Category Archives: Transhuman News

Natural genetic engineering allowed plants to move from water to land, according to a new study by an international group of scientists from Canada, China, France, Germany and Russia.

This is one of the most important events in the evolution of life on this planetwithout which we as a species would not exist, said University of Alberta genomicist and study co-investigator Gane Ka-Shu Wong.

The movement of life from water to landcalled terrestrializationbegan with plants and was followed by animals and then, of course, humans. This study establishes how that first step took place.

The movement of plants from water to land was made possible when genes from soil bacteria were transferred to algae through a process called horizontal gene transfer. Unlike vertical gene transfer, such as the transfer of DNA from parent to child, horizontal gene transfer occurs between different species.

For hundreds of millions of years, green algae lived in freshwater environments that periodically fell dry, such as small puddles, riverbeds and trickling rocks, explained Michael Melkonian of the University of Duisburg-Essen in Germany. These algae mingled with and received key genes from soil bacteria that helped them and their descendants to cope with the harsh terrestrial environment and eventually evolve into the land plant flora that we see today.

The study is part of an international project focused on sequencing the genomes of more than 10,000 plant species. The discovery was made in the process of sequencing two particular algaeincluding a newly identified species called Spirogloea muscicola.

The approach that we used, phylogenomics, is a powerful method to pinpoint the underlying molecular mechanism of evolutionary novelty, said Shifeng Cheng, first author and principal investigator from the Agricultural Genome Institute at Shenzhen at the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences.

The study, "Genomes of Subaerial Zygnematophyceae Provide Insights Into Land Plant Evolution, was published in Cell.

Read this article:
Genes borrowed from bacteria allowed plants to move from sea to land - Folio - University of Alberta

Opposition to genetically modified (GM) crops advanced by organic activist groups (and official organizations like the US National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) or the EUs European Court of Justice) is based on the claim that recombinant DNA technology introduces genes from one species into another. Thats not natural, these critics contend.

By this definition, though, gene-editing techniques like CRISPR/Cas9 are natural: Theyre part of the immune system in many species of bacteria. Scientists are now using these tools to make specific changes (or edits) to the DNA of food crops and animals to boost their nutritional content or protect them from disease, without adding foreign genes to their genomes.

Therefore, CRISPR-enhanced plants and animals could be utilized by organic growers and ranchers, right? So far, the answer is nobut some dissension in the ranks is starting to appear. While the organic industry generally remains opposed to all forms of genetic engineering, the sustainability benefits of gene-editing techniques like CRISPR have convinced several high-profile organic farmers to come out in support of the technology. Their opposition to the prevailing wisdom espoused by the NOSB suggests that organic agriculture could slowly begin to abandon its hard-line prohibition on biotechnology.

Not needed or wanted in organic agriculture

When CRISPR-Cas9 was introduced as a faster, easier way to edit genetic sequences (other techniques like TALENS and ZFN have been around but are more cumbersome), supporters of the technique in agriculture touted it as a way around organic farmings rules about foreign-ness. And many NGOs took a lets take a closer look approach, not immediately condemning the technique.

However, things changed after the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) in 2018 declared that:

USDA does not regulate or have any plans to regulate plants that could otherwise have been developed through traditional breeding techniques as long as they are not plant pests or developed using plant pests. This includes a set of new techniques that are increasingly being used by plant breeders to produce new plant varieties that are indistinguishable from those developed through traditional breeding methods. The newest of these methods, such as genome editing, expand traditional plant breeding tools because they can introduce new plant traits more quickly and precisely, potentially saving years or even decades in bringing needed new varieties to farmers.

Earlier this year, USDA Under Secretary of Agriculture Greg Ibach testified on Capitol Hill that organic growers could benefit from this development as well:

I think there is the opportunity to open the discussion to consider whether it is appropriate for some of these new technologies, that include gene editing, to be eligible to be used to enhance organic production.

These two statements didnt sit well with pro-organic groups. The Cornucopia Institute, a Wisconsin-based organic advocacy outfit, has been organizing a petition drive among similar groups in opposition to allowing any type of genetic modification in food. On its website, the Institute stated:

organic seed promotes biodiversity, democratizes collective resources, celebrates seed quality over quantity, and preserves agrarian tradition. GMO seeds are not needed or wanted in organic agriculture. In a 2017 survey conducted by Natural Grocers, 70% of respondents said they buy organic to avoid GMOs. Although advocates of GMOs claim that these crops will help farmers respond more quickly to environmental and pest threats, it takes years of testing to ensure the crops will perform as expected.

They have some support. The Organic Consumers Association, a trade group representing thousands of organic food retailers, asked its members to sign a letter asking the National Organic Standards Board to reject all forms of genetic engineering, and to continually update the NOSBs definition of excluded methods to keep up with the new forms of genetic engineering.

The NOSB in October voted against adopting gene editing (mutagenesis via intro methods), and previous decisions (most recently April 2019) have specifically excluded CRISPR, ZFN, TALENS and other gene-editing technologies from the organic designation.

Opposition in the ranks

But the traditional arguments put forth by organic, anti-GM NGOs are falling flat among some organically inclined farmers and scientists. Klaas Martens, an organic farmer of 1,600 acres of grains and vegetables in New York (and a supplier of Dan Barbers Blue Hill restaurant and Row 7 seed companywho was the subject of a recent New York Times op-ed), told attendees of the 2018 CRISPRcon gene-editing convention that he wouldnt have a problem with using gene editing, as long as the crops mimicked naturally occurring varieties. He told the New Food Economy:

If its used in the same way that current products are, then I wouldnt have any interest. (comparing gene-edited crops to Roundup-ready crops, which are genetically spliced with plant and bacterial DNA to resist herbicides) If it could be used in a way that enhanced the natural system, and mimicked it, then I would want to use it. But it would definitely have to be case by case.

Earlier, in 2017, Urs Niggli, director of the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture, told Greenpeace Magazine:

New techniques are currently revolutionizing genetic research. They allow extremely precise changes to the genome. This so-called genetic surgery changes the debate about the risks and chances of interventions in the genome.

For farmers including organic farmers the new method offers many opportunities: plans could be bred that better adapt to difficult environmental conditions such as drought, ground wetness or salinization. The fine root architecture could be improved so that roots absorb more nutrients such as phosphorous or nitrogen from the soil. Tolerance of resistance to diseases and pests, as well as storage and quality of food and feed could also be improved.

Scientists believe that the small changes made by CRISPR/Cas to the plants own genes, which are indistinguishable from a spontaneous or natural mutation, pose not risks. The situation is different when the method introduces foreign genes or when it causes entire populations to be eradicated.

Tom Willey, an organic farmer in California, also supports the organic industrys adoption of gene editing, as part of the effort to restore biodiversity. He told University of California, Berkeley postdoctoral scholar Rebecca Mackelprang:

I see circumstances under which it could be useful for short-cutting a process that for traditional breeding might take many plant generations.

Gene editing, then, could:

Reach back into genomes of the wild ancestors of crop species to recapture genetic materiallost due to breeding for other traits, mainly higher yields. In the light of the urgency posed by climate change, we might wisely employ CRISPR to accelerate such work.

While many organic advocates argue that adjusting to climate change, drought, salinity and pests can be done without GM (or synthetic chemicals), some organic farmers and industry participants obviously dont share this optimism. Currently, it costs more than $130 million and up to seven years to get a genetically engineered (or edited) crop approved for use in the United States (in Europe, its now essentially impossible thanks to the Green party influence on the EU and EU regulators strict adherence to the precautionary principle). This means that small businesses and academics not attached to large universities or industrial labs are shut out. It also means a host of developed crops that could be used to handle tomorrows challenges are waiting in the lab.

And thats a problem. CRISPR alone has resulted in the creation of a wide range of food thats more nutritious than conventionally (and organically) grown predecessors. These include soybean oil with less trans fat and and more oleic acids, a high-fiber wheat, a type of gluten-free wheat, as well as, as economist Steven Cerier wrote in a recent Genetic Literacy Project article:

Rice, wheat, legumes and several vegetables that have up to 60% more protein than existing varieties. Significantly, the amount of protein is increased at the expense of starch and other carbohydrates, thus increasing the nutritional density of foods made from these crops.

In addition to better nutrition, CRISPR and other techniques can produce these foods with fewer inputs (fertilizer, pesticides, even just plain raw land and water) than conventional and organic foods. CRISPR and other editing techniques are being used to produce crops that are more tolerant to drought, heat, and other symptoms of climate change. Relying solely on organic techniques has not resulted in any of these innovations.

Andrew Porterfield is a writer and editor, and has worked with numerous academic institutions, companies and non-profits in the life sciences.BIO. Follow him on Twitter@AMPorterfield

More:
Will CRISPR's promise force the organic industry to reconsider its opposition to gene-edited crops? - Genetic Literacy Project

SAN DIEGO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--CB Therapeutics is a leading synthetic biotechnology company focused on the research and development of cellular agriculture for the production of high-value molecules, compounds and rare ingredients. CB Therapeutics has been awarded a patent on Oct 10, 2019, titled Isolated codon optimized Nucleic Acids. This patent covers inventions related to the optimization of the entire biosynthetic cannabinoid pathway, from precursors to the final cannabinoid product.

We are excited about this patent award, as it covers the fundamentals of using genetic engineering tools for the production of cannabinoids in many different types of hosts and systems, ranging from bacteria, yeast, to cell-free expression systems, said Dr. Jacob Vogan, CSO of CB Therapeutics.

The patent allows CB Therapeutics to effectively use genetic engineering techniques and tools to enable high yield production of cannabinoids and their analogs while supporting the ability to integrate their platform into many hosts and systems seamlessly, with specific protocols for such techniques. The patent will also allow for the precise control of individual levels of cannabinoids and terpenes in the final product, ensuring the highest levels of quality and specificity for the needs of customers developing cannabinoid products and therapeutics. This cellular agriculture or fermentative biosynthesis technology replaces unsustainable agricultural techniques to grow hemp or cannabis and inefficient extraction processes to isolate CBD and other rare cannabinoids.

Our team of talented scientists and engineers are dedicated to developing new methods and systems to advance synthetic genomics and bio-engineering. Their serious dedication to innovative science is beginning to pay significant dividends for the advancement of our platform. This has resulted in a rapidly growing IP portfolio as we continue to file patent applications directed towards product recovery, optimization techniques to increase yields and other methods used to improve the overall production process, said Sher Butt, CEO of CB Therapeutics.

About CB Therapeutics

CB Therapeutics is currently producing high value molecules, compounds and rare ingredients from simple sugars utilizing yeast and the process of fermentation. CB Therapeutics expertise in synthetic genomics and bio-engineering has significantly advanced its proprietary production platform of yeasts, enzymes and production processes. After more than four years of research and development, the CB Therapeutics team is able to produce a broad range of phytochemicals faster, utilizing fewer resources, at greater yields and with more purity, consistency and efficiency than competing platforms. A 7000+ sf fully-licensed commercial batch facility in San Diego County, California includes research labs, offices and a production facility for laboratory scale and pilot production runs and is equipped with a suite of bench-top and large-scale fermenters for multiple biosynthetic production applications.

Follow this link:
CB Therapeutics Continues to Advance its Intellectual Property Portfolio with New Patent Awards - Business Wire

After a super-fast DNA test developed by scientists at Imperial College, Helen Rumbelow trialled their new gadget it lets people choose food to suit their genes

The Times,November 12 2019, 12:01am

Will it be my grandmothers cancer, or the family weakness for Alzheimers that will get me in the end? Our genes contain instructions for our death as well as our life, but they have always played dumb. Until now.

Now I can wear a wristband with my genetic vulnerability for fatal diseases coded into it. Which is by turns futuristic and kind of terrifying. For me, its like shaking hands with my heart attack scheduled for 2050: Nice to get to know you at last!

Weird, but I soon get used to it when I take the wristband shopping. Its the opposite experience to taking a toddler, endlessly pestering for sweeties, to the supermarket. When I aim the tiny scanner of the DNA Nudge wristband

Want to read more?

Subscribe now and get unlimited digital access on web and our smartphone and tablet apps, free for your first month.

Go here to read the rest:
DNA Nudge app review: can this wristband tell you the best diet for your genes? - The Times

Doomsday is a beast everyone should fear. It is the creature that was able to kill the Man of Steel himself, Superman. Storm Collectibles is bringing this creature alive yet again with their newestInjustice 2figure it. This figure will be 1/12 scale and will come in at a whopping 10 inches tall. He is completely detailed and ready for action. He does come with two separate had portraits as well as three pairs of hands. He is decked out in spikes in the sporting some delightful green shorts. This figure looks quite articulated and it would go perfect with the otherInjustice 2figures already released. This Doomsday figure is a must-have for any Injusticefan or fans of the Kryptonian killing machine, Doomsday.

TheInjustice 21/12 scale Doomsday figure from Storm Collectibles will be priced at $95. This monster is set to roam the earth yet again in the first quarter of 2020. Pre-orders for him are already live and you can find him here. Dont forget to check out the otherInjustice 2figures already released from Storm Collectibles including Darkseid, Bane, and Lobo.

Superman. Im here to kill you. Is this a bad time?

DOOMSDAY is a rampaging, seemingly mindless, murdering monster who killed Superman. He is the result of Kryptonian genetic engineering gone awry. In The Death of Superman comic storyline in which he first appeared, Doomsday mysteriously bashed his way out of a metallic holding cell miles underground, dug his way up, and began senselessly killing and destroying everything he saw. His motives were initially unknown, but his nature was obvious; He was incredibly powerful, merciless, and seemingly unstoppable. He easily defeated the justice league before confronting Superman.

Features:

Release Date: Q1 2020

loves Marvel and the MCU. Has all of the Funko Pops for the MCU. He loves Tobey Spider-Man and insists The Phantom Menace is pure gold. He is still recovering from the aftermath of Avengers Endgame.

Continued here:
Doomsday Has Arrived with the New Storm Collectibles Figure - Bleeding Cool News

Bioethicist Jacob M. Appel wants the bioethics movement to educate your children about the policy and personal conundrums that involve medical care and health public policy. He claims that most of us give little thought to issues that may arise, such as end-of-life care and prenatal screening. Then, when an issue does come up, people are unprepared to make wise and informed decisions.

From, The Silent Crisis of Bioethics Illiteracy, published in Scientific American:

Change will only occur when bioethics is broadly incorporated into school curricula [at an early age] and when our nations thought leaders begin to place emphasis on the importance of reflecting meaningfully in advance upon these issues

Often merely recognizing such issues in advance is winning the greater part of the battle. Just as we teach calculus and poetry while recognizing that most students are unlikely to become mathematicians or bards, bioethics education offers a versatile skill set that can be applied to issues well outside the scientific arena. At present, bioethics is taught sporadically at various levels, but not with frequency, and even obtaining comprehensive data on its prevalence is daunting.

Is this really an appropriate field for children? Consider the issues with which bioethics grapples and whether elementary-, middle-, and high-school children have the maturity to grapple with them in a meaningful and deliberative way (not to mention, the acute potential that teachers will push their students in particular ideological directions):

Even if some students are mature enough to grapple with these issues thoughtfully, the next problem is that bioethics is extremely contentious and wholly subjective. Its not science, but focuses on questions of philosophy, morality, ideology, religion, etc.. Moreover, there is a dominant point-of-view among the most prominent voices in the field e.g., those who teach at leading universities and would presumably be tasked with writing the educational texts. These perspectives would unquestionably often stand in opposition to the moral values taught young students by their parents.

Appel is typical of the genus (if you will). He has called for paying women who plan to abort to gestate longer in their pregnancy so that more dead fetuses will be available sufficiently developed to be harvested for organs and used in experiments. He advocates mandatory termination of care for patients who are diagnosed as persistently unconscious to save resources for what he considers more important uses. He has also supported assisted suicide for the mentally ill.

Indeed, activists without a modifier like Catholic or pro-life before the term bioethicist are overwhelmingly very liberal politically and intensely secular in their approach. Most support an almost unlimited right to abortion, the legalization of assisted suicide, genetic engineering (once safe), and accept distinguishing between human beings and persons, that is, they deny universal human equality.

Some wish to repeal the dead donor rule that requires organ donors to be dead before their body parts are extracted an idea that admittedly remains somewhat controversial in the field. Most mainstream bioethicists deny the sanctity of human life and many think that an animal with a greater cognitive capacity has greater value than a human being with lower cognition. Add in the sectors general utilitarianish approach to health-care issues, such as supporting rationing, and the potential for propagandizing becomes clear.

With such opinions, often passionately held, how long would it be before early bioethics education devolved into rank proselytizing? But Wesley, Appel might say, the classes would be objective! Every side would be given equal and a respectful and accurate presentation.

Sure. If you believe that, you must think current sex education curricula and high school classes in social justice present all sides of those issues dispassionately and without attempt to persuade the students to particular points of view and cultural perspectives.

I have a deal for Appel: In-depth courses in bioethics should not be taught before college unless I get to write the textbooks! I promise to be objective and fairly present all sides. Honest!

Do you think he and his mainstream colleagues would approve of that deal?

Neither do I. And we shouldnt go along with his idea for the very same reason.

Photo credit:cherylt23 viaPixabay.

Cross-posted at The Corner.

Read more:
Bioethics Coming to Elementary and High Schools? - Discovery Institute