The Enviropig: Good or Bad Idea?

The enviropig is a genetically engineered pig that has been approved for limited production in Canada. It is called the enviropig because it’s urine and feces contain up to 65 percent less phosphorus than their non genetically altered relatives. This is a breakthrough because animal waste is used as fertilizer and this fertilizer contains a lot of phosphorus which runs off into streams and lakes, playing a big part in causing algal blooms. The algae uses up the oxygen and creates areas in the water called dead zones where fish and other aquatic life cannot live because of the lack of oxygen. The scientist created the enviropig by locating an enzyme in the genome of E. coli responsible for breaking down phosphorus. Then they paired this gene with a mouse DNA promoter, which is a part of DNA that encourages replication of a specific segment. Pig embryos were injected with this mixture and it was actually incorporated into the pigs genome. This trait can now be inherited by the enviropig’s offspring without further scientific intervention! Scientist applied to the FDA in 2007 to see if this pig can be sold for human consumption. The enviropig is still being studied but it is likely this pig will be approved. Consumers who do not like to eat genetically modified fruits or vegetables may have to watch out for genetically modified meats as well. Would you eat this pig?

Minard, Anne. “Gene-Altered Enviropig to reduce Dead Zones?” National Geographic. National Geographic Society, 2010. Web. 20 Apr. 2011. < http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/03/100330-bacon-pigs-enviropig-dead-

zones/ >

Enviropig - The next transgenic food? 2010. CNN. Video. Web. 20 Apr. 2011. <http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/living/2010/09/27/chernoff.eatocracy.enivropig.cnn.html>

Pharming: Growing Vaccines and Pharmaceutical Chemicals in Plants

Pharming is a term that originates from the words, “farming” and “pharmaceuticals.” Pharming uses basic agriculture combined with advanced biotechnology to develop plants that are essentially “factories” for growing vaccines, proteins, and antibodies that can be used for cancer treatments. Pharming with plants involves altering the plants DNA by adding genes that will make the plant produce a specific chemical. Most plants engineered to produce these chemicals deposit the proteins in the seeds because seeds naturally have high concentrations of proteins. The leaves of some plants are also used to produce vaccines. Researchers have used the tobacco plant to grow personalized cancer vaccines. Every person’s cancer has different antibodies, so this is why a universal vaccine won’t work. They found that by taking antibodies from a patient’s tumor and putting that into a modified tobacco plant, the plant then produces a large amount of antibodies. Then the researchers were able to grind up the plant leaves and purify the antibodies. Only a few plants were needed for each patient they tried this method on. No side effects were reported from the plant grown vaccines, and there were indications that plant grown vaccines stimulate the immune system more than those made in animal cells. Growing vaccines in plants can be done quickly and cheaply compared to the traditional way of growing them with mammalian cell cultures. This technology seems to hold a lot of promise. I always believed that plants were more important in our lives than most people make them out to be. This seems like it could be the solution to producing the amount of medicines that are needed. It may also lead to cures for some diseases. What could be a disadvantage to growing our medicines? How will these plants be kept separate from the natural one?

Auch, Ian and Kevin M. Smith. Incredibe Edible Vaccines. Computer Image. Boyce Thompson Institute, New York. Web. 25 Apr. 2011. < http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/07_00/vaccines_trees.shtml >

Digitale, Erin. “Plants can be factories making vaccine to treat cancer.” Stanford. Stanford University, 2008. Web. 25 Apr. 2011. <http://news.stanford.edu/news/2008/july23/med-plants-072308.html>

Byrne, P. “Bio-pharming.” Colorado State. Colorado State University, 2008. Web. 25 Apr. 2011. <http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/crops/00307.html>

How Could the Manipulation of Genes Become an Issue in Athletic Competition?

Gene doping is a concept that came from work being done with gene therapy. Gene therapy involves injecting DNA into a person’s body to correct a problem with a missing or damaged gene. The goal is to have this new gene fill the function of the damaged gene. Gene doping involves inserting DNA into a person with the goal of enhancing their athletic performance. In 1999 when the World Anti-Doping Agency was created to monitor doping in all forms, gene doping was defined as the “non-therapeutic use of cells, genes, genetic elements, or modulation of gene expression, having the capacity to enhance performance. While gene doping is not yet being done on people, it seems like it could be happening in a few short years. H. Lee Sweeney, a professor of physiology at the University of Pennsylvania, performed research on mice with a mutation in the dystrophin gene that caused them to express symptoms similar to Duchenne muscular dystrophy. This leads to loss of muscle fiber, fibrosis, and eventually complete loss of muscle function. He found that a protein called insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) actually caused the affected muscle cells to grow. Sweeny and his team found that by inserting the gene that encodes for IGF-1 directly into these muscle cells produced the same effect. When the mice with fibrosis were exposed to this insulin-like growth factor, the fibrosis decreased with age and the muscle mass increased by almost half. There is another group of scientists who found that injecting mice with a gene that encodes a fat-burning protein called PPAR-δ allowed them to run twice the distance of their wild-type siblings. It does not seem far fetched to imagine these technologies being applied to humans sometime soon. If research continues there may be breakthroughs in treatments for people suffering from Duchenne muscular dystrophy and for people suffering from other degenerative muscular diseases. A downside would be if these treatments got into the wrong hands and started being used for the wrong reasons. Both of these genes injected into a healthy person could given them a physical advantage over a normal person. This is where gene doping could become a problem. Gene doping could be the steroids of the future, causing new dilemmas. Will athletes need DNA tests to play professionally someday?

This photo shows an example of gene therapy. The new DNA is being introduced to the cell by an adenovirus vector. The gene being added has placed into the viral DNA and will be injected into the targeted cell with the goal of having the host cell, with the new gene, be able to make proteins it wasn't able to before.

Pray, Leslie A. “Sports, Gene Doping and WADA.” Nature. Nature Publishing Group, 2008. Web. 20 Apr. 2011. <http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/sports-gene-doping-and-wada-764>

1Droid JamLos. Gene Therapy. 5 Aug. 2008. Photo. Flickr. Web. 20 Apr. 2011. <http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamlos/2734418031/>

Why Create Bacteria Capable of Expressing Different Colors?

This video dicusses the collaborative research done by a group of designers and scientists in 2009. These Cambridge University undergraduates used synthetic biology to design bacteria that can secrete colors visable to the naked eye. The project was called E. chromi and their goal was to improve bacterial bio-sensors that can tell the concentration of pollutants in water. The video discusses how the students were able get the bacteria to do this. It involves two parts, one called a detector and the other called the sensitivity tuner. The detector senses the pollutants and the sensitivity tuner tells the detector when to turn on and when to turn off. As part of the project, the team created a possible time line for how this technology may develop over the next sixty years. I particulary liked the idea they present about personal disease monitoring. They suggest that one day this will involve buying a drink at the super market that contains color producing E. chromi bacteria. The bacteria would establish a colony in your stomach and monitor for chemical signals. If certain chemicals indicating a disease are detected, the bacteria would produce a color that would show up in feces, and the person woud know they need to see a doctor. I am interested in how this aspect of synthetic biology will develop over the next few years. This could change the way we think about preventative health care. People would be able to know as soon as they were getting sick if they drank this product regularly. The idea of a company controlling a certain color, in the video they suggest orange, seems farfetched. Then again, there are companies today trying to patent genetically engineered crops. Where else could this technology be applied? Where else could it create potential problems?

E. chromi. 2009. Alexandra Daisy Ginsberg & James King, Cambridge University iGEM Team. Video. Web. 20 Apr. 2011. <http://vimeo.com/19759432>

Genetic Testing

Much knowledge about genetics and diagnostic testing has been gained from research on diseases. There has been a focus to identify what genes are causing specific genetic disorders. This has lead to many debates over the ethics of genetic testing. If a developing embryo is found to have a gene that will cause a specific disorder, what should be done? Should genetic testing be required of the parents to see what disorder they may be at risk of passing on? Should parents with genes that could cause a genetic disorder be required to have a preimplantation genetic diagnosis? This process involves embryos being created in vitro and then only those that are not affected by the genetic illness would be implanted into a woman's uterus. Should they be forced to seek alternative methods of reproducing if there is a one hundred percent guarantee their child will be develop a disorder? Genetic testing can also be used to see if a person is carrying genes that would cause them to develop an illness later in life. This test could tell them they do not have to worry or that they have to prepare to deal with the illness at some point. In the future, this type of knowledge could possibly keep someone from getting health insurance. Will doctors one day want to have their patients genetic information on record? As these technologies continue to develop and are becoming more common in our lives, they clash with many people’s former ideas about science and how far it should go.

Simmons, Danielle. “Genetic inequality: Human genetic engineering.” Nature Education. Nature Publishing Group, 2008. Web. 15 Apr. 2011. <http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/genetic-inequality-human-genetic-engineering-768>

Can Genetically Altered DNA be Identified?

I spent a while researching this question and tried rewording it many different ways and still had trouble finding the information I was hoping to find. You may be familiar with DNA sequencing, which allows the genetic code of an organism to be mapped out with the help of a computer. This process allows scientists to sequence the entire genome of an organism. These genetic maps would allow trained professionals to find specific genes of interest or to identify mutations. Many organisms have molecular markers that can be found at specific locations on their genome. Molecular markers are specific fragments of DNA that can be identified with the whole genome of an organism. These molecular markers often stay linked to particular characteristics during genetic crosses which allows scientists to use these markers to identify the genetic makeup of organisms. So scientists can tell if the genome of a particular organism has been altered by looking for markers of traits that may have been added. These markers are also used to select individual plants or animals that carry a particular gene that affects the expression of an economically important characteristic. Scientists can tell if an organism has been genetically modified but the average consumer has no way of telling. There has been much debate over whether genetically modified organisms that are sold for human consumption should be labeled. I believe that they should be labeled, if they are safe to eat, why would companies not want to label their products?

“Scientific Facts on Genetically Modified Crops.” GreenFacts. FAO, 2004. Web. 10 Apr. 2011. <http://www.greenfacts.org/en/gmo/gmo-greenfacts-level2.pdf>

Genetically Engineered Mosquitos Are 100 Percent Resistant to Malaria

Scientists have bred mosquitos in a lab that are completely resistant to malaria. This was achieved by inserting genetic information into the mosquito’s genome. In the study the genetically altered mosquitos were not infected by the parasite that causes malaria in humans. The genetic information that makes the mosquito’s resistant to malaria also shortens the mosquito’s life span. This could also help prevent the spread of malaria because the malaria parasite needs twelve to sixteen days to develop in the mosquito before it can infect humans. The genetically altered mosquitos would most likely die before the parasite could mature. 100 Percent resistance was needed if malaria is to ever be wiped out. Scientists say that if only 97 percent of mosquitos had resistance, the remaining three percent would eventually build themselves back up over a few generations and malaria would continue to be a threat. Currently there are no vaccines available for malaria, so this seems like a good idea. Scientists are keeping the mosquitos securely in a lab until they figure out a way to ensure that these new mosquitos will eventually replace native ones that can carry the malaria parasite. This seems like an amazing way of getting rid of malaria without pesticides and without killing off mosquitos entirely. I can’t help but wonder what negative consequences could possibly arise from this type of action. Is it wise to attempt to replace a natural species with one that was genetically engineered?

Schmidt, Laurie J. “Genetically engineered Mosquitoes are 100 Percent Resistant to Malaria Parasite.” PopSci. Popular Science, 15 Jul. 2010. Web. 12 Apr. 2011. <http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-07/genetically-engineered-mosquitoes-are-100-percent-resistant-malaria-parasite>