it can be used for good or evil.

Ah yes, but technology advances at a slower pace and less risk of a accident becoming a disaster,and is more controlled in development.imo

I have followed it for decades since it intrigues and repels me at the same time :laugh:

a minor example:

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/naked.php

[redskins4life234]

I want cloning technology to get so advanced that they can put your favorite hollywood starlett into a shake and bake box and then her clone becomes your sex slave. does that make me on the evil or good side?

Good, defiantly good.

[IONTOP]

Funny thing is, I did a search for Trout, and that was the oldest thread that popped up...

[swaroopm]

Ah yes, but technology advances at a slower pace and less risk of a accident becoming a disaster,and is more controlled in development.imo

I have followed it for decades since it intrigues and repels me at the same time :laugh:

a minor example:

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/naked.php

I wish I had time to comment in full on the article that is available via the link, but I don't. There are some valid points in there, but at the same time, you shouldn't believe (or accept) everything you read. For example:

Recent investigations associated with gene therapy and vaccines leave little doubt that naked and free nucleic acids are readily taken up by the cells of all species including human beings, and may become integrated into the cell’s genetic material. There is also abundant evidence that the extraneous nucleic acids taken up can have significant and harmful biological effects including cancers in mammals.

1. Free nucleic acids taken up by human cells are generally degraded, certainly not "integrated into the cell's genetic material." Our cells have tremendous defense mechanisms against foreign nucleic acids, particularly free (AKA unprotected) nucleic acids. Why do you think it continues to be so difficult for us to achieve gene therapy in the clinic? (Or, from another angle, the reason viruses have evolved into sophisticated systems is because free nucleic acids stand little chance in our cells.)

2. Say free nucleic acids avoid the cell's defenses and reach the cell nucleus. When the article says they "may become integrated" in mammalian cells, what is the likelihood? 1%? 0.001%? 0.000001%? Less? (Hint: it's on the low end.) What is the mechanism of integration? How do bacterial cells differ from mammalian cells, and what bearing does that have on the subject in question? (The article's casual disregard for these differences and its swift application of results from one cell type to another should be huge red flags to you as a reader.)

3. The first sentence talks about "free nucleic acids," then the second sentence says, "There is also abundant evidence that the extraneous nucleic acids taken up can have significant and harmful biological effects." I thought we were talking about "free nucleic acids," not "extraneous nucleic acids." Not the same! So, how much of the "abundant evidence" was collected in experiments with free nucleic acids? (Hint: less than 100%.)

And so on. I'm sorry I don't have the time to pick apart this article fully or to differentiate for all of you between the accurate and inaccurate statements. To be perfectly clear: It's not that the article is entirely inaccurate - far from it. It's just that all the facts do not fully and logically support all the assertions and conclusions.

The internet is a wonderful thing, but it is frustrating when the internet becomes an instrument for the dissemination of inaccurate, misleading, or incomplete information.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

I want cloning technology to get so advanced that they can put your favorite hollywood starlett into a shake and bake box and then her clone becomes your sex slave. does that make me on the evil or good side?

Depends. The movie starlett or the tv show starlett?

[Jumbo]

Good to see you posting, swaroopm. Don't be such a stranger.

[PeterMP]

Ah yes, but technology advances at a slower pace and less risk of a accident becoming a disaster,and is more controlled in development.imo

I have followed it for decades since it intrigues and repels me at the same time :laugh:

a minor example:

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/naked.php

I'm going to agree w/ swaroopm here. The fact of the matter is that people doing research have been working w/ DNA and RNA for 20+ years w/o any real special precautions and nobody has yet to get sick from a DNA/RNA accident. Today almost any undergraduate genetics lab, molecular biology lab, and biochemistry lab has undergraduates handeling nucleic acids w/ minimal precautions (e.g. lab goggles). That is thousands of people a year and yet no related illnesses.

I was thinking more in terms of somebody engineering and releasing a bioweapon when I said dangerous. Not naked nucliec acids.

Specifically about gene therapy, the problem is they can't get the DNA into the human genome. Somebody died at UPEN about ten years ago because of gene therapy. They were using an HIV related virus, but for cats (FIV; I think, but def. not HIV) to get the DNA they wanted to intergrate into the persons genome (not a free nucleic acid). They weren't having any luck. So they way upped the dose over what they had proposed to the FDA and that is when he died.

If you want to read something useful about nucleic acids, avoid just random sites internet. Try reading something from a real science journal that is going to be reviewed by somebody w/ real credentials. I think even most local libraries even subscribe to Science and Nature. In addition, w/ the internet some real journals our now on line for free.

[Leonard Washington]

1. correct

2. Say free nucleic acids avoid the cell's defenses and reach the cell nucleus. When the article says they "may become integrated" in mammalian cells, what is the likelihood? 1%? 0.001%? 0.000001%? Less? (Hint: it's on the low end.) What is the mechanism of integration? How do bacterial cells differ from mammalian cells, and what bearing does that have on the subject in question? (The article's casual disregard for these differences and its swift application of results from one cell type to another should be huge red flags to you as a reader.)

3. The first sentence talks about "free nucleic acids," then the second sentence says, "There is also abundant evidence that the extraneous nucleic acids taken up can have significant and harmful biological effects." I thought we were talking about "free nucleic acids," not "extraneous nucleic acids." Not the same! So, how much of the "abundant evidence" was collected in experiments with free nucleic acids? (Hint: less than 100%.)

And so on. I'm sorry I don't have the time to pick apart this article fully or to differentiate for all of you between the accurate and inaccurate statements. To be perfectly clear: It's not that the article is entirely inaccurate - far from it. It's just that all the facts do not fully and logically support all the assertions and conclusions.

The internet is a wonderful thing, but it is frustrating when the internet becomes an instrument for the dissemination of inaccurate, misleading, or incomplete information.

Their definitions of free and naked nucleic acids are unconventional but their claims are true....somewhat exaggerated for effect but true. Human cells do have more roadblocks to overcome to integrate/express foreign DNA but it can happen efficiently. Bacteria in soil can uptake/trade DNA in soil and in our guts...it's part of mechanism by which they become resistant to antibiotics. Both bacteria and humans have similar mechanism for integration.

[twa]

Their definitions of free and naked nucleic acids are unconventional but their claims are true....somewhat exaggerated for effect but true. Human cells do have more roadblocks to overcome to integrate/express foreign DNA but it can happen efficiently. Bacteria in soil can uptake/trade DNA in soil and in our guts...it's part of mechanism by which they become resistant to antibiotics. Both bacteria and humans have similar mechanism for integration.

Thank you, they are not quacks trying to stop genetic research ,but rather promoting responsible behaviour.

[PeterMP]

Thank you, they are not quacks trying to stop genetic research ,but rather promoting responsible behaviour.

Just like the intelligent design people aren't trying to stop the teaching of evolution just teaching both sides. Let's take this one sentence:

"For example, a high gene transfer frequency of 5.8 x 10-2 per recipent bacterium was demonstrated for ampicillin resistance transgene - re-isolated from the DNA of transgenic potato - to Erwinia chrysanthem, a bacterial pathogen. This was achieved by 105 copies of the ampicillin resistance gene per potato genome, introduced into 6.4 x 108 bacteria by electroporation."

It seem their arguement is that you need very little DNA to get incorporation of a transgene. The fact is they've included a big detail here (I am somewhat surprised they did not leave out) "by electroporation".

Electroporator are used to introduce DNA into bacteria and other types of cells in many research labs. A cheap electroporator is ~$1,500 (https://new.fishersci.com/wps/portal/PRODUCTDETAIL?productId=1628583&catalogId=29104&pos=1&catCode=RE_SC&fromCat=yes&keepSessionSearchOutPut=true0

Why would a scientist by $1500 for something they didn't need (i.e. bacterial up-take of DNA happened readily)? Because w/o something like electroporation bacteria up-take of DNA is in fact very unlikely. Note, this is different than transfer of DNA from one bacteria to another.