Bioglow sheds new light on indoor plants

Bioglow's Starlight Avatar plants emit faint light similar in intensity to starlight hence the name

Ever thought the glowing forests from the movie Avatar were pretty cool and wanted one yourself? Bioglow is the latest company to attempt to put such autoluminscent plants in homes with its aptly named Starlight Avatar.

Engineering plants to make them glow is not a new idea and has been around since the 1980s. Bioglow's approach involves adding genes responsible for bioluminescence from the marine bacteria Photobacterium leiognathi to the cultivated tobacco species Nicotiana tabacum. In this way, Bioglow claims it was able to achieve permanent light emission without the need for chemical additives to the exterior of the plant or the use of UV light.

While the current results emit only faint light, said to resemble the intensity of starlight hence the name Starlight Avatar Bioglow hopes that in the future autoluminescent plants will be able to produce enough light to illuminate town streets. It is also working on modifying the colors emitted via luciferase mutagenesis, the mutation of enzymes responsible for light generation, and is working to have foliage glow one color, with flowers and petals another.

This and similar ventures, such as the crowd funded Glowing Plants project have not come without criticism from environmental groups, such as Friends of the Earth (FOE), worried about the spread of genetically engineered or modified (GM) products and the flow of engineered genes into nature.

The New York Times reported in May 2013 that FOE and other environmental groups had lobbied both the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Kickstarter to have the Glowing Plant project shut down. Since then, the USDA has reviewed and approved Bioglows plants as safe because they are not "plant pests." Bioglow also says that the light-emitting pathway in its plants cannot be transferred by pollen to other plant populations.

Bioglow will be running on online auction for its plants that kicks off on January 31st and runs for a week.

Source: Bioglow

Just enter your friends and your email address into the form below

For multiple addresses, separate each with a comma

Go here to read the rest:

Bioglow sheds new light on indoor plants

Increased risk of prostate cancer in African-American men; implications for PSA screening

PUBLIC RELEASE DATE:

7-Jan-2014

Contact: Vicki Cohn vcohn@liebertpub.com 914-740-2100 Mary Ann Liebert, Inc./Genetic Engineering News

New Rochelle, NY, January 7, 2014African American men have an increased risk of prostate cancer and are two times more likely than Caucasian American men to die from the disease. Despite recent questions about the overall usefulness of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing to detect prostate cancer, should PSA screening be used to detect early-stage disease to help save lives in this at-risk population? The controversy is explored in a Review article in Journal of Men's Health, a peer-reviewed publication from Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishers. The article is available free on the Journal of Men's Health website at http://www.liebertpub.com/jomh.

In the Review "PSA Screening for the African American Male: When and Why?" Tyler Luthringer, Ilija Aleksic, Vladimir Mouraviev, and David Albala, Associated Medical Professionals of NY, PLLC, and SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, support the American Urological Association's position that early detection of prostate cancer should include multiple parameters to assess personal risk. Together with their physicians, men should decide on an individualized approach to risk assessment and screening, which may include PSA testing and digital rectal examination.

###

Contact

About the Journal

About the Societies

About the Publisher

The rest is here:
Increased risk of prostate cancer in African-American men; implications for PSA screening

Increased risk of prostate cancer in African American men; implications for PSA screening

PUBLIC RELEASE DATE:

7-Jan-2014

Contact: Vicki Cohn vcohn@liebertpub.com 914-740-2100 Mary Ann Liebert, Inc./Genetic Engineering News

New Rochelle, NY, January 7, 2014African American men have an increased risk of prostate cancer and are two times more likely than Caucasian American men to die from the disease. Despite recent questions about the overall usefulness of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing to detect prostate cancer, should PSA screening be used to detect early-stage disease to help save lives in this at-risk population? The controversy is explored in a Review article in Journal of Men's Health, a peer-reviewed publication from Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishers. The article is available free on the Journal of Men's Health website at http://www.liebertpub.com/jomh.

In the Review "PSA Screening for the African American Male: When and Why?" Tyler Luthringer, Ilija Aleksic, Vladimir Mouraviev, and David Albala, Associated Medical Professionals of NY, PLLC, and SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, support the American Urological Association's position that early detection of prostate cancer should include multiple parameters to assess personal risk. Together with their physicians, men should decide on an individualized approach to risk assessment and screening, which may include PSA testing and digital rectal examination.

###

Contact

About the Journal

About the Societies

About the Publisher

The rest is here:

Increased risk of prostate cancer in African American men; implications for PSA screening

This Engineered Salmon Could Double World Production: Should You Fear Frankenfish?

Genetically modified Atlantic salmon, trout, tilapia, and shrimp will soon be coming to a dinner plate near you. Photo: Hans-Petter Fjeld, Creative Commons.

If you thought the seafood section of your local grocery store offered a refuge from genetic modification techniques commonly used in agricultural crops, I have some bad news for you.

AquaBounty Technologies, now owned by synthetic biology company Intrexon (NYSE: XON) , has developed an engineered Atlantic salmon named AquAdvantage Salmon that matures twice as fast as conventional salmon. Aquaculture may not be on your investing radar, but the global industry is valued at over $100 billion and is the fastest growing segment of the worldwide food industry. Genome editing technologies promise to expedite the growth further -- and they will arrive sooner than you think. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is poised to approve the aquaculture company's product for marketing next year, which would open the regulatory door for engineered trout, tilapia, and shrimp being developed by the two companies.

You may not like the idea of altering the genetic code of more complex organisms -- especially those that end up on your dinner plate -- instead preferring the technology sticks to simpler microorganisms being developed by synthetic biology companies such as Amyris (NASDAQ: AMRS) and Solazyme (NASDAQ: SZYM) . However, enhanced aquaculture technologies present impressive growth opportunities and environmental advantages for investors and consumers. Is the technology safe? Are the advantages real and measurable? How long until biotech fish stare back at you from your own dinner plate? Let's swim through the possibilities.

How do you safely make a biotech fish? It's actually quite simple. AquaBounty introduced one gene from a Pacific Chinook salmon into its AquAdvantage Salmon, or AAS, to allow it to grow to full market size in half the time. Despite the hastier maturity profile, AAS produce the same amount of growth hormone as conventional salmon. A molecular switch (called a "promoter") from an antifreeze protein gene was also integrated into the fish genome, although AAS do not produce antifreeze protein. Additionally, all AAS will be sterile females; ensuring there will be no gene flow to wild populations if they escape production facilities.

Engineered fish will undoubtedly encounter some backlash from consumers -- with Whole Foods Market already stating it would ban them from its stores -- but the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced that they were safe to eat in 2010. Moreover, considering that Atlantic salmon hold roughly 40,000 genes -- compared to about 24,000 genes for humans -- only 0.0025% of the genome has been altered. Aside from growth, there are no discernable differences between AquaBounty's engineered product and a wild Atlantic salmon.

Nonetheless, that single genetic change results in a giant gain in productivity. It's important to note that AAS do not grow larger than wild Atlantic salmon -- they simply grow to full size more quickly. Take a look at how they compare to their conventional counterparts:

AAS will be harvested near the 550-day mark. Source: AquaBounty Technologies.

AquaBounty can grow the same amount of fish in half the time (or less) while adding substantial environmental benefits with no additional risks. But are the advantages tangible?

Advantages of biotech fishAlthough Intrexon played no role in developing AquAdvantage Salmon, the companies are exploring ways to utilize synthetic biology to develop even better products with more efficient production profiles. If you think of traditional genetic engineering -- crops and essentially all genetically engineered commercial products created to date -- as the first, most basic form of genome editing, then synthetic biology -- or utilizing the building blocks of life to assemble novel technologies -- represents the next big leap. Either way, both can offer real and measurable advantages.

See original here:

This Engineered Salmon Could Double World Production: Should You Fear Frankenfish?

GMO bill to go before the House this month

A fight over whether to require genetically modified foods to be labeled in New Hampshire is coming before the House this month.

Supporters argue New Hampshire residents have a right to know whether their food is produced with genetic engineering, but critics say the federal Food and Drug Administration has not mandated the labeling because it determined the foods are safe.

The House Environment and Agriculture Committee split in its recommendation on the bill, with a majority favoring killing it. But a minority is arguing its time for states like New Hampshire to lead, regardless of the federal position on the issue.

While we have concerns about the lack of safety and health testing by parties independent of the bio-tech industry, we are not opposed to the use of (genetic engineering) technology per se. We simply feel that people should have the freedom to make their own choices about food, and since knowledge is essential to the proper exercise of that freedom, information about genetically engineered content should be available on food labels, state Rep. Peter Bixby wrote to the House.

But state Rep. Robert Haefner countered in his message to the House on the bill that a label would in effect serve as a skull and crossbones, suggesting to the consumer that there is something dangerous in the product when in fact science has shown there is not.

Haefner said the bill would be difficult and expensive for the state to enforce.

See more here:

GMO bill to go before the House this month

Plant Genetics Expert – in the Bowl, GMO-Free Cheerios Identical to Current Crop

Contact Information

Available for logged-in reporters only

Margaret Smith is a professor of plant breeding and genetics who leads a Cornell University program to help farmers and the public understand plant breeding and genetic engineering. She says the recent move by General Mills to eliminate genetically modified organisms from its Cheerios cereal might please GMO-shy consumers, but it won't alter the iconic cereals make up one bit.

Smith says:

Corn starch and sugar are highly refined products, so they contain no DNA (which is what is introduced into a genetically engineered organism) and no protein (which is what the new DNA would produce in a genetically engineered organism). Because of that, corn starch and sugar from a genetically engineered corn variety are nutritionally and chemically identical to corn starch or sugar from a non-genetically engineered variety.

This means that the new version of Cheerios that is being made without use of genetically engineered varieties will be nutritionally and chemically identical to the previous version. So it will not offer anything new to consumers other than to give them the option to buy a product that does not support planting more acres to genetically engineered crop varieties.

Cornell University has television, ISDN and dedicated Skype/Google+ Hangout studios available for media interviews.

Read more from the original source:

Plant Genetics Expert - in the Bowl, GMO-Free Cheerios Identical to Current Crop

Organic Food Advocate, Colle Farmers Market, Comments on Hawaiian Surfers Protesting Genetic Engineering

Bohemia, NY (PRWEB) January 03, 2014

Colle Farmers Market, an organic food advocate, responds to an article published by Surfer Magazine on December 18th, which discusses the protests involving genetic engineering on Hawaiian soil.

According to the Surfer Magazine article titled Surfers Say No to GMOs, Hawaiian citizens and organic advocates were protesting against the genetic engineering experiments happening in Hawaii. The article says Kamehameha Schools leased 1000 acres of land to Monsanto, the company that has been performing the genetic modification experiments.

Most developed countries have banned this type of experimentation, mainly because of the potential environmental harm these experiments could have. However, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and genetically engineered foods are still legal in the United States.

The article says, "This push came on the heels of the recently passed Kauai Bill 2491legislation requiring companies to disclose their use of GMOs, pushed through after the city council overturned the mayors veto weeks before the opening of Hawaiis legislature."

A representative from Colle Farmers Market, an organic food advocate, says if more people adopted an organic lifestyle, the amount of GMO foods will decrease. We should be eating food the way nature intended, he says. Organic food is all natural, and free from preservatives, chemicals, and pesticides. Humans were not designed to eat food made in a lab or developed with chemicals. We were made to eat fresh food. GMOs are genetically engineered organisms that are produced in a lab and have the potential to significantly harm our bodies and environment.

The Colle rep says organic food also helps to keep the soil healthy. GMOs and conventional farming can have horrible affects on the ground soil, he says. By advocating and adopting an organic lifestyle, farmers and consumers can ensure help keep the environment healthy. We applaud these Hawaiians and surfers for standing up for what they believe in and raising awareness.

Colle Farmers Market is an E-Commerce enabled farmers market community that is passionate about sustainable consumption and responsible conservation. The Colle movement is dedicated to connecting natural product vendors, organic farmers and all people who are living an organic and natural lifestyle.

#####

Continue reading here:

Organic Food Advocate, Colle Farmers Market, Comments on Hawaiian Surfers Protesting Genetic Engineering

Embryonic stem cell rejection problem fixed, study says

One of the toughest problems facing embryonic stem cell therapy, immune rejection of transplanted cells, may have been solved, according to a UC San Diego-led research team.

The cells can be made invisible to the immune system by genetically engineering them to make two immune-suppressing molecules, according to the study. Researchers tested the approach in mice given a human immune system. Immune functioning in the rest of the animal remained active.

If the approach works in people, patients receiving transplanted tissue or organs made from embryonic stem cells wouldnt have to take harsh immune-suppressing drugs, said study leader Yang Xu, a UC San Diego professor of biology.

Human embryonic stem cells. The green markers indicate the presence of a protein expressed only in these cells. / Samantha Zeitlin, 2006 CIRM fellow

Researchers placed genes in the stem cells to produce the two molecules, called CTLA4-lg and PD-L1, naturally made in the body. The mice accepted transplants of heart and skin cells derived from the engineered stem cells. They rejected transplants derived from regular embryonic stem cells.

The study was published online Thursday in the journal Cell Stem Cell. Its findings will have to be confirmed for safety and effectiveness before human trials can be considered, which will take years.

Three scientists given the paper for comment had mixed reactions. While they praised the works scientific prowess, two said genetically engineering the transplanted cells could cause serious side effects that might preclude their use.

The researchers employed a clever strategy to use the immune systems natural regulatory systems, said Mitchell Kronenberg, president of the La Jolla Institute for Allergy & Immunology.

This is an especially promising approach, because it avoids the toxic side effects of the drugs now used to suppress the rejection response, and therefore this is an important step forward in showing the feasibility of using human embryonic stem cells from unrelated donors, Kronenberg said.

More skeptical were Jeanne Loring, a stem cell researcher at The Scripps Research Institute, and Craig M. Walsh, associate director of the Institute for Immunology at UC Irvine.

See the article here:

Embryonic stem cell rejection problem fixed, study says

Hispanic women are less aware of weight and heart disease risk

PUBLIC RELEASE DATE:

2-Jan-2014

Contact: Vicki Cohn vcohn@liebertpub.com 914-740-2100 Mary Ann Liebert, Inc./Genetic Engineering News

New Rochelle, NY, January 2, 2014Minority women tend to be less aware of the increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) they face by being overweight or obese. The results of a study that compared Hispanic and non-Hispanic white women based on their knowledge of heart disease risk factors and their perceptions of their own weight is published in Journal of Women's Health, a peer-reviewed publication from Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishers. The article is available free on the Journal of Women's Health website at http://www.liebertpub.com/jwh.

Elsa-Grace Giardina, MD and coauthors, Columbia University Medical Center (New York, NY), report that although awareness of CVD and recognition that heart disease is the leading cause of death among women in the U.S has increased, knowledge of these risk factors still remains low among minority women, making prevention efforts more difficult. The authors compared how women estimate their weight and view their risk of heart disease and present their findings in the article "Cardiovascular Disease Knowledge and Weight Perception Among Hispanic and Non-Hispanic White Women."

"Based on these findings, prevention strategies need to target CVD knowledge and awareness among overweight and obese Hispanic women," says Susan G. Kornstein, MD, Editor-in-Chief of Journal of Women's Health, Executive Director of the Virginia Commonwealth University Institute for Women's Health, Richmond, VA, and President of the Academy of Women's Health.

###

About the Journal

Journal of Women's Health, published monthly, is a core multidisciplinary journal dedicated to the diseases and conditions that hold greater risk for or are more prevalent among women, as well as diseases that present differently in women. The Journal covers the latest advances and clinical applications of new diagnostic procedures and therapeutic protocols for the prevention and management of women's healthcare issues. Complete tables of content and a sample issue may be viewed on the Journal of Women's Health website at http://www.liebertpub.com/jwh. Journal of Women's Health is the Official Journal of the Academy of Women's Health and the Society for Women's Health Research.

About the Academy

View post:
Hispanic women are less aware of weight and heart disease risk

How the Mind Works, Secrets, Intelligence, Social Networks and the Death of Privacy (2012) – Video


How the Mind Works, Secrets, Intelligence, Social Networks and the Death of Privacy (2012)
Andrews is an internationally-recognized expert on biotechnologies. Her path-breaking litigation about reproductive and genetic technologies and the disposit...

By: The Film Archive

Read the original post:

How the Mind Works, Secrets, Intelligence, Social Networks and the Death of Privacy (2012) - Video

Genetic Engineering – BiologyMad

Genetic Engineering

Genetic engineering, also known as recombinant DNA technology, means altering the genes in a living organism to produce a Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) with a new genotype. Various kinds of genetic modification are possible: inserting a foreign gene from one species into another, forming a transgenic organism; altering an existing gene so that its product is changed; or changing gene expression so that it is translated more often or not at all.

Genetic engineering is a very young discipline, and is only possible due to the development of techniques from the 1960s onwards. Watson and Crick have made these techniques possible from our greater understanding of DNA and how it functions following the discovery of its structure in 1953. Although the final goal of genetic engineering is usually the expression of a gene in a host, in fact most of the techniques and time in genetic engineering are spent isolating a gene and then cloning it. This table lists the techniques that we shall look at in detail.

1

cDNA

See the original post:

Genetic Engineering - BiologyMad

genetic engineering — Encyclopedia Britannica

We welcome suggested improvements to any of our articles. You can make it easier for us to review and, hopefully, publish your contribution by keeping a few points in mind: Encyclopaedia Britannica articles are written in a neutral, objective tone for a general audience. You may find it helpful to search within the site to see how similar or related subjects are covered. Any text you add should be original, not copied from other sources. At the bottom of the article, feel free to list any sources that support your changes, so that we can fully understand their context. (Internet URLs are best.) Your contribution may be further edited by our staff, and its publication is subject to our final approval. Unfortunately, our editorial approach may not be able to accommodate all contributions.

genetic engineering,the artificial manipulation, modification, and recombination of DNA or other nucleic acid molecules in order to modify an organism or population of organisms.

The term genetic engineering initially meant any of a wide range of techniques for the modification or manipulation of organisms through the processes of heredity and reproduction. As such, the term embraced both artificial selection and all the interventions of biomedical techniques, among them artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization (e.g., test-tube babies), sperm banks, cloning, and gene manipulation. But the term now denotes the narrower field of recombinant DNA technology, or gene cloning (see Figure), in which DNA molecules from two or more sources are combined either within cells or in vitro and are then inserted into host organisms in which they are able to propagate. Gene cloning is used to produce new genetic combinations that are of value to science, medicine, agriculture, or industry.

DNA is the carrier of genetic information; it achieves its effects by directing the synthesis of proteins. Most recombinant DNA technology involves the insertion of foreign genes into the plasmids of common laboratory strains of bacteria. Plasmids are small rings of DNA; they are not part of the bacteriums chromosome (the main repository of the organisms genetic information). Nonetheless, they are capable of directing protein synthesis, and, like chromosomal DNA, they are reproduced and passed on to the bacteriums progeny. Thus, by incorporating foreign DNA (for example, a mammalian gene) into a bacterium, researchers can obtain an almost limitless number of copies of the inserted gene. Furthermore, if the inserted gene is operative (i.e., if it directs protein synthesis), the modified bacterium will produce the protein specified by the foreign DNA.

A key step in the development of genetic engineering was the discovery of restriction enzymes in 1968 by the Swiss microbiologist Werner Arber. However, type II restriction enzymes, which are essential to genetic engineering for their ability to cleave a specific site within the DNA (as opposed to type I restriction enzymes, which cleave DNA at random sites), were not identified until 1969, when the American molecular biologist Hamilton O. Smith purified this enzyme. Drawing on Smiths work, the American molecular biologist Daniel Nathans helped advance the technique of DNA recombination in 197071 and demonstrated that type II enzymes could be useful in genetic studies. Genetic engineering itself was pioneered in 1973 by the American biochemists Stanley N. Cohen and Herbert W. Boyer, who were among the first to cut DNA into fragments, rejoin different fragments, and insert the new genes into E. coli bacteria, which then reproduced.

Genetic engineering has advanced the understanding of many theoretical and practical aspects of gene function and organization. Through recombinant DNA techniques, bacteria have been created that are capable of synthesizing human insulin, human growth hormone, alpha interferon, a hepatitis B vaccine, and other medically useful substances. Plants may be genetically adjusted to enable them to fix nitrogen, and genetic diseases can possibly be corrected by replacing bad genes with normal ones. Nevertheless, special concern has been focused on such achievements for fear that they might result in the introduction of unfavourable and possibly dangerous traits into microorganisms that were previously free of theme.g., resistance to antibiotics, production of toxins, or a tendency to cause disease.

The new microorganisms created by recombinant DNA research were deemed patentable in 1980, and in 1986 the U.S. Department of Agriculture approved the sale of the first living genetically altered organisma virus, used as a pseudorabies vaccine, from which a single gene had been cut. Since then several hundred patents have been awarded for genetically altered bacteria and plants.

Read more:

genetic engineering -- Encyclopedia Britannica

Genetic Engineering | The Earth Times | Encyclopaedia

Genetic engineering is a scientific development that involves the artificial manipulation of an organism's genes by using techniques such as molecular cloning and transformation in order to alter their nature and structure. Many of these transformations are achieved by manipulation of an organism's DNA, which effectively is the code inscribed in every cell to determine how it will function.

As with most scientific developments there are a number of arguments both for and against.

There has been a considerable amount of research into the genetic engineering of crops such as potatoes, tomatoes, soybean and rice, with the aim of obtaining new strains that have better nutritional qualities and better yields.

In a world where there is a continual need to produce more food; genetically engineered crops are being developed to grow on land that is currently not suitable for cultivation. By manipulating the genes in crops the aim is to improve their nutritional value, their rate of growth and their flavour.

Seeds can be engineered so that they are resistant to pests and can survive cultivation in relatively harsh climatic conditions. Biotechnology can also be used to slow down the process of food spoilage so that fruit and vegetables can have a longer shelf life.

Although on the face of it genetic engineering might appear to bring a number of very positive benefits, there is by no means a universal approval of this practice.

Greenpeace International is very firm in its opposition, pointing out that there is no adequate scientific understanding of the impact that genetically modified organisms might have on the world's environment and on human health.

Undesirable genetic mutations can lead to allergies in crops and critics believe that while genetic engineering might enhance taste and appearance of foodstuffs, it could also hamper the nutritional value. At the very least, in order to inform consumers, all foodstuffs or products that have been made from genetically modified food should be clearly labelled as such at point of sale.

Whole new substances such as proteins and other food nutrients can be produced as a result of genetic engineering. The genetic modification of foods can be used to increase their medicinal value, thus making available a range of homegrown medical vaccines.

Greenpeace maintains that commercial interests are the prime movers to introduce genetically modified organisms into the food chain and stresses that once these organisms have been released into the environment they cannot be recalled.

Here is the original post:

Genetic Engineering | The Earth Times | Encyclopaedia

Genetic Engineering – Biology Questions and Answers

Learn the Fundamentals of Biotechnology

1. What is biotechnology?

Biotechnology is the application of biological knowledge to obtain new techniques, materials and compounds of pharmaceutical, medical, agrarian, industrial and scientific use, i.e., of practical use.

The pioneer fields of biotechnology were agriculture and the food industry but nowadays many other practical fields use its techniques.

2. What is genetic engineering?

Genetic engineering is the use of genetic knowledge to artificially manipulate genes: It is one of the fields of biotechnology.

3. At the present level of the biotechnology what are the main techniques of genetic engineering?

The main techniques of genetic engineering today are: the recombinant DNA technology (also called genetic engineering itself) in which pieces of genes from an organism are inserted into the genetic material of another organism producing recombinant beings; the nucleus transplantation technology, popularly known as cloning, in which a nucleus of a cell is grafted into a enucleated egg cell of the same species to create a genetic copy of the donor (of the nucleus) individual; the technology of DNA amplification, or PCR (polymerase chain reaction), that allows millions replications of chosen fragments of a DNA molecule.

See the original post here:

Genetic Engineering - Biology Questions and Answers

Genetic Engineering | Buzzle.com

Genetic Engineering is a very complex field where there is a direct manipulation of an organism's genes. It is also called recombinant DNA technology, which involves creating a DNA by bringing together DNA sequences which otherwise, normally would not be combined. Techniques like transformation and molecular cloning are used in genetic engineering to modify the structure and the characteristics of genes.

Interesting Examples of Genetic Engineering

Genetic engineering is the technique that gives the power to desirably manipulate the genome of an organism. This ability has been explored and experimented in several organisms, some of which have been commercialized whereas the...

Common Misconceptions in Genetics

In the mid-19th century, Gregor Mendel propagated his theories related to heredity. A lot of progress has been made in the field of genetics since then. However, even today, there exist a lot of misconceptions owing to incorrect...

Benefits of Genetic Engineering

Genetic engineering process manipulates the DNA sequence to create a new one. The write-up focuses on the various benefits of genetic engineering.

Genetic Engineering in Humans

With the advancements in the field of genetic engineering, science in the future may give us the power to genetically modify and create 'near perfect' life. Read this write-up to know more about genetic engineering in humans.

Pros and Cons of Genetic Engineering

Read the original post:

Genetic Engineering | Buzzle.com

Activist lauds GE-free city

An American activist opposing genetic engineering has praised Nelson as the first part of New Zealand to declare itself free of genetically modified organisms.

Self-published author and speaker Jeffrey Smith gave a talk at the Free House pub this week emphasising the value in keeping genetically engineered products out of New Zealand. It was one of only two talks he gave nationwide.

"New Zealand is very well-poised to take advantage of the economics of going non-GM."

He said there was a growing sentiment in his homeland that genetically modified products should be avoided. He expected a consumer-driven "tipping point" to occur within the next 18 months, saying this would see products containing GM ingredients becoming a "commercial liability".

"At that point, the clean, green image of New Zealand will translate better into economic premiums."

Mr Smith said there was a particularly receptive market available for meat and dairy products which originated from animals that had not eaten GM feed. New Zealand farmers should phase out the use of GM feed and market their meat and dairy in the US, claiming the GE free products would command a premium.

In New Zealand, processed foods can contain GM ingredients but must be labelled accordingly. No GM crops are grown commercially and no GM fruit, vegetables or meat are sold, but meat and other products from animals that have been fed GM food are not required to be labelled.

Mr Smith claimed GE foods had been found to cause health problems, but said studies into this area had been suppressed.

He was not all praise for New Zealand, criticising the local processes in place for the approval of GE products. He said the process was "nowhere near" rigorous enough and did not protect the public, saying it was widely cited internationally as an example of "how regulations should not be conducted".

Based in Iowa, Mr Smith was hosted in New Zealand by non-profit organisation GE Free New Zealand. President Claire Bleakley said it would be enlightening for a local audience to gain insights on the international experience with genetic modification.

See the article here:

Activist lauds GE-free city

Genetic engineering – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Genetic engineering, also called genetic modification, is the direct manipulation of an organism's genome using biotechnology. New DNA may be inserted in the host genome by first isolating and copying the genetic material of interest using molecular cloning methods to generate a DNA sequence, or by synthesizing the DNA, and then inserting this construct into the host organism. Genes may be removed, or "knocked out", using a nuclease. Gene targeting is a different technique that uses homologous recombination to change an endogenous gene, and can be used to delete a gene, remove exons, add a gene, or introduce point mutations.

An organism that is generated through genetic engineering is considered to be a genetically modified organism (GMO). The first GMOs were bacteria in 1973; GM mice were generated in 1974. Insulin-producing bacteria were commercialized in 1982 and genetically modified food has been sold since 1994. Glofish, the first GMO designed as a pet, was first sold in the United States December in 2003.[1]

Genetic engineering techniques have been applied in numerous fields including research, agriculture, industrial biotechnology, and medicine. Enzymes used in laundry detergent and medicines such as insulin and human growth hormone are now manufactured in GM cells, experimental GM cell lines and GM animals such as mice or zebrafish are being used for research purposes, and genetically modified crops have been commercialized.

IUPAC definition

Process of inserting new genetic information into existing cells in order to modify a specific organism for the purpose of changing its characteristics.

Note: Adapted from ref.[2][3]

Genetic engineering alters the genetic makeup of an organism using techniques that remove heritable material or that introduce DNA prepared outside the organism either directly into the host or into a cell that is then fused or hybridized with the host.[4] This involves using recombinant nucleic acid (DNA or RNA) techniques to form new combinations of heritable genetic material followed by the incorporation of that material either indirectly through a vector system or directly through micro-injection, macro-injection and micro-encapsulation techniques.

Genetic engineering does not normally include traditional animal and plant breeding, in vitro fertilisation, induction of polyploidy, mutagenesis and cell fusion techniques that do not use recombinant nucleic acids or a genetically modified organism in the process.[4] However the European Commission has also defined genetic engineering broadly as including selective breeding and other means of artificial selection.[5]Cloning and stem cell research, although not considered genetic engineering,[6] are closely related and genetic engineering can be used within them.[7]Synthetic biology is an emerging discipline that takes genetic engineering a step further by introducing artificially synthesized genetic material from raw materials into an organism.[8]

If genetic material from another species is added to the host, the resulting organism is called transgenic. If genetic material from the same species or a species that can naturally breed with the host is used the resulting organism is called cisgenic.[9] Genetic engineering can also be used to remove genetic material from the target organism, creating a gene knockout organism.[10] In Europe genetic modification is synonymous with genetic engineering while within the United States of America it can also refer to conventional breeding methods.[11][12] The Canadian regulatory system is based on whether a product has novel features regardless of method of origin. In other words, a product is regulated as genetically modified if it carries some trait not previously found in the species whether it was generated using traditional breeding methods (e.g., selective breeding, cell fusion, mutation breeding) or genetic engineering.[13][14][15] Within the scientific community, the term genetic engineering is not commonly used; more specific terms such as transgenic are preferred.

Plants, animals or micro organisms that have changed through genetic engineering are termed genetically modified organisms or GMOs.[16] Bacteria were the first organisms to be genetically modified. Plasmid DNA containing new genes can be inserted into the bacterial cell and the bacteria will then express those genes. These genes can code for medicines or enzymes that process food and other substrates.[17][18] Plants have been modified for insect protection, herbicide resistance, virus resistance, enhanced nutrition, tolerance to environmental pressures and the production of edible vaccines.[19] Most commercialised GMO's are insect resistant and/or herbicide tolerant crop plants.[20] Genetically modified animals have been used for research, model animals and the production of agricultural or pharmaceutical products. They include animals with genes knocked out, increased susceptibility to disease, hormones for extra growth and the ability to express proteins in their milk.[21]

More:

Genetic engineering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Genetic Engineering | Greenpeace International

While scientific progress on molecular biology has a great potential to increase our understanding of nature and provide new medical tools, it should not be used as justification to turn the environment into a giant genetic experiment by commercial interests. The biodiversity and environmental integrity of the world's food supply is too important to our survival to be put at risk. What's wrong with genetic engineering (GE)?

Genetic engineering enables scientists to create plants, animals and micro-organisms by manipulating genes in a way that does not occur naturally.

These genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can spread through nature and interbreed with natural organisms, thereby contaminating non 'GE' environments and future generations in an unforeseeable and uncontrollable way.

Their release is 'genetic pollution' and is a major threat because GMOs cannot be recalled once released into the environment.

Because of commercial interests, the public is being denied the right to know about GE ingredients in the food chain, and therefore losing the right to avoid them despite the presence of labelling laws in certain countries.

Biological diversity must be protected and respected as the global heritage of humankind, and one of our world's fundamental keys to survival. Governments are attempting to address the threat of GE with international regulations such as the Biosafety Protocol.

April 2010: Farmers, environmentalists and consumers from all over Spain demonstrate in Madrid under the slogan "GMO-free agriculture." They demand the Government to follow the example of countries like France, Germany or Austria, and ban the cultivation of GM maize in Spain.

GMOs should not be released into the environment since there is not an adequate scientific understanding of their impact on the environment and human health.

We advocate immediate interim measures such as labelling of GE ingredients, and the segregation of genetically engineered crops and seeds from conventional ones.

We also oppose all patents on plants, animals and humans, as well as patents on their genes. Life is not an industrial commodity. When we force life forms and our world's food supply to conform to human economic models rather than their natural ones, we do so at our own peril.

Read more:

Genetic Engineering | Greenpeace International