drummer4now Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Harvard, Yale scientists develop technique to make GMOs safer Two teams of scientists from Harvard and Yale have reached a crucial milestone in the effort to build synthetic life forms by developing a powerful way to prevent genetically modified organisms (GMOs) from escaping into the wild. The new technique essentially inserts a built-in self-destruct mechanism into bacteria. The cells carry an alternative genetic code that makes them dependent on an artificial nutrient that is not found in nature. Harvard Medical School genetics professor George Church, who oversaw one of the studies published Wednesday in the journal Nature, compared the new technique to putting a GMO “on a leash.” If scientists stop supplying a particular unnatural amino acid synthesized in the laboratory, the bacteria die. The ability to tweak organisms’ DNA to give them new capabilities has long been tantalizing to biologists who already are turning microbes into factories that generate drugs and biofuels. But the wider use of engineered organisms — for example, creating bacteria that can clean up a hazardous waste spill — requires an effective way to make sure they do not escape scientists’ control. The worries about escape are rooted in the uncertainty about what could happen. GMO bacteria might outcompete native strains, with unintended ripple effects on the environment. They also could unexpectedly transfer the genes that confer those powerful new traits to other organisms. “I view us right now at the beginning of the biotech century, where I think a lot of solutions to defining global challenges . . . are in large part going to result from advances in biotechnology,” said Farren Isaacs, assistant professor of molecular, cellular, and developmental biology at Yale, who led one of the studies. “In many ways, what we are doing is trying to be a step ahead of any challenges we might face.” In extensive laboratory experiments, both groups saw no evidence the bacteria could find ways to escape the control measure. The two teams grew about 1 trillion cells and found that without the amino acid, the cells could not live. “We’re changing the whole genome,” Church said. “So all genes, including the ones involved in producing whatever chemical you’re interested in, all those genes get changed. None of these can go in or out functionally.” The technique works now in E. coli and although it could theoretically be applied to more sophisticated organisms such as plants, that application is far off today because of technical challenges, Isaacs and Church said. Outside researchers and watchdog groups concerned about safeguards for genetically modified organisms said the research was an important first step. Karmella Haynes, an assistant professor in the School of Biological and Health Systems Engineering at Arizona State University, said that what impressed her was that it was the very low rate of “escapers” compared with other techniques that have been tried. “The problem is that we cannot quickly determine if every single GMO that is produced is absolutely safe or absolutely unsafe to people and the environment. The last thing we want to have happen is to figure out that something is dangerous through accidental release, after it is too late,” Haynes wrote in an e-mail. “I feel that this research represents a step-change towards building reliable control switches for GMOs.” Jaydee Hanson, policy director of the International Center for Technology Assessment, said that the research was limited because these first tests were done in traditional laboratory environments. It will be important, Hanson said, to test this technology in controlled environments that mimic the wild situations where they might ultimately be deployed. “The basic idea in them is that can we engineer something so that if it gets out into the environment, or in the case of probiotics — when it’s in your body — so it doesn’t morph into something else,” Hanson said. “I hope their next step would be to run the experiment longer, and to make sure that you’re not having any problems after multiple generations.” Both teams built on a feat they reported in October 2013, when they successfully recoded the genome by making fundamental and widespread changes to the DNA of bacteria. That left the organisms’ functions intact but made them more resistant to viruses. In the new research, they started with such a recoded organism and decided to give it an Achilles’ heel — making it dependent on a synthetic amino acid not found in nature that would have to be provided by researchers. Todd Kuiken, a senior associate at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars, said that it was significant that two research groups working separately arrived at almost exactly the same result. “People have been talking about this as a potential way to deal with biocontainment,” Kuiken said. “This is the first time there are actual research results and data showing this could work.” http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/01/21/harvard-yale-scientists-develop-technique-make-gmos-safer/XK1BXwhLX6Be1o1YUc00iI/story.html If this works out well then I think the case for GMO's should be looked in more closer by the those who oppose (including myself). The only thing wrong I can see is a company like Monsanto using this to their advantage like they have with every other GMO on the market... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dral Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 If this works out well then I think the case for GMO's should be looked in more closer by the those who oppose (including myself). The only thing wrong I can see is a company like Monsanto using this to their advantage like they have with every other GMO on the market... FTFY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Are you saying that GMO's aren't safe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummer4now Posted January 22, 2015 Author Share Posted January 22, 2015 Are you saying that GMO's aren't safe? The health effects are controversial at best.. and the overtaking of non-gmo plants in farmers fields is prevalent.. Either way this could bring down Monsanto or make them even rich... depending on the outcome of the research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dral Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 The health effects are controversial at best.. and the overtaking of non-gmo plants in farmers fields is prevalent.. You need to stop listening to celebrities talking pseudo science Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Safer to not escape in to the wild huh? Where have I heard that before Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilliesStache14 Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 they've been genetically modifying plants/food for decades, it;s nothing new. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Safer to not escape in to the wild huh? Where have I heard that before That's what I thought of too. But I don't have an issue with GMOs per se, but I do have an issue with Monsanto (or any other company that operates the same way). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William_Clarkson Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 GMOs aren't nearly as bad as some people make them out to be, but still, I suppose making them safer is better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Humans have been crossing strains in animals and plants for ages. Trying to improve through selected breeding. Apparently modern scientists seem to think this traditional approach is too slow so they are modifying it creating Frakenfood. Just like before when there's been medicines derived from nature (aspirin etc.), now when you see a new drug there's a grocery list of side effects that seem far worse than any benefits of any cure. It seems big pharma and companies like Monstano want profits before benefitting humans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugor Hill Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Are you saying that GMO's aren't safe? I don't see scientists trying to make organic foods safer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 The new technique essentially inserts a built-in self-destruct mechanism into bacteria. The cells carry an alternative genetic code that makes them dependent on an artificial nutrient that is not found in nature. That sounds super healthy to ingest. As if eating food absolutely drenched in RoundUp wasn't bad enough, now we get additional yummy "artificial nutrients not found in nature". Where do I sign up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VICanucksfan5551 Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 That sounds super healthy to ingest. As if eating food absolutely drenched in RoundUp wasn't bad enough, now we get additional yummy "artificial nutrients not found in nature". Where do I sign up? Someone didn't read the article. They're talking about bacteria and nutrients for them, not GM food. Even if they were talking about food, plenty of "natural" chemicals are terrible for you and plenty of "artificial" chemicals are very beneficial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Someone didn't read the article. They're talking about bacteria and nutrients for them, not GM food. Even if they were talking about food, plenty of "natural" chemicals are terrible for you and plenty of "artificial" chemicals are very beneficial. Actually I did. The technique works now in E. coli and although it could theoretically be applied to more sophisticated organisms such as plants... Just one of the many places technology like this can head is our food supply. Given how much GMO money, research etc is already spent on GMO foods/crops I don't know why you would question it, especially given that quote ^^^ (from the article I "didn't read" ). As for chemicals... you know what's guaranteed to be healthier than real or artificial chemicals? NO chemicals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VICanucksfan5551 Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Actually I did. Just one of the many places technology like this can head is our food supply. Given how much GMO money, research etc is already spent on GMO foods/crops I don't know why you would question it, especially given that quote ^^^ (from the article I "didn't read" ). As for chemicals... you know what's guaranteed to be healthier than real or artificial chemicals? NO chemicals. The part you were quoted was referring specifically to bacteria. I'm not even sure how "using the same technique" for plants is even coherent, given the fact that E. coli (a chemoheterotroph) and plants (photoautotrophs) gather energy from completely different sources. The only thing I can think of that makes sense is some novel method of nitrogen fixation, in which case the "artificial" nitrogen source wouldn't actually be present in the plant itself. Also, I think you might want to check the definition of "chemical" (hint: all food is made up of chemicals by definition). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Also, I think you might want to check the definition of "chemical" (hint: all food is made up of chemicals by definition). Fair enough... Ok, "additional" chemicals. Seems to me mother nature has done just fine with the existing chemicals already naturally making up plants that evolved over millions of years. I see no need to need to add more artifcial ones. Particularly when things like pesticides/herbicides are known to be harmful..."safe levels" my arse. Keep your frigging poison off my food. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonMexico Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 The title of the article says it all. If GMOs are going to be made safer, does that not imply that there is current safety problems with them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FramingDragon Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 This is a pretty $&!#ty article because it somehow tied up something rather unrelated to a popular attention grabbing buzzword (zomg GMOs). How do you go from E. coli to GMO crops without hoping to get clicks and reads? Some things that jumped out at me right away: - It's E. coli. You can do just about anything with E. coli in lab and it's been "GMO"ed ever since it became a model organism in molecular biology. We know every gene and operon and promoter in its genome and what it does, and we've been screwing with it in lab for almost a century. This amino acid dependence is nothing special at all or "revolutionary" at all. The worries about escape are rooted in the uncertainty about what could happen. GMO bacteria might outcompete native strains, with unintended ripple effects on the environment. They also could unexpectedly transfer the genes that confer those powerful new traits to other organisms. Talk about fear mongering. The author made the jump from bacteria to a buzzword associated with dinner plates soon afterwards. The way bacteria interact with each other is like a completely different world to plants and animals. There is going to no horizontal gene transfer like a cold from E. coli to plants, sheesh. What dunce wrote this? E. coli mutated to be auxotrophic (mutated to be unable to produce all the natural amino acids) will not survive in the wild regardless of what it's dependent on in the lab. There's a reason we make these things in labs in first year on a benchtop with just gloves on. The two teams grew about 1 trillion cells and found that without the amino acid, the cells could not live. I get the sense that this journalist attempted to give confidence to the reader and have the person think "One TRILLION? Wow, we must be really getting somewhere with this...". A trillion is nothing in microbial scales. A single Petri dish contains hundreds of millions of bacteria, if not billions. If that helps you picture just how many would be in a trillion, then it's apparent that's it's not a statistically damning number in any way at all. The technique works now in E. coli and although it could theoretically be applied to more sophisticated organisms such as plants, that application is far off today because of technical challenges, Isaacs and Church said. This should have started and ended this article, period. Theoretically, we can generate humans like that too and it's just as far fetched. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VICanucksfan5551 Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Fair enough... Ok, "additional" chemicals. Seems to me mother nature has done just fine with the existing chemicals already naturally making up plants that evolved over millions of years. I see no need to need to add more artifcial ones. Particularly when things like pesticides/herbicides are known to be harmful..."safe levels" my arse. Keep your frigging poison off my food. And what exactly counts as an "additional chemical"? I assume you don't mean additional chemicals like adding steak sauce or seasoning to a steak. Is it just chemicals that sound scary? It sounds like an appeal to nature fallacyhttp://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature I honestly don't see how you're jumping from the article to stuff about herbicides or pesticides. What exactly does it have to do with anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 I honestly don't see how you're jumping from the article to stuff about herbicides or pesticides. What exactly does it have to do with anything? The article (wrongly evidently... or at least misguidedly) mentioned it being theoretically applied to plants. One of larger GMO crop producers modified seeds to allow for an increased use of pesticides and herbicides on the crop without "damaging" the main crop. It douses the crops in poison (trace amounts of which remain in the food crop) and kills large amounts of the naturally occurring bacteria etc in the soil while leaching in to and polluting ground water. But hey, there's no bugs in it and no weeds attacking it. That's what it has to do with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.