Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) tissue propagation revisited

DankBudzzz said:

Imo, you guys just don't know any better. I'm not claiming to be a expert or even close to one on the topic but it's a fact that genetically modified foods have been passed by the FDA on numerous occasions. As for the tomato, they have been FDA approved since 1994 so It was not a failure. Even my local greenhouse that produces hydroponic vegetables in the winter uses these strains as they are commonly available in seed form.

Bananas in an unmodified form are full of large black hard seeds. The ones we eat have been modified so the expression of these traits are minimal and allow the overexpression of fruit tissue over seed....


If you believe that genetic engineering is so wrong then consider the medical advantages that genetic therapy can have. Diseases that devastate millions in the past are now curable due to research into genetically modified cloning vectors. Genetic diseases can such as Turners can now be cured or due to vectors that can simply knockout that specific gene without disturbing the rest of the genes...Again it's all a matter of preference; but in controlled environments.

I judged a national science fair and a kid in grade 6 had developed a way to not only cure cancer but take the rapidly dividing cells and convert them back into stem cells so they could be used to repair the damaged tissue. Chemotherapy and other treatments act by killing all rapidly dividing cells so in the process all immature stem cells and undifferentiated dividing cells are killed which is why it is very hard on your body...He was in grade 6 and managed a $500 000 government grant with 24 researchers working under him. He had his own laboratory completely built and funded by the government. He won overall for all categories in the fair and walked away with $80 000 in cash and $40 000 in scholarships..

Click to expand...

The tomato was a failure "
The failure of the Flavr Savr has been attributed to Calgene's inexperience in the business of growing and shipping tomatoes.[4] The variety of tomato Calgene started with was considered by farmers to be inferior, and insufficient resources were allocated to traditional plant breeding. As a result, Calgene's fields produced only 25-50% as many boxes per acre compared to most growers. Of these, only half as many as anticipated were large enough to be sold as premium-priced. Furthermore, much of the initial harvest was damaged during processing and shipping because ripe tomatoes are unavoidably more delicate than unripened ones. Equipment designed for handling peaches was purchased, and specialized shipping crates were developed, both at great expense. These costs along with competition from a new conventionally bred Long Shelf Life (LSL) variety prevented the Flavr Savr from becoming profitable, and Calgene was eventually bought by Monsanto, which was primarily interested in Calgene's ventures into cotton and oilseed."

I have not said that I believe that genetic engineering is bad. I said that releasing genetically altered material into the wild is poorly advised. We do not understand the web of life in nature well enough to release things into nature that we do not understand and that nature itself has no defense for. Dealing with the genetics of an individual human is radically different then placing a seriously modified crop back into the web of nature. That the FDA has agreed that something is GRAS has no bearing on its effect on the ecosystem but only that in it's opinion (and most of the studies done are done by the company wishing to have the particular organism accepted - a bit biased), it is safe for human consumption. This isn't always the root of the problem as Starlink Corn demonstrated. It is my understanding that bananas were not genetically modified but bred. So long as we go into such endeavors with a cavalier attitude we will be asking for trouble - slipping the genetics of other species into widely grown crops without intense, unbiased research is a disaster itching to unleash itself upon us all. Something as simple as placing a peanut protein sequence into olives in order to enhance the olive's nutrition profile could have consequences for all those who have peanut allergies. Something such as BT corn or terminator genes can easily play hell with the entire ecosystem.

DankBudzzz said:

As in any other aspect of life and business, there are people who are willing to break the rules to profit, Of course there is the possibility of developing something detremental to society but that is why they have agencies such as the FDA or CFIA/AFIA. There are very very strict regulations and there must be abundant statistical data and testing before they would approve anything for public use.

I think it's just what people don't know scares them. Theres so much that hasn't been discovered yet but somebody has got to do it.

Click to expand...

unfortunately this is far from the case. Governmental regulatory agencies don't do much of their own research and even if they do they are curtailed by big business. How, on the one hand can a product be claimed to be not substanialy different than it's unmodified cousin but on the other be different enough to qualify for a patent? Who, exactly is benifiting from these genetic modifications? The consumer? Hardly, the farmer? it would seem in many cases, not. Are yields improved? Perhaps not. It is a dangerous game where the rewards are far thinner than we are led to believe and the hazards far greater.

The American farmer has gone the way of the milkman. Its now factorys not farms.

canndo said:

unfortunately this is far from the case. Governmental regulatory agencies don't do much of their own research and even if they do they are curtailed by big business. How, on the one hand can a product be claimed to be not substanialy different than it's unmodified cousin but on the other be different enough to qualify for a patent? Who, exactly is benifiting from these genetic modifications? The consumer? Hardly, the farmer? it would seem in many cases, not. Are yields improved? Perhaps not. It is a dangerous game where the rewards are far thinner than we are led to believe and the hazards far greater.

Click to expand...

I hate to chime in again but...

I believe that the farmers are greatly benefitting as the amount of crop lost due to diseases and insects can be minimalized. The consumers are greatly affected by lower pricing as crops can be generated on a way faster basis. Yes, there life cycle can be greatly shortened by being grown in vitro or in sterile and controlled environments.

Also, I was discussing this with a coworker today who had some decent points:

1) Earlier in the thread people claimed that this kind of work is tampering with god and has nothing to due with evolution. In many plant species such as ferns and mosses. The chromosomal or mitochondrial DNA or specific genes have actually moved to different locations. If you are not aware, chloroplasts and mitochondria have their own genome seperate to the rest of the cells, it is a very unique feature which is why an abundance of studies have been done on them. These type of transitions can be pinpointed to specific eras in which evolution was sped up and can be easily tracked. These similar techinques are now used in genetic engineering of plants and animals to try to get a complete copy of all of the genes in the general DNA without having to take DNA fomr the mitochondria, chloroplast and genomic DNA of the rest of the cells. It has also been shown that transition of these genes leads has lead to many of the intracellular photosynthetic properties which has allowed photosynthesis to become a very quick, energy producing process it is today unlike millions of years ago.

DankBudzzz said:

I hate to chime in again but...

I believe that the farmers are greatly benefitting as the amount of crop lost due to diseases and insects can be minimalized. The consumers are greatly affected by lower pricing as crops can be generated on a way faster basis. Yes, there life cycle can be greatly shortened by being grown in vitro or in sterile and controlled environments.



.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately Dank, it is being found that geneticly engineered plants for the most part do not offer increased yield and both bad AND good insect's life cycles are interupted thus the environmental impact may not balance the advantages of the modified crop. The point is and always will be diversity and most genetic engineering does not truely aid in that. The rest of your description is certainly true but this does not demonstrate any advantage to man engineered changes in DNA.

DankBudzzz.


I understand your understanding and faith in biotechnology. And by the way please do "chime in". If you have the time I would very much like your take on this movie http://www.hulu.com/watch/67878/the-future-of-food It is as unbiased as any I have seen on the subject and it does seem to address all of the points you raised. It is informative and far from boreing. Let me know.

Hey, Thanks for the link, Ill definately check it out.

canndo said:

DankBudzzz.


I understand your understanding and faith in biotechnology. And by the way please do "chime in". If you have the time I would very much like your take on this movie http://www.hulu.com/watch/67878/the-future-of-food It is as unbiased as any I have seen on the subject and it does seem to address all of the points you raised. It is informative and far from boreing. Let me know.

Click to expand...

Thanks for posting that link canndo, really. I just finished watching that, and I'll first say that this is not a new subject to me. I've read a fair amount about it and watched several documentaries about Monsanto and the U.S. Governments' (how fucked up is it that I hesitate to even type that word string (power of the internet)) wild abuse of their given power, and keeping this from being a topic in the media. That was the most comprehensive overview of the situation we're facing that I've yet seen. I'm forwarding the video to most of the people I know, as well as a couple of business groups and committee's I belong to. People need to know about these issues, our goddamned MTV culture has destroyed peoples' desire to educate themselves about the most fundamental issues in our lives, I think the movie Idiocracy is a very sad but prescient commentary on the path we have set ourselves upon. I fear for our future.

DankBudzzz said:

Hey, Thanks for the link, Ill definately check it out.

Click to expand...

You owe it to yourself to do that, it's well worth your time. Seriously, I watched it and immediately am sending the link to everyone I know. That's not something I ever do.

DankBudzzz said:

Imo, you guys just don't know any better. I'm not claiming to be a expert or even close to one on the topic but it's a fact that genetically modified foods have been passed by the FDA on numerous occasions. As for the tomato, they have been FDA approved since 1994 so It was not a failure. Even my local greenhouse that produces hydroponic vegetables in the winter uses these strains as they are commonly available in seed form.

Click to expand...

They've also been pulling GMO strains that were previously deemed safe for livestock, because the GMO feed was causing organ damage.

Wolverine97 said:

I think the movie Idiocracy is a very sad but prescient commentary on the path we have set ourselves upon. I fear for our future.

Click to expand...

The movie is roughly based on a short story by Cyril M Konrbluth, "the marching morons". The movie is a seriously pale story compared with the short story. If you ever manage to aquire that it is far more reflective of society and a damn sight funnier.

So far as the movie is concerned I am shocked that so many have the understanding that they have - that genetic manipluation of crops is a step toward "feeding the world" or that only leftist wackos would want to cause people to starve or that we are all ludites in the face of advances in science. The point is that we are playing in a sandlot where we do not yet belong and the gains are illusory. The patenting of original genetics is a bad thing. Furthermore the only salvation (unfortunately) for us as a society is defensive government. This movie brings out so many things and I show it to libertarians who firmly believe that a truely free market will solve all ills because after all - "if a company produces bad things, eventually their customers will quit buying and the company will go out of business" Monsanto and genetic engineering of food proves otherwise.

I didn't intend to get on my political lecture stool but as I said, I am amazed at how little, so many people actually realize about what is going on around them.
Glad you liked the film.

DankBudzzz said:

Imo, you guys just don't know any better. I'm not claiming to be a expert or even close to one on the topic but it's a fact that genetically modified foods have been passed by the FDA on numerous occasions. As for the tomato, they have been FDA approved since 1994 so It was not a failure. Even my local greenhouse that produces hydroponic vegetables in the winter uses these strains as they are commonly available in seed form.

Bananas in an unmodified form are full of large black hard seeds. The ones we eat have been modified so the expression of these traits are minimal and allow the overexpression of fruit tissue over seed....


If you believe that genetic engineering is so wrong then consider the medical advantages that genetic therapy can have. Diseases that devasted millions in the past are now curable due to research into genetically modified cloning vectors. Genetic diseases can such as Turners can now be cured or due to vectors that can simply knockout that specific gene without disturbing the rest of the genes...Again it's all a matter of preference; but in controlled environments.

I judged a national science fair and a kid in grade 6 had developed a way to not only cure cancer but take the rapidly dividing cells and convert them back into stem cells so they could be used to repair the damaged tissue. Chemotherapy and other treatments act by killing all rapidly dividing cells so in the process all immature stem cells and undifferentiated dividing cells are killed which is why it is very hard on your body...He was in grade 6 and managed a $500 000 government grant with 24 researchers working under him. He had his own laboratory completely built and funded by the government. He won overall for all categories in the fair and walked away with $80 000 in cash and $40 000 in scholarships..

Click to expand...

Sounds like this kid might have been genetically modified.

If you mutate DNA with radiation and the mutant gene is messing with the gene you are looking for, then you use a microarray to find the mutant gene, now you know what gene you want. You then use a transfer bacterium like agrobacterium to transfer your gene into your plant. The thing is microarrays cost around 50,000$ and each slide costs 200$. Each slide can see around 100,000 sequences and there are a couple billion.

Amazing and informative thread! Great contributions and respect shown for differing view points, AND a complete absence of pointless flaming + rep for one and all !!

And while I'm at it bumpety bump as I'm hungry for more please? x

DankBudzzz said:

Gene guns can use tiny ionic particles like Copper to penetrate tissue without causing extensive damage and to insert DNA into the host in the most effective and quickest way possible.

Click to expand...

I have been doing some genetic transfection work with plants recently and have actually been kicking around trying a few experiments with a friends cannabis plants. For anyone else out there seeking to attempt this there are a few things to keep in mind. A) A gene gun is not your only option. Here is polyethylene glycol transfection method that is relatively inexpensive and simple to perform. http://www.jove.com/video/2560/efficient-polyethylene-glycol-peg-mediated-transformation-moss
His assertion that it can be accomplished in under three hours is a bit optimistic in my opinion. Usually takes me about four. This can be modified to work with many other plants as well. The key point is to isolate, transfect, and culture the protoplasts.
B) If you do choose to purchase a gene gun, there are affordable options. On first glance you likely won't find anything cheaper than $3,000, but after some looking I managed to find one for $300. The price gouger is the "bullet" making solution. There are, generally speaking, two varieties of metal that are most commonly used to make gene gun "bullets," tungsten and gold. The purpose of this solution is to induce a positive charge through sonification that will bond with the negatively charged DNA, acting as a taxi to transport the DNA into the cell nucleus during particle bombardment. Tungsten is toxic to many organisms so it is usually best to go with the gold. If you have a lab well enough equipped to distill the gold solution yourself then you can get gold powder for a reasonable price. For many people, however, the powder is impractical and it is necessary to order the ready-made solution. The cheapest that I have seen ready made gene gun "bullet" solution is $96.00 for a 1mL bottle, and then you have to pay for cold shipping and handling on top of that. The DNA itself can get pretty pricy as well if you decide to go the synthetic route but it is, in my opinion, completely worth it not to have to extract the stuff yourself.
C) Add to that all the standard chemicals, equipment, and reagents that you are going to need use to get the DNA that you are working with ready for transfection, thermal cycler, catalysts, restriction enzymes, etc. It's totally doable but it's really not as easy as buying a gun and shooting genes into your bud. If you are ready to put in the work though the rewards of garage biology are priceless.

PS. I have heard people talk about using linear plasmids in transfection with eukaryotic cells but have never really tried it myself and have read that the efficiency rate is pretty low. Supercoiled plasmids are your best bet.