Category Archives: Genetic Engineering

Monsantos new veggies are sweeter, crunchier, and more nutritiouswith none of the Frankenfoods ick factor.

In a windowless basement room decorated with photographs of farmers clutching freshly harvested vegetables, three polo-shirt-and-slacks-clad Monsanto executives, all men, wait for a special lunch. A server arrives and sets in front of each a caprese-like saladtomatoes, mozzarella, basil, lettuceand one of the execs, David Stark, rolls his desk chair forward, raises a fork dramatically, and skewers a leaf. He takes a big, showy bite. The other two men, Robb Fraley and Kenny Avery, also tuck in. The room fills with loud, intent, wet chewing sounds.

Eventually, Stark looks up. Nice crisp texture, which people like, and a pretty good taste, he says.

Its probably better than what I get out of Schnucks, Fraley responds. Hes talking about a grocery chain local to St. Louis, where Monsanto is headquartered. Avery seems happy; he just keeps eating.

The men poke, prod, and chew the next course with even more vigor: salmon with a relish of red, yellow, and orange bell pepper and a side of broccoli. The lettuce is my favorite, Stark says afterward. Fraley concludes that the pepper changes the game if you think about fresh produce.

Changing the agricultural game is what Monsanto does. The company whose nameis synonymous with Big Ag has revolutionized the way we grow foodfor better or worse. Activists revile it for such mustache-twirling practices as suing farmers who regrow licensed seeds or filling the world with Roundup-resistant superweeds. Then theres Monsantos reputationscorned by some, celebrated by othersas the foremost purveyor of genetically modified commodity crops like corn and soybeans with DNA edited in from elsewhere, designed to have qualities nature didnt quite think of.

So its not particularly surprising that the company is introducing novel strains of familiar food crops, invented at Monsanto and endowed by their creators with powers and abilities far beyond what you usually see in the produce section. The lettuce is sweeter and crunchier than romaine and has the stay-fresh quality of iceberg. The peppers come in miniature, single-serving sizes to reduce leftovers. The broccoli has three times the usual amount of glucoraphanin, acompound that helps boost antioxidant levels. Starks department, the global trade division, came up with all of them.

Grocery stores are looking in the produce aisle for something that pops, that feels different, Avery says. And consumers are looking for the same thing. If the team is right, theyll know soon enough. Frescada lettuce, BellaFina peppers, and Benefort broccolicheery brand names trademarked to an all-but-anonymous Monsanto subsidiary called Seminisare rolling out at supermarkets across the US.

But heres the twist: The lettuce, peppers, and broccoliplus a melon and an onion, with a watermelon soon to followarent genetically modified at all. Monsanto created all these veggies using good old-fashioned crossbreeding, the same technology that farmers have been using to optimize crops for millennia. That doesnt mean they are low tech, exactly. Starks division is drawing on Monsantos accumulated scientific know-how to create vegetables that have all the advantages of genetically modified organisms without any of the Frankenfoods ick factor.

And thats a serious business advantage. Despite a gaping lack of evidence that genetically modified food crops harm human health, consumers have shown a marked resistance to purchasing GM produce (even as they happily consume products derived from genetically modified commodity crops). Stores like Whole Foods are planning to add GMO disclosures to their labels in a few years. State laws may mandate it even sooner.

See more here:
What Happens When Monsanto, the Master of Genetic Modification, Decides to Take Nature’s Path?

San Jose, California (PRWEB) January 20, 2014

Follow us on LinkedIn Designer babies are defined as babies with artificial genetic makeup selected through a combination of genetic engineering and in vitro fertilization to confirm inclusion or exclusion of specific traits. The term Designer Babies is not a scientific term, but is used by journalists and highlights the fact that parents could choose specific characteristics of their unborn child including physical appearance, character and sex. Advancements in genetic engineering and in vitro fertilization approaches, coupled with the need to lower the occurrence of genetic disorders in offspring, are driving interest in the concept of designer babies. Ethical issues related to commodification of children and genetic manipulation in human offspring, are however projected to present regulatory challenges in the advancement and commercialization of the concept of designer babies in the coming years.

The trend report titled Designer Babies announced by Global Industry Analysts Inc., is a focused research paper which provides cursory insights into the technology concept, its evolution, and future prospects. A part of GIAs new series of short research briefs on emerging technologies, this trend report highlights key enabling technologies including the development of Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD).

For more details about this trend report, please visit http://www.strategyr.com/TrendReport.asp?code=141062

About Global Industry Analysts, Inc. Global Industry Analysts, Inc., (GIA) is a leading publisher of off-the-shelf market research. Founded in 1987, the company currently employs over 800 people worldwide. Annually, GIA publishes more than 1300 full-scale research reports and analyzes 40,000+ market and technology trends while monitoring more than 126,000 Companies worldwide. Serving over 9500 clients in 27 countries, GIA is recognized today, as one of the world's largest and reputed market research firms.

Global Industry Analysts, Inc. Telephone: 408-528-9966 Fax: 408-528-9977 Email: press(at)StrategyR(dot)com Web Site: http://www.StrategyR.com/

###

Read more:
Advancements in Genetic Engineering to Modify Embryos Spur the Concept of Designer Babies, According to a New Trend ...

San Jose, CA (PRWEB) January 20, 2014

Follow us on LinkedIn Genes can be defined as the basic molecular units of heredity in a living organism, holding information on creating and maintaining the cells of an organism and passing genetic traits to its offspring. Radio controlled genes refers to remotely activating genes inside the human body through the use of electromagnetic waves to guide the movement of nanoparticles injected inside the body. As the next frontier of medical science, radio controlled genes is attracting immense R&D interest and investment, given its potential to offer non-invasive and non-pharmacological treatment possibilities. Using radio waves to control gene expression has the advantage of being safe as radio waves, unlike electrical waves, do not damage tissues. Advancements in nanobiotechnology and development of antibody coated metal nanoparticles as carriers to absorb radio frequency energy are expected to help drive growth in the market. Currently, being researched is the possibility of using radiowaves to induce insulin-gene expression and activate insulin production in the body to treat diabetes.

The trend report titled Radio-Controlled Genes announced by Global Industry Analysts Inc., is a focused research paper which provides cursory insights into the technology, its applications, and future prospects.

For more details about this trend report, please visit http://www.strategyr.com/TrendReport.asp?code=141011.

About Global Industry Analysts, Inc.

Global Industry Analysts, Inc., (GIA) is a leading publisher of off-the-shelf market research. Founded in 1987, the company currently employs over 800 people worldwide. Annually, GIA publishes more than 1300 full-scale research reports and analyzes 40,000+ market and technology trends while monitoring more than 126,000 Companies worldwide. Serving over 9500 clients in 27 countries, GIA is recognized today, as one of the world's largest and reputed market research firms.

Global Industry Analysts, Inc. Telephone: 408-528-9966 Fax: 408-528-9977 Email: press(at)StrategyR(dot)com Web Site: http://www.StrategyR.com/

The rest is here:
Developments in Nanobiotechnology Drive the Market for Radio-Controlled Genes, According to a New Trend Report ...

Synthetic biology, or breaking down life into its basic component parts to create enhanced biological systems, can be likened to writing software that enables life. Or genetic engineering on steroids. Whereas previous technologies may have introduced one, two, or a handful of genes into an organism, synthetic biology allows scientists and engineers at companies such as Ginkgo Bioworks, Fermentome, and Intrexon (NYSE: XON) to rebuild large swaths of an organism's genome -- or create an entirely new genome, and therefore organism -- from the ground up using the best traits offered by nature.

While some are turned off by the idea of tweaking organisms or altering nature, constructing synthetic genomes is akin to taking the building blocks of the physical world (atoms) to produce novel compounds (such as synthetic polymers) that enable the production of enhanced consumer products. Here the building blocks are genes, the novel creations are more efficient genomes and creatures, and the end products are the same everyday items produced from petroleum. The difference is that instead of transforming a petroleum feedstock with high heat and pressure in a chemical refinery, we'll be able to utilize biological pathways in sugar-consuming microbes to produce the same (or better) products in a sustainable and renewable process in a biorefinery.

Although it's easy to understand the applications of the field for the production of fuels and industrial chemicals, such as with the industrial biotech platforms of Amyris (NASDAQ: AMRS) and Solazyme (NASDAQ: SZYM) , understanding and harnessing the power of the genetic information found in nature extends far beyond chemicals. Synthetic biology can be used to make our food safer, give us working copies of broken genes to cure diseases, trick us into forgetting that we're addicted to nicotine, produce safer (and more) marijuana without plants, make agricultural products more efficient than ever before, and much, much more. Let's explore five unbelievable technologies made possible by synthetic biology to ensure we don't sell the field short or fail to recognize its tremendous potential.

1. Microbial factories for everyday productsWhen people say that industrial biotech companies are creating living factories by utilizing biological pathways in sugar-consuming microbes to produce everyday products, I don't think they quite understand the power -- or disruptiveness -- of that statement. Sure, engineers can tinker with genomes to create novel microbes that produce a fuel or high value chemical, but it barely scratches the surface of industrial biotech applications.

Amyris' first commercial-scale facility in Brazil feeds locally grown sugarcane to yeast to create premium fuels, cosmetics, lubricants, fragrances, and more. Image source: Amyris.

Consider that Amyris will be able to produce multiple molecules from the same microbes by simply altering environmental stresses inside its bioreactors. While it would take a continuous fermentation process (rather than a batch process with a defined beginning and end) to reap the full advantages, such microbes could help reduce risk related to scale-up today by introducing novel pathways into an organism that already grows for industrial purposes. Amyris won't be able to make an instant leap to full commercial scale for each new molecule, but it could conceivably do so more quickly.

It's a wild idea in the primitive stages of commercial deployment (multiple-molecule microbes could make their debut in 2014), but the future could be even wilder. As we further our relatively limited understanding of DNA, we'll be able to produce smaller and more efficient genomes that call on the same genes to produce multiple products. By the time we pack our bags for Mars, we'll probably be able to bring along a single test tube containing the ultimate microbial factory capable of producing fuels, pharmaceuticals, food, and polymer resins (for our 3-D printing factories) at the flip of a (genetic) switch.

2. Biosensors for food pathogensWe are surrounded by real-time security and protection systems. The smoke detector in your kitchen rests overhead as you make your morning coffee, you set your home's security system before you leave for work, and once you arrive there your computer reminds you that your antivirus software is out of date. So you may be surprised to know that, despite its importance, there is no comparable system in place for the nation's food system. Luckily, synthetic-biology company Sample6 has developed a solution that will enable food producers to mitigate risks in their production systems, which can reduce brand pressure from any number of potential sources in our fast-paced modern world.

Image source: Sample6.

The best current solution for detecting food pathogens is pretty archaic: Food producers swab equipment, work areas, and food itself, send samples to a lab, and then sit around for several days waiting for results. Most choose to ship product before results are confirmed to maximize shelf life, but on the rare occasion a pathogen is detected, well, it's a logistical nightmare to recall all products that may be associated with a particular production shift. Tests from Sample6 provide results and detect harmful pathogens within the same production shift -- enabling food producers to fix contamination issues quickly and stopping tainted products from entering the food supply. In the future the company will offer similar tests to grocery stores, hospitals and clinics for infectious microbes, and oil and gas companies for water monitoring.

Read more:
5 Unbelievable (but Real) Technologies Made Possible by Synthetic Biology

Genetic Engineering: Challenging our perspectives on reproduction by Dr. Gary Fritz

By: Wafeek Wahby

Read this article:
Genetic Engineering: Challenging our perspectives on reproduction by Dr. Gary Fritz - Video

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.

Originally posted here:
genetic engineering -- Encyclopedia Britannica

By Charles Gersbach, Assistant Professor, and Tom Katsouleas, Dean, Duke University's Pratt School of Engineering

Elaborate competitions to build the best robot or design cages to protect falling eggs have been a rite of passage for generations of engineering students. Today, there's a new contest with the same creativity and competitive spirit, but vastly more sophisticated projects--like mixing-and-matching bits of DNA to create new microorganisms that produce biofuels or costly medicines.

The International Genetically Engineered Machines (iGEM) competition challenges student teams to use cutting-edge tools from the new field of synthetic biology to design, build, and test genetically engineered organisms. This fall, 133 teams of students from universities from around the world participated, producing an incredible array of projects. Some engineered microorganisms to produce medicines, clean up environmental contaminants, or act as biosensors for toxins or other chemicals. Others created genetically engineered living board games or transformed otherwise stinky bacteria to smell like wintergreen. Our own Duke University iGEM team focused on engineering gene circuits in yeast to better understand how cells make decisions, such as whether to replicate or respond to an environmental stimulus; the circuits can also be used in biomanufacturing.

If these examples surprise you, you're not alone. As the New York Times observed, "iGEM has been grooming an entire generation of the world's brightest scientific minds to embrace synthetic biology's vision -- without anyone really noticing, before the public debates and regulations that typically place checks on such risky and ethically controversial new technologies have even started." But we think this kind of hands-on experimentation and experience is precisely the way to prepare the next generation of leaders who can help society reap the benefits and manage the risks of synthetic biology--and other fields, for that matter.

At a time when the discussion of the future of college education is largely focused on online teaching and massive open online courses (MOOCs), it is critical to recognize the importance of hands-on education that can only be provided in a dynamic research environment. As Matt Baron, a biomedical engineering student and member of the Duke iGEM team, says: "If I had simply studied synthetic biology but not participated in the iGEM competition, I would not appreciate the practical implementation of the theoretical concepts--or how synthetic biology can be used to solve complex problems across seemingly unrelated fields such as medicine, agriculture, manufacturing and computing. More importantly, I would have lost the opportunity to take ownership over a project along with my team members." By encouraging freedom and independence in project design and exposing students to a new and exciting field as it is developing, the iGEM competition provides a quality of education that clearly cannot be replicated through online teaching, but is critical in educating the next generation of scientists and engineers.

The iGEM competition also teaches participants the importance of considering broader implications of advances in synthetic biology, such as the safety and security of the engineered systems and ethical issues concerning genetic manipulation. All projects are supervised by university faculty mentors, and the iGEM competition stresses environmental and societal responsibility as primary judging criteria. Our iGEM team worked with Duke faculty in the Schools of Law and Public Policy to develop a report on intellectual property and synthetic biology, addressing concerns involving patenting of gene sequences and subsequent effects on basic research and the biotechnology industry. These students are not just learning science and engineering--they're being trained in aspects of philosophy, policy and business.

But synthetic biology is not just an academic exercise. The number of synthetic biology companies has tripled over the last four years, from 61 to 192. The global synthetic biology market was estimated to be worth $2.1 billion in 2012 and is expected to expand to $16.7 billion by 2018. At this rate, the development of this nascent field is rapidly outpacing the release of new textbooks or other conventional educational models--whereas the iGEM competition adapts at the speed of student creativity, providing a new model for training that's already proving its worth. Many successful iGEM projects have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, and several iGEM teams have even patented their inventions, creating opportunities to complement their science and engineering training with entrepreneurship experiences.

Educational paradigms must evolve to train the next generation of scientists and engineers, going beyond cultivating creativity and inventiveness to developing social consciousness and the mindset to face the grand challenges for the 21st century. The iGEM competition provides an excellent blueprint for how to achieve these goals by involving students not only in finding the right answers, but asking the right questions.

The rest is here:
Charles Gersbach, Tom Katsouleas: Fun with genetic engineering

2014 1 3 ZOC Eating Genetic Engineering
Zarrakan Productions is an umbrella group for many YouTube shows, and businesses both inside and outside of Second Life. Please go to http://zarrakan.com/ fo...

By: Zarrakan

Read more:
2014 1 3 ZOC Eating Genetic Engineering - Video

Fewer than 250 adults may be left in West Africa, and those big cats are confined to less than 1 percent of their historic range.

The new study, detailed in the journal PLOS ONE, suggests that without dramatic conservation efforts, three of the four West African lion populations could become extinct in the next five years, with further declines in the one remaining population, study co-author Philipp Henschel, the lion program survey coordinator for Panthera, a global wildcat conservation organization, wrote in an email. [In Photos: The Biggest Lions on Earth]

The majestic lion once roamed throughout West Africa, from Nigeria to Senegal.

But as people have converted wild lands to pastureland, hunted the lion's traditional prey antelopes, gazelles, wildebeest, buffalos and zebras and gotten into conflicts with the animals, the big cat population has plummeted in West Africa.

Cash-strapped West African governments have put little money into lion conservation, in part because "wildlife tourism is quasi-absent in West Africa," Henschel said.

And research institutions have similarly neglected the region.

"Like wildlife tourists, most international research institutions and conservation organizations active in Africa also flock to the iconic game parks in East and southern Africa, meaning that lions faced a silent demise in West Africa over the past decades," Henschel told LiveScience.

Massive Survey

To remedy that, Henschel and his colleagues recently completed a massive, six-year survey of West Africa's lions, using remote cameras, interviews with people and counts of lion tracks. The survey, carried out between October 2006 and May 2012, builds on a smaller study done last year, which found shrinking savannas for lions in the region.

About 400 adult and juvenile lions existed in the region. And the wild cats, which were originally thought to have inhabited 21 separate regions, actually exist in just four. Their range is now confined to pockets in Senegal, Nigeria and the borderlands between Benin, Niger and Burkina Faso.

View original post here:
Lions Face Extinction in West Africa

I have frequently pointed out that pharmaceutical companies acknowledge that animal models are not predictive for human response in terms of efficacy or toxicity. More evidence for this position comes from Robert G. Hunter in an article in Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News.[1] Hunter: Having developed over the past 20 years into a global market recently estimated at $5 billion, in vitro and in silico products and services are now about the same size as the in vivo services (contract research organization) industry. If animal models worked well, there would be no need for industry to look at other options. Pharma does not love bunnies. Pharma loves money.

Matthew Herper addressed the problems in drug development in an article in Forbes.[2] Herper:

Theres one factor that, as much as anything else, determines how many medicines are invented, what diseases they treat, and, to an extent, what price patients must pay for them: the cost of inventing and developing a new drug, a cost driven by the uncomfortable fact than 95% of the experimental medicines that are studied in humans fail to be both effective and safe.

Animal models are relied on for the evaluation of both efficacy and safety.[3-9] Herper continues:

A new analysis conducted at Forbes puts grim numbers on these costs. A company hoping to get a single drug to market can expect to have spent $350 million before the medicine is available for sale. In part because so many drugs fail, large pharmaceutical companies that are working on dozens of drug projects at once spend $5 billion per new medicine. . . . This is crazy. For sure its not sustainable, says Susan Desmond-Hellmann, the chancellor at UCSF and former head of development at industry legend Genentech, where she led the testing of cancer drugs like Herceptin and Avastin. Increasingly, while no one knows quite what to do instead, any businessperson would look at this and say, You cant make a business off this. This is not a good investment. I say that knowing that this has been the engine of wonderful things.

This, in part, is why disease-specific drugs like Kalydeco, a drug for cystic fibrosis (CF) patients that have a specific genetic mutation, costs $294,000 per patient per year.

The reason animal models fail for drug development is that animals and humans are evolved systems that are differently complex. While morphological similarities exist, very small differences in the genetic make-up between species and between individuals of the same species means the predictive value for extrapolation is nil in the real world. (For more on this see Trans-Species Modeling Theory.) Moreover, if the concept of evolved, complex systems invalidates trans-species extrapolation in drug development, it is going to do the same when trans-species extrapolation involves any perturbation that affects higher levels of organization. So just based on the evidence from drug development we can safely say that disease research on mice, monkeys, or dogs is not going to result in knowledge that has predictive value for human patients. The literature confirms this.[10-21][[22]p19-33, 73-77] [23-25]

Compare the above to this recent statement from Michael E. Goldberg published in the Wisconsin State Journal: Nearly every medical advance from the last century is a product of responsible animal research, and animal models will continue to be important to medical progress. . . . Activists who claim animal research does not benefit humans are wrong. Animals are essential to medical progress in all fields of human disease. [26] This illustrates the dichotomy regarding animal models. Dr Goldberg is an animal modeler who does basic research, which he sells as applied research. Not surprisingly, Goldberg thinks animal modeling is great. He does not suffer loss of income or prestige when the knowledge from animal modeling fails to translate to human patients.

Pharma on the other hand, can actually measure the success or lack thereof of animal models in the form of drugs successfully brought to market and Pharma says it doesnt work. Remember, Pharma is a business and they do not care how they develop new drugs they just want to develop new drugs so they can make money. Also remember that there are not two different theories of evolution: one for drug development and another for basic science research or basic research masquerading as applied research. If animal modeling in drug development fails to be consistent with evolutionary biology, then it fails in general as well.

Image courtesy of Wkipedia Common http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chromosomes_mutations-en.svg

Original post:
There is Only One Evolution