| |
| Genetically Engineered Food |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| Obviously |
 Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 11:15 pm Post subject: Genetically Engineered Food |
 |
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 14 Aug 2007
Posts: 1110
Location: Norway
|
It seems that genetically engineered food poses a great risk when not done properly. I don't know how rich corporation do these gene manipulations, but according to studies and reports etc, the results are bad. I can only speculate that there were no proper trials to examine potential risk of certain manipulations, only that they chose what seemed to work without proper research, or we simply are still ignorant to some extent in this sort of technology. I'm not sure.
This article here is why I brought up this thread though:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_637.cfm
To be more specific, there's a detail I don't completely understand which my curiousity must have answered.
To quote what I'm talking about:
| From Above Link wrote: |
But one study on the pat gene raises all sorts of red flags. German scientist Hans-Heinrich Kaatz demonstrated that the pat gene can transfer into the DNA of gut bacteria. He found his evidence in young bees that had been fed pollen from glufosinate-tolerant canola plants. The pat gene transferred into the bacteria and yeast inside the bees' intestines. Kaatz said, "This happened rarely, but it did happen." Although no studies have looked at whether pat genes end up in human gut bacteria, the only human GM-feeding study ever conducted did show that genetic material can transfer to our gut bacteria. This study, published in 2004, confirmed that portions of the Roundup-tolerant gene in soybeans transferred to microorganisms within the human digestive tract.
|
If you see in bold, you might get an idea of what I'm interested in.
How does genetic information get transferred to the bacteria? I want to know the specifics 
Edit:
And do feel free to talk about genetically engineered food in general as well. I don't mind.
_________________
You can't determine what's good and what's bad before you've seen both extremes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| i_feel_tiredsleepy |
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Masters Degree
Joined: 21 Mar 2008
Posts: 589
Location: Montreal
|
It depends on how the genetic manipulation of the plant was done. They can do it in a very high-tech expensive way, or they can use Agrobacterium tumefaciens, which has the ability to insert plasmids into certain types of plants. Since this is a bacterial plasmid, I imagine other bacteria in the gut could pick it up and be transformed by it as well.
(This is just reasoning on my part and I have no research or experiments to back it up lol, I'm sure if you looked up the paper they manage, the entomologist probably proposes a possibility)
As a student of microbiology my knowledge of plants is pretty basic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Obviously |
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 12:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 14 Aug 2007
Posts: 1110
Location: Norway
|
| i_feel_tiredsleepy wrote: |
It depends on how the genetic manipulation of the plant was done. They can do it in a very high-tech expensive way, or they can use Agrobacterium tumefaciens, which has the ability to insert plasmids into certain types of plants. Since this is a bacterial plasmid, I imagine other bacteria in the gut could pick it up and be transformed by it as well.
(This is just reasoning on my part and I have no research or experiments to back it up lol, I'm sure if you looked up the paper they manage, the entomologist probably proposes a possibility)
As a student of microbiology my knowledge of plants is pretty basic. |
I think this is it. What I don't understand is how the bacteria pics up this plasmid. I thought that the plasmid became a part of the plants DNA. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something here. Isn't genes supposed to be a universal thing? How does the bacteria recognize and copy/take/pick up these genes which are now a part of the plants DNA? 
_________________
You can't determine what's good and what's bad before you've seen both extremes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| paralith |
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 10:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 06 Jun 2007
Posts: 1041
Location: Washington, DC
|
| Obviously wrote: |
| I think this is it. What I don't understand is how the bacteria pics up this plasmid. I thought that the plasmid became a part of the plants DNA. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something here. Isn't genes supposed to be a universal thing? How does the bacteria recognize and copy/take/pick up these genes which are now a part of the plants DNA? |
The only way a new gene would actually get incorporated into an organism's DNA is through retroviral insertion. Most transgenic techniques involve inserting a new gene into a plasmid, which is a single circle of DNA, and then inserting that plasmid into the nucleus of an embryo (for animals) or a protoplast (for plants), so that all the resulting organism's cells contain that plasmid. But it is not incorporated into the organism's actual DNA. It's still in that separate little ring.
Plasmids are originally from bacteria - that is how their genomes are constructed, in a circle of DNA. Bacteria also have the ability to take up pieces of genetic material, including other plasmids, from their environment. So, if you eat a piece of food whose cells' nuclei all contain this transgenic plasmid, and the cells are broken down in your stomach, releasing the plasmid, and if the plasmid or at least a piece of it containing the gene survives intact to your intestines, then the bacteria there may pick it up.
_________________
Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
~Jean-Paul Sartre
Monkeys in Clothes - hosted by SFN blogs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| KALSTER |
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 8:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Cosmic Wizard
Joined: 08 Sep 2007
Posts: 2060
Location: South Africa
|
| Quote: |
| Plasmids are originally from bacteria - that is how their genomes are constructed, in a circle of DNA. Bacteria also have the ability to take up pieces of genetic material, including other plasmids, from their environment. So, if you eat a piece of food whose cells' nuclei all contain this transgenic plasmid, and the cells are broken down in your stomach, releasing the plasmid, and if the plasmid or at least a piece of it containing the gene survives intact to your intestines, then the bacteria there may pick it up. |
Could this aid an animal with the digestion of a new food source you think? Maybe intestinal bacteria have evolved to be able to accept and incorporate plasmids more readily, both aiding their and the host's survival in the event of the forced (or experimental) addition of new food sources to an animal's diet? Intestinal bacteria gets transferred from the animals parents in most cases, maybe further helping the addition of new food sources along by providing a mechanism for a fairly unencumbered evolutionary train? Sorry if this is deemed off-topic
_________________
"Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| coltbishop |
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 9:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 33
|
| KALSTER wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Plasmids are originally from bacteria - that is how their genomes are constructed, in a circle of DNA. Bacteria also have the ability to take up pieces of genetic material, including other plasmids, from their environment. So, if you eat a piece of food whose cells' nuclei all contain this transgenic plasmid, and the cells are broken down in your stomach, releasing the plasmid, and if the plasmid or at least a piece of it containing the gene survives intact to your intestines, then the bacteria there may pick it up. |
Could this aid an animal with the digestion of a new food source you think? Maybe intestinal bacteria have evolved to be able to accept and incorporate plasmids more readily, both aiding their and the host's survival in the event of the forced (or experimental) addition of new food sources to an animal's diet? Intestinal bacteria gets transferred from the animals parents in most cases, maybe further helping the addition of new food sources along by providing a mechanism for a fairly unencumbered evolutionary train? Sorry if this is deemed off-topic |
Interesting idea! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| paralith |
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 7:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 06 Jun 2007
Posts: 1041
Location: Washington, DC
|
| KALSTER wrote: |
| Could this aid an animal with the digestion of a new food source you think? Maybe intestinal bacteria have evolved to be able to accept and incorporate plasmids more readily, both aiding their and the host's survival in the event of the forced (or experimental) addition of new food sources to an animal's diet? Intestinal bacteria gets transferred from the animals parents in most cases, maybe further helping the addition of new food sources along by providing a mechanism for a fairly unencumbered evolutionary train? Sorry if this is deemed off-topic |
Most if not all bacteria, not just gut bacteria, have this ability, so I'm fairly certain it greatly predates the symbiotic incorporation of bacteria into the guts of animals. But in general, it most likely originally evolved for a similar purpose to the one you describe, to increase variation in their genome so that they have a greater potential to adapt to changes in their environment.
In the lab where I work I have induced E. coli bacteria to take up a plasmid. We usually do this by mixing the plasmid in a tube with the bacteria in it, and then heat-shocking the tube. This simulates a sudden, potentially dangerous change in environmental conditions, and reliably causes the bacteria to search for genetic fragments outside of themselves. Heat shocking isn't always necessary but it is one of the most common methods.
_________________
Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
~Jean-Paul Sartre
Monkeys in Clothes - hosted by SFN blogs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Obviously |
| Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 1:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 14 Aug 2007
Posts: 1110
Location: Norway
|
Sorry for the late response.
Let's see if I got it now...
The plasmid is inserted to a protoplast and stays there with the organisms DNA, separate. With just inserting the plasmid into a nucleus, it automatically has a function?
It actually makes a little sense. The plasmid is recognized to be normal genetic information inside the nucleus then?
_________________
You can't determine what's good and what's bad before you've seen both extremes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| paralith |
| Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 1:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 06 Jun 2007
Posts: 1041
Location: Washington, DC
|
| Obviously wrote: |
The plasmid is inserted to a protoplast and stays there with the organisms DNA, separate. With just inserting the plasmid into a nucleus, it automatically has a function?
It actually makes a little sense. The plasmid is recognized to be normal genetic information inside the nucleus then? |
Of course. The designers of the plasmid make sure to include all the necessary promoter sequences with the transgene, so that the molecules in the nucleus that direct gene expression can recognize and work with that transgene.
For example, the TRE promoter is a common mammalian expression sequence - stick that in front of a gene, and stick the combination in any mammalian cells, and the gene will be expressed. At the very least, mRNA will definitely be transcribed. Stick the combination in fish cells, and it will be largely ignored.
_________________
Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
~Jean-Paul Sartre
Monkeys in Clothes - hosted by SFN blogs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| i_feel_tiredsleepy |
| Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Masters Degree
Joined: 21 Mar 2008
Posts: 589
Location: Montreal
|
Well the Agrobacterium tumefaciens plasmid is a very interesting bacteria. It is the only bacteria I know of that inserts plasmids into eukaryotes. Most Agrobacterium species are in symbiotic relationships with plants, but tumefaciens is capably of inserting the Ti plasmid which carries a plant recognized promoter sequence and in it's natural form the plasmid encodes oncogenes that produce a tumor on the plant, and it also encodes for the formation of a glycoprotein only Agrobacterium tumefaciens can utilize. So, it forces the host plant to funnel carbohydrates to it, and it promotes the proliferation of the infected cells. It's very interesting.
In GMO's the pathological nature of the plasmid is removed, and it is inserted into an embryonic stem cell. The plant promoter, and origin of replication remain so the plasmid is propogated in the plant. Now, what I find interesting is why wouldn't these plasmids have the bacterial promoters and origins of replication removed so that they no longer work in bacteria.
Edit: After some digging, The Royal Commision on Genetic Modification (sponsored by the British Government) found this.
"Various submitters described a case of apparent horizontal gene transfer of a herbicide resistance gene into the intestinal microflora of honeybees. The Pacific Institute of Resource Management [IP84] said:
The German Television station ZDF reported on Sunday May 21, 2000 that a German researcher found a gene transfer from genetically engineered rapeseed to bacteria and fungi in the gut of honeybees. Professor Hans-Heinrich Kaatz from the Institut fĂĽr Bienenkunde (Institute for Bee Research) at the University of Jena experimented during the last three years with honeybees on an experimental field with transgenic rapeseed in Saxony, Germany.
The rapeseed was engineered to resist the herbicide glufosinate. Professor Kaatz built nets in the field with the transgenic rapeseed and let the bees fly freely within the net. At the beehives, he installed pollen traps in order to sample the pollen loads from the bees’ hind legs as they entered the hive. This pollen was fed to young honeybees in the laboratory. Professor Kaatz then took the intestine out of the young bees and spread the contents on growth medium to grow the microorganisms. He probed the microorganisms for the pat-gene, the gene that confers resistance to glufosinate. In some bacteria and also in a yeast he found the pat-gene. This indicates that the gene from the genetically engineered rapeseed was transferred in the bee’s gut to the microbes.
Dr Beatrix Tappeser described this result as a “clear indication of horizontal transfer which has been, and is still, characterised as highly improbable”. This case became a rallying point around which the discussions of horizontal gene transfer flowed. However Professor Klaus Ammann suggested that the results described were far from conclusive. Professor Ammann stated that he knew Professor Kaatz’s work well and was “one of the committee members to revise his projects”. He told the Commission that the research was a long way from being completed and had never been published in a scientific peer-reviewed journal, although Dr Tappeser stated, “Professor Kaatz had submitted his research to the science journal, Nature, but they had refused to accept it”. Professor Ammann also considered that there was “no proof that this ... gene is not coming from normal sources”. Under cross-examination from Greenpeace [IP82], Professor Ammann denied that horizontal gene transfer had ever been shown to be a significant risk:
There have been at least 100 experiments conducted to prove that there is horizontal gene transfer from a higher organism like [a] flowering plant to bacteria, and it has not been proven. And, I must say I am appalled by Greenpeace Europe who, on the basis of two lines in an announcement of the German TV channel, just made a big story out of it. I think that’s not the way we should proceed ... I can understand concerns, but I cannot understand blowing up a case which has not been scientifically proven. ... I think everybody in this room should be concerned about horizontal gene transfer, but it just simply doesn’t occur, you know. And, in many cases, where it would be really interesting to know it occurs, there have been done lots of experiments and nothing has been proven, nothing. The scientific world awaits the publication of the final results of Professor Kaatz’s research with interest. Until then, this remains an unproven case of horizontal gene transfer between a plant and intestinal microorganisms."
It seems that this may not actually occur, there could be some potential here, but the research is as yet unfinished. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Obviously |
| Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 3:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 14 Aug 2007
Posts: 1110
Location: Norway
|
So a bacteria can, in rare cases, pick up a gene from a plasmid which it doesn't recognize? Can this be due to selection pressure (and something else?) or have I misunderstood something here?
_________________
You can't determine what's good and what's bad before you've seen both extremes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Heliopolis |
| Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 4:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Junior
Joined: 09 May 2008
Posts: 226
|
Leaving aside the nutritional issue, genetically modified plants
should NOT be allowed to breed in the wild! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Obviously |
| Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 8:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 14 Aug 2007
Posts: 1110
Location: Norway
|
| Heliopolis wrote: |
Leaving aside the nutritional issue, genetically modified plants
should NOT be allowed to breed in the wild! |
I agree, however it should be allowed to make GM plants in a controlled enviroment. I guess it depends though. If a plant is to be genetically modified, it should be done properly without any unecessary risks.
_________________
You can't determine what's good and what's bad before you've seen both extremes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Pong |
| Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 11:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 08 Apr 2008
Posts: 1124
|
| Heliopolis wrote: |
| genetically modified plants should NOT be allowed to breed in the wild! |
Reads like a protester's placard.
Why not?
Are we actually playing with fire or is this a matter of principle, or what? I'm not opposed to diversity and real competition (i.e. some extinctions as new species kick butt). If GM plants accomplish that... why not? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| i_feel_tiredsleepy |
| Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 8:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Masters Degree
Joined: 21 Mar 2008
Posts: 589
Location: Montreal
|
| Hmm oddly enough a lot of protesters are opposed to limiting the breeding of GMOs because it means that poorer farmers can't produce their own seeds. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
  |
Goto page 1, 2 Next |
Page 1 of 2 |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
