FORT WAYNE Its like copying the blueprint of a blue ribbon pig.

Whiteshire Hamroc is an Albion swine genetics company that grows its herd through artificial insemination. Put another way, its a process that takes DNA from the best pigs with the goal of producing the highest-quality meat. These days, that means leaner cuts of pork.

After enduring the recession, the 30-year-old company has seen business start to pick up. The company posted $15 million in revenue in 2011, up about 5 percent from the previous year. This fall, the company expects to break ground on a multimillion-dollar research and development farm in Noble County a joint venture with a company in China.

Mike Platt is executive director of the Indiana Pork Association.

Platt said consumer demand is the reason behind Whiteshires growth. The public demands better quality food and it cant be left up to chance, Platt said.

People want their pork to be leaner, he said. So, how can you ensure that without (genetic farming)? You cant. The truth is that as science has improved over the last 30 years, it only makes sense to take advantage of it.

And Whiteshire figures to do just that.

The research project venture involves Tangrenshen Co., an integrated pork and feed firm in China. Whiteshire has been teaming with its Asian counterpart since 2007. Terms of the latest deal, announced June 7, were not disclosed. The development will create 25 permanent jobs and more than 100 temporary construction positions for northeast Indiana.

Whiteshire, which employs more than 40 workers, has three buildings over a five-acre site at 4728 N. 200 W. Besides its headquarters and genetic evaluation building, the company has two farms with 1,500 sows. Its main customers include meat packing plants, other pork farms and medical companies that harvest tissue or organs. About 40,000 pigs are sold annually.

Other companies in the state involved at the research center are Gentryville-based Tempel Genetics Inc. and Albany-based Shaffer Superior Genetics Inc. Cedar Ridge Farms of Redbud, Ill., also is participating.

Read more here:
Lean pork: It's genetic

Public release date: 28-Jun-2012 [ | E-mail | Share ]

Contact: Vicki Cohn vcohn@liebertpub.com 914-740-2100 x2156 Mary Ann Liebert, Inc./Genetic Engineering News

New Rochelle, NY, June 28, 2012Games that promote health can improve the well-being of employees, saving employers direct and indirect health care costs. Employers can more readily reap these benefits by offering game-based services that educate their employees about health and wellness and improve physical and psychological fitness, according to an Editorial in Games for Health Journal a peer-reviewed publication from Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. The Editorial is available free on the Games for Health Journal website.

"Wellness programs using health games have the potential to significantly impact human well-being and the costs, pain, and suffering of preventable illnesses and conditions," says Games for Health Journal Editor-in-Chief Bill Ferguson, PhD, in the Editorial entitled "Games for WellnessImpacting the Lives of Employees and the Profits of Employers."

Dr. Ferguson highlights the key factors that will drive increased market acceptance of health games and wellness initiatives among employers. The Editorial describes the characteristics of health games for improving wellness and how videogaming can help engage people in their own health, supplement traditional forms of exercise, promote healthy living, and improve patient care.

"The most successful wellness programs incorporate videogames that present themselves as in the service of the player," states Dr. Ferguson. "These activities enable individuals to engage in things they have personally desired, but were unable to prioritize and accomplish before wellness games. The result is healthier, happier, and more productive employees - a win-win for employers and their people"

###

About the Journal

Games for Health Journal breaks new ground as the first journal to address this emerging and increasingly important area of health care. The Journal provides a bimonthly forum in print and online for academic and clinical researchers, game designers and developers, health care providers, insurers, and information technology leaders. Articles explore the use of game technology in a variety of clinical applications. These include disease prevention and monitoring, nutrition, weight management, and medication adherence. Gaming can play an important role in the care of patients with diabetes, post-traumatic stress disorder, Alzheimer's disease, and cognitive, mental, emotional, and behavioral health disorders.

About the Publisher

Go here to see the original:

Games improve employee health and well-being, may reduce health insurance premiums for employers

The iGEM team that I helped advise a couple years ago recently published a short paper about their project in the Journal of Biological Engineering (open access!). We were inspired to think about plant engineering in the context of iGEM and standardized genetic parts, in part thanks to an interesting passage in Stewart Brands book Whole Earth Discipline. In his chapter on genetic engineering, Brand writes:

One can imagine organic crops biotically engineered as Rachel Carson might do it. They would be designed in detail to protect and improve the soil they grow in, to foil the specific pets and weeds that threaten them, to blend well with other organic crops and with beneficial insects, to increase carbon fixation in the soil and reduce the release of methane and nitrous oxide, to be as nutritious and delicious as science can make them, and to invite further refinement by the growers.

Along with genetic BioBricks, let there be AgriBricks to finesse crop genomes for local ecological and economic fitness. (If Monsanto throws a fit, tell them that if theyre polite, you might license back to them the locally attuned tweaks youve made to their patented gene array. Pretty soon theyor some company that replaces themwill be providing you with lab equipment.)

Our project and the final paper were obviously of much much smaller scope, but we hope that other iGEM teams will be inspired to work with plants and to use our BioBricks to build something great. Heres the abstract:

Background Plant biotechnology can be leveraged to produce food, fuel, medicine, and materials. Standardized methods advocated by the synthetic biology community can accelerate the plant design cycle, ultimately making plant engineering more widely accessible to bioengineers who can contribute diverse creative input to the design process.

Results This paper presents work done largely by undergraduate students participating in the 2010 International Genetically Engineered Machines (iGEM) competition. Described here is a framework for engineering the model plant Arabidopsis thaliana with standardized, BioBrick compatible vectors and parts available through the Registry of Standard Biological Parts (www.partsregistry.org). This system was used to engineer a proof-of-concept plant that exogenously expresses the taste-inverting protein miraculin.

Conclusions Our work is intended to encourage future iGEM teams and other synthetic biologists to use plants as a genetic chassis. Our workflow simplifies the use of standardized parts in plant systems, allowing the construction and expression of heterologous genes in plants within the timeframe allotted for typical iGEM projects.

And you can download the paper (currently only a provisional PDF) from the Journal:

Original post:

PlantBricks

I have argued that natural genetic engineering is the real creative process in evolutionary innovation. A central but undocumented feature of my argument is that cells can coordinate separate DNA-change events to produce functional new genome structures. How can experimentalists test this argument?

The experiments will probably involve microorganisms, such as bacteria or yeast. A standard procedure for measuring microbial DNA change (mutation) is to place the microbes in a petri dish where they cannot grow into colonies, count the number of cells deposited, incubate them for a period of time, and count the number of colonies that appear. Each colony arose from a mutational event that overcame whatever prevented growth (e.g., inability to utilize the nutrients provided or to synthesize a needed biochemical). The ratio of colonies to cells placed on the growth medium is the mutant frequency. We can measure how various treatments, such as UV irradiation, change this frequency.

Mutation experiments generally look for changes at a single location in the genome. With modern DNA-sequencing technology, the precise changes are easy to identify. Colonies typically appear two to three days after the appropriate DNA change has occurred. In most cases studied, suitable mutations occur in the population prior to plating. Examining the petri dishes after two or three days indicates the frequency of preexisting mutations.

Longer incubation of the selection plates often produces a large increase in the number of colonies. This indicates that mutations continue to occur under selection conditions. By counting these colonies and analyzing the population dynamics of the selected bacteria, we can determine whether selection affects the process of genome change.

When selection significantly stimulates mutations above prior levels, the process is called "adaptive mutation." Molecular geneticists agree that adaptive mutation (observed in different microorganisms) occurs when selective stress triggers natural genetic engineering activities that carry out DNA changes allowing mutated cells to form colonies.

In some cases, we know the consensus interpretation is correct. Together with my colleague Genevieve Maenhaut-Michel, I confirmed this. We studied an experimental situation where the required DNA change (a special type of coding sequence fusion) was never detected during normal growth but increased at least 100,000-fold after selection.

Other groups confirmed selection stress triggering natural genetic engineering by detecting evidence of "induced hypermutation" at various locations throughout the genome and by direct measurement of mutator function.

It is likely that more complex changes can be triggered by selection conditions. My colleague Bernhard Hauer worked for many years at the large German chemical company BASF. In order to produce certain specialty biochemicals, BASF used microbes. But often the good producer organisms would only grow on expensive nutrients. So Bernhard simply plated them on medium containing economic nutrients, waited for a month or so, and harvested the late-appearing colonies. Unfortunately, this was before the days of rapid sequencing, and we do not know what kinds of DNA changes occurred in the long time before the colonies finally appeared.

In order to look for coordinated natural genetic engineering at multiple locations, one approach is to repeat what Bernhard did but start with well-defined strains. We know that coding sequences that lack transcription signals can be activated by the upstream insertion of mobile elements in bacteria and yeast.

The strategy is to engineer strains that could only grow when multiple mobile element insertions activated several different coding sequences. For example, these sequences might encode proteins needed at various steps of a metabolic pathway (for nutrient utilization or for biosynthesis). Selection for activation of all the sequences together simply involves placing the microbes on a medium where the whole pathway is essential for growth, and then waiting for colonies to appear.

See original here:

James A. Shapiro: Experimental Evolution: How Can We Watch Natural Genetic Engineering in Real Time?

1. Healthy soil and water

Organic standards require a program of soil building, which protects against soil erosion and water pollution. A healthy soil promotes vigorous soil life that, in turn, breaks down minerals and makes a complex meal of nutrients available to growing plants. Synthetic fertilizers deliver the three primary nutrients needed for plant growth, but leave out the diverse micronutrients that lead to plant vigor and health.

2. No genetic engineering

Organic standards prohibit use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) for seed or stock. The U.S. government has allowed the development and release of many GMOs into the environment and food system. Until compulsory GMO labeling is adopted in this country, buying certified organic is the best guarantee of no genetic engineering in food.

3. No growth hormones

Organic standards prohibit the use of growth hormones. U.S. government regulations permit hormone use in conventional livestock operations to increase the size or rate of gain of animals raised for meat, or to stimulate production of animal products like milk.

4. No antibiotics

Organic standards prohibit routine use of antibiotics in livestock operations. U.S. government regulations permit conventional animals to be routinely fed sub-therapeutic levels of antibiotics to promote growth and prevent disease from their overcrowded conditions. Antibiotics may only be administered to an organic animal when the animal is sick and needs treatment. Such animals may then no longer be marketed as organic.

5. No pesticides

Organic standards prohibit the use of synthetic pesticides, exposure to which has been linked with a number of serious human diseases. U.S. government regulations allow such pesticides, although setting limits for application rates in the field and residue levels on food.

Read the original post:

5 reasons to eat organic

This week's cover story delves into the infamous University of Washington arson and the underground environmental movement it blew up. The 2001 arson, intended as a protest against genetic engineering, targeted a plant biologist named Toby Bradshaw--an interesting character in his own right.

He's a blunt, motorcycle-riding, 55-year-old contrarian who dismisses his attackers as "idiots" and, unlike some of his colleagues, seemed to emerge from the arson with his psyche in tact.

As if to thumb his nose at the enviro/animal rights crowd, he has outside his office a picture of a jokey billboard for a South Carolina restaurant. "There's plenty of room for all God's creatures," the billboard reads. "Right next to the mashed potatoes." Inside his office, the walls are decorated with the skulls of animals he's hunted in locations ranging from Idaho and Wyoming to Zimbabwe.

"That's where I get my meat," he says, pointing to the skull of an elk that weighed 600 or 700 pounds and kept him going for most of 2008. "I shoot it." He keeps 10 hawks at his house for his hunting trips, which have him disappearing into the Rocky Mountain wilderness for a week or two every fall and coming back with the makings of elk Teriyaki and antelope chili.

Yet, if you think that makes him the archetypal opposite of the vegan types who attacked him, think again. While far from vegan, he says that a vegetarian diet is, generally, better for the planet. He shoots much of the meat he eats precisely because he believes it's the only real responsible way to get the stuff. Like many vegetarians, he holds that commercial meat production is a waste of natural resources because animals are fed food that would be far more productively used feeding people.

On the topic of genetic engineering, though, Bradshaw couldn't be further apart from environmental activists.

Read the original here:

Toby Bradshaw, Target of Famous Arson, Hunts Elk, Praises Vegetarianism, and Defends Genetic Engineering

There's an interesting exchange on genetic engineering at the Food Politics blog, http://tinyurl.com/, featuring a review by industry critic Marion Nestle of an anti-GE paper, GMO Myths and Truths. I've skimmed the paper, which you can find at http://tinyurl.com/, and I confess to lacking the expertise to evaluate the claims. It would take more time than I have at the moment to dig into the claims, although I hope to do so in the future.

Nestle says the authors of the paper, who find nothing to like in genetic engineering, "have put a great deal of time and effort into reviewing the evidence for the claims. This is the best-researched and most comprehensive review I've seen of the criticisms of GM foods." She asks whether the pro camp can "produce something equally well researched, comprehensive, and compelling?" and concludes, "I doubt it but I'd like to see them try." She says there's enough evidence in the paper to justify labeling, at the very least.

It is, of course, the position you'd expect her to take, and several of the comments following her post challenge both her and the paper. One claims there are indeed well-researched, comprehensive and compelling pro papers. Others say the paper she cites cherry-picks evidence and relies on papers that have been debunked. An example cited in one of these critical comments asserts that it relies on a study of Bt found in human blood that used a test that couldn't detect blood at the levels the study's authors said they found.

My suspicion is most won't read these papers and will continue to think what they already think about the issue. An even worse fear is that reading the papers on both sides wouldn't convert anyone on either side. Still, I may give it a try at some point.

Follow me on Twitter: http://www.Twitter.comurbanize

Copyright 2012 DTN/The Progressive Farmer, A Telvent Brand. All rights reserved.

Originally posted here:

Paper, Blog Heats Up GE Discussion

There's an interesting exchange on genetic engineering at the Food Politics blog, http://tinyurl.com/, featuring a review by industry critic Marion estle of an anti-GE paper, GMO Myths and Truths. I've skimmed the paper, which you can find at http://tinyurl.com/, and I confess to lacking the expertise to evaluate the claims. It would take more time than I have at the moment to dig into the claims, although I hope to do so in the future.

Nestle says the authors of the paper, who find nothing to like in genetic engineering, "have put a great deal of time and effort into reviewing the evidence for the claims. This is the best-researched and most comprehensive review I've seen of the criticisms of GM foods." She asks whether the pro camp can "produce something equally well researched, comprehensive, and compelling?" and concludes, "I doubt it but I'd like to see them try." She says there's enough evidence in the paper to justify labeling, at the very least.

It is, of course, the position you'd expect her to take, and several of the comments following her post challenge both her and the paper. One claims there are indeed well-researched, comprehensive and compelling pro papers. Others say the paper she cites cherry-picks evidence and relies on papers that have been debunked. An example cited in one of these critical comments asserts that it relies on a study of Bt found in human blood that used a test that couldn't detect blood at the levels the study's authors said they found.

My suspicion is most won't read these papers and will continue to think what they already think about the issue. An even worse fear is that reading the papers on both sides wouldn't convert anyone on either side. Still, I may give it a try at some point.

Follow me on Twitter: http://www.Twitter.comurbanize

Copyright 2012 DTN/The Progressive Farmer, A Telvent Brand. All rights reserved.

Read the rest here:
Paper, Blog Heats Up GMO Discussion

CARLSBAD, Calif., June 18, 2012 /PRNewswire/ -- Life Technologies Corporation (LIFE) today announced the launch of three next generation GeneArt genetic engineering kits that allow molecular and synthetic biologists unprecedented speed, flexibility, precision, and efficiency for the seamless cloning, assembly, and editing of genetic material.

The GeneArt Seamless PLUS Cloning and Assembly Kit allows investigators to complete complex assembly projects in days that would take weeks with typically available methods. The kits use a proprietary enzyme mix to recognize and precisely assemble DNA fragments without the need for restriction digestion, ligation, or introduction of extra DNA sequence (seamless). The kits are designed to work with any vector a researcher chooses plus 1 to 4 fragments (or more depending on fragment sizes and workflow) in an in vitro, typically <30 minute room temperature reaction to create constructs up to 40kb in size.

The newly introduced GeneArt Seamless Cloning and Assembly Enzyme Mix is the economical choice for creating constructs up to 13kb with the option for high-throughput assembly.

The GeneArt Site-Directed Mutagenesis PLUS System can be employed to introduce deletions, insertions and substitutions ranging from small to large fragment sizes and can facilitate single or multi-site mutagenesis. Up to three sites can be edited in a single plasmid at greater than 90% efficiency. Up to 25 nucleotides can be altered in a single site, and results are delivered typically in less than three hours for plasmids up to 14 kb in size.

"Typically, mutagenesis efficiency decreases as multiple sites are targeted," said Nathan Wood, general manager and vice president of synthetic biology at Life Technologies. "The GeneArt kits maintain high efficiency over multiple sites, an advantage for our customers."

"Our scientists assemble and manipulate genetic material on a daily basis," said Wood. "They are deeply connected to the need for speed and reliability in cloning, assembly and mutagenesis systems, and they also understand that our customers need systems designed to handle different levels of complexity."

The new kits extend Life's current market-leading product offerings in assembly and mutagenesis kits, the GeneArt Seamless Cloning and Assembly Kit (for up to four fragments and constructs up to13kb), the GeneArt High-Order Genetic Assembly Kit (a yeast-based system for up to 10 fragments and constructs up to 110kb), and the GeneArt Site-Directed Mutagenesis System. With the new all-in-one enzyme/buffer mix and increased room temperature stability, the new kits offer increased flexibility, speed, and the option for high-throughput workflows. The new Mutagenesis PLUS system offers all of the single-site functionality of the current mutagenesis kits but with multi-site mutagenesis, the all-in-one enzyme/buffer mix, and increased room-temperature stability.

All products include access to Life Technologies' free online GeneArt Primer and Construct Design Tool for Seamless or High-Order Assembly and Mutagenesis: http://bioinfo.invitrogen.com/oligoDesigner/.

This tool facilitates the in silico design, assembly, or mutagenesis of a DNA molecule using GeneArt technology. The GeneArt Design Tool:

View original post here:

Life Technologies Launches Expanded, Next Generation GeneArt® Kits for Mutagenesis, Cloning and Assembly

Why Genetically Engineered Food Is Dangerous

New report by genetic engineers Press release for immediate release Earth Open Source 17 June 2012

LONDON, UK - Aren't critics of genetically engineered food anti-science? Isn't the debate over GMOs (genetically modified organisms) a spat between emotional but ignorant activists on one hand and rational GM-supporting scientists on the other?

A new report released today, "GMO Myths and Truths",[1] challenges these claims. The report presents a large body of peer-reviewed scientific and other authoritative evidence of the hazards to health and the environment posed by genetically engineered crops and organisms (GMOs).

Unusually, the initiative for the report came not from campaigners but from two genetic engineers who believe there are good scientific reasons to be wary of GM foods and crops.

One of the report's authors, Dr Michael Antoniou of King's College London School of Medicine in the UK, uses genetic engineering for medical applications but warns against its use in developing crops for human food and animal feed.

Dr Antoniou said: "GM crops are promoted on the basis of ambitious claims - that they are safe to eat, environmentally beneficial, increase yields, reduce reliance on pesticides, and can help solve world hunger.

"I felt what was needed was a collation of the evidence that addresses the technology from a scientific point of view.

"Research studies show that genetically modified crops have harmful effects on laboratory animals in feeding trials and on the environment during cultivation. They have increased the use of pesticides and have failed to increase yields. Our report concludes that there are safer and more effective alternatives to meeting the world's food needs."

Another author of the report, Dr John Fagan, is a former genetic engineer who in 1994 returned to the National Institutes of Health $614,000 in grant money owing to concerns about the safety and ethics of the technology. He subsequently founded a GMO testing company.

Read the original:

Why Genetically Engineered Food Is Dangerous

Scientists at the University of California at Irvine and and the Pasteur Institute in Paris say theyve used genetic engineering to create mosquitoes that cant infect people with malaria. They used Anopheles stephensi mosquito a major source of malaria in India and the Middle East but say the technique could be used on dozens of different types of mosquitoes. Malaria parasites picked up by these mosquitoes are killed by the the mosquitoes immune systems. So the insects cant transmit malaria through their bites. The scientists made their announcement on June 17, 2012, and their paper was published in the Proceedings for the National Academy of Sciences.

Scientists have genetically altered the Anopheles stephensi mosquito so that their immunes systems kill the malaria parasite. They say their technique could be used with dozens of different types of mosquitoes.

More than 40 percent of the worlds population lives in areas where there is a risk of contracting malaria. The World Health Organization says there were about 216 million cases of malaria and an estimated 655,000 deaths in 2010. The deaths are largely infants, young children and pregnant women. Most deaths occur among children living in Africa where a child dies every minute from malaria.

Anthony James of UC Irvine said:

Our group has made significant advances with the creation of transgenic mosquitoes But this is the first model of a malaria vector with a genetic modification that can potentially exist in wild populations and be transferred through generations without affecting their fitness.

I did not talk to these scientists, and I have questions. What happens to the mosquitoes already in the wild, which carry the malaria parasite? Do they breed with the genetically modified mosquitoes so that some inherit malaria-killing immune systems? There will be another question for some. Is it wise to release genetically modified mosquitoes into the wild? For the families of children who might die of malaria, the answer is clear: pursue this promising line of research. The rest of us will need to acknowledge that we live in a world where the questions themselves are getting tougher.

Bottom line: Scientists at the University of California at Irvine and and the Pasteur Institute in Paris have used genetic engineering to create mosquitoes whose immune systems kill the malaria parasite. These mosquitoes, then, cant transmit malaria.

Follow this link:

Genetically-engineered mosquitoes can’t transmit malaria

Published: Sunday, June 17, 2012 at 9:17 a.m. Last Modified: Sunday, June 17, 2012 at 9:17 a.m.

The issue has farmers, grocers, scientists and foodies taking up sides, including some in Sonoma County whose livelihoods depend on agriculture setting up a fall election campaign that promises to be expensive, emotional and full of hyperbole about food safety.

Proponents of labeling, including organic farmers and food producers, say it is simply consumers' right to know what is in their food. They say labels aren't a negative, only educational, and that they may encourage shoppers to seek out more information about their eating habits.

Opponents, including traditional farmers, biotech firms and some scientists, say labeling wrongly implies that genetically engineered food is unsafe. They say labeling is misleading, expensive and will encourage costly, frivolous lawsuits.

If the initiative passes, California would be the first state to require labeling of such a wide range of foods containing genetically modified organisms, or GMOs.

"Hallelujah!" Jil Hales, owner of Healdsburg's Barndiva restaurant, said of the initiative, which qualified for the ballot last week. "I wholeheartedly support labeling, with every fiber of my being as a person and businessperson."

The state Farm Bureau has come out against the measure, but the Sonoma County Farm Bureau is taking a wait-and-see approach.

"This measure is deceptive and poorly written," said Jamie Johansson, an Oroville farmer and a vice president of the California Farm Bureau.

The proposal would require by 2014 that most processed foods disclose to shoppers that they contain ingredients derived from plants whose DNA was altered with genes from other plants, animals, viruses or bacteria.

It would require raw agricultural commodities produced entirely or in part through genetic engineering be labeled with the words "Genetically Engineered" on the front package or label. Processed foods produced in part through genetic engineering would be labeled "Partially Produced with Genetic Engineering" or "May be Partially Produced with Genetic Engineering."

Original post:

GMO showdown

ScienceDaily (June 13, 2012) In the not-too-distant future, scientists may be able to use DNA to grow their own specialized materials, thanks to the concept of directed evolution. UC Santa Barbara scientists have, for the first time, used genetic engineering and molecular evolution to develop the enzymatic synthesis of a semiconductor.

"In the realm of human technologies it would be a new method, but it's an ancient approach in nature," said Lukmaan Bawazer, first author of the paper, "Evolutionary selection of enzymatically synthesized semiconductors from biomimetic mineralization vesicles," published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Bawazer, who was a Ph.D. student at the time, wrote the paper with co-authors at UCSB's Interdepartmental Graduate Program in Biomolecular Science and Engineering; Institute for Collaborative Biotechnologies; California NanoSystems Institute and Materials Research Laboratory; and Department of Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology. Daniel Morse, UCSB professor emeritus of biochemistry of molecular genetics, directed the research.

Using silicateins, proteins responsible for the formation of silica skeletons in marine sponges, the researchers were able to generate new mineral architectures by directing the evolution of these enzymes. Silicateins, which are genetically encoded, serve as templates for the silica skeletons and control their mineralization, thus participating in similar types of processes by which animal and human bones are formed. Silica, also known as silicon, is the primary material in most commercially manufactured semiconductors.

In this study, polystyrene microbeads coated with specific silicateins were put through a mineralization reaction by incubating the beads in a water-in-oil emulsion that contained chemical precursors for mineralization: metals of either silicon or titanium dissolved in the oil or water phase of the emulsion. As the silicateins reacted with the dissolved metals, they precipitated them, integrating the metals into the resulting structure and forming nanoparticles of silicon dioxide or titanium dioxide.

With the creation of a silicatein gene pool, through what Bawazer only somewhat euphemistically calls "molecular sex" -- the combination and recombination of various silicatein genetic materials -- the scientists were able to create a multitude of silicateins, and then select for the ones with desired properties.

"This genetic population was exposed to two environmental pressures that shaped the selected minerals: The silicateins needed to make (that is, mineralize) materials directly on the surface of the beads, and then the mineral structures needed to be amenable to physical disruption to expose the encoding genes," said Bawazer. The beads that exhibited mineralization were sorted from the ones that didn't, and then fractured to release the genetic information they contained, which could either be studied, or evolved further.

The process yielded forms of silicatein not available in nature, that behaved differently in the formation of mineral structures. For example, some silicateins self-assembled into sheets and made dispersed mineral nanoparticles, as opposed to more typical agglomerated particles formed by natural silicateins. In some cases, crystalline materials were also formed, demonstrating a crystal-forming ability that was acquired through directed evolution, said Bawazer.

Because silicateins are enzymes, said Bawazer, with relatively long amino acid chains that can fold into precise shapes, there is the potential for more functionality than would be possible using shorter biopolymers or more traditional synthetic approaches. In addition, the process could potentially work with a variety of metals, to evolve different types of materials. By changing the laboratory-controlled environments in which directed evolution occurs, it will be possible to evolve materials with specific capacities, like high performance in an evolved solar cell, for example.

"Here we've demonstrated the evolution of material structure; I'd like to take it a step further and evolve material performance in a functional device," said Bawazer.

Research for this paper was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy.

Read this article:

Scientists synthesize first genetically evolved semiconductor material

SACRAMENTO, Calif., June 13, 2012 /PRNewswire/ --Leading scientists and academics today issued a statement in response to the qualification of a measure on California's November ballot that would require mandatory labels of food grown or produced using genetic engineering. Like the overwhelming majority of scientific and medical experts and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, these scientists believe that foods made with the benefit of modern biotechnology are safe and that labeling them as "genetically engineered" would mislead consumers by creating the false impression that foods containing GE ingredients are less safe than foods made without the benefit of biotechnology.

Bob Goldberg, Distinguished Professor of Molecular, Cell & Developmental Biology at UCLA, Member, National Academy of Sciences: "As a scientist who has spent the better part of my career studying and utilizing biotechnology, or genetic engineering, I am extremely concerned about qualification of this ballot measure. It's a Trojan Horse, promising the 'Right to Know' but really only serving to mislead Californians about the safety of their food. Foods made using modern biotechnology are thoroughly tested and proven safe. Labels are misleading and unnecessary."

Nina Federoff, Ph.D., Recipient of National Medal of Science, Distinguished Professor, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST); Evan Pugh Professor, Huck Institutes of the Life Sciences, Penn State University: "Foods made with the benefit of modern biotechnology are some of the safest and most thoroughly-tested food to ever enter our food supply. I'm passionately opposed to labeling for the sake of labeling without providing any health or safety benefits, as this measure does, because the cost burden for doing so falls on those who can least afford it."

Martina Newell-McGloughlin, DSc. Executive Director Strategic Research Initiatives, University of California Davis: "Mandatory labeling can only be scientifically justified when based on the characteristics of the food product, not on the processes used in their development. But there are no material differences between crops that have been genetically modified using modern techniques and other crops, and they have routinely been found to be as safe. Unfortunately, it is easy to sell fear and doubt, which is exactly what the proponents are doing with this measure."

Roger N. Beachy, Ph.D., President Emeritus, Donald Danforth Plant Science Center; Former Director National Institute of Food and Agriculture, USDA; Member, National Academy of Science; Laureate, Wolf Prize in Agriculture: "Modern biotechnology offers important tools to increase agricultural productivity, protect crops from insects, pests and diseases, reduce the use of pesticides and water and increase the nutritional benefits of certain foods. GE foods have been studied for 25 years and been found to be safe. It would be really unfortunate if this measure passed because it would erroneously call into question the safety of these foods and their value to solve many global environmental and hunger problems."

Paid for by the Coalition Against the Costly Food Labeling Proposition, sponsored by farmers and food producers, major funding by Council for Biotechnology Information and Grocery Manufacturers Association. 1121 L. Street, #803, Sacramento, CA 95814| 1-800-331-0850| http://www.StopCostlyFoodLabeling.com

View original post here:

Coalition Against the Deceptive and Costly Food Labeling Proposition says Scientists and Academic Community Oppose ...

SANTA BARBARA In the not-too-distant future, scientists may be able to use DNA to grow their own specialized materials, thanks to the concept of directed evolution. UC Santa Barbara scientists have, for the first time, used genetic engineering and molecular evolution to develop the enzymatic synthesis of a semiconductor.

"In the realm of human technologies it would be a new method, but it's an ancient approach in nature," said Lukmaan Bawazer, first author of the paper, "Evolutionary selection of enzymatically synthesized semiconductors from biomimetic mineralization vesicles," published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Bawazer, who was a Ph.D. student at the time, wrote the paper with co-authors at UC Santa Barbara's Interdepartmental Graduate Program in Biomolecular Science and Engineering; Institute for Collaborative Biotechnologies; California NanoSystems Institute and Materials Research Laboratory; and Department of Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology. Daniel Morse, UC Santa Barbara professor emeritus of biochemistry of molecular genetics, directed the research.

Using silicateins, proteins responsible for the formation of silica skeletons in marine sponges, the researchers were able to generate new mineral architectures by directing the evolution of these enzymes. Silicateins, which are genetically encoded, serve as templates for the silica skeletons and control their mineralization, thus participating in similar types of processes by which animal and human bones are formed. Silica, also known as silicon, is the primary material in most commercially manufactured semiconductors.

In this study, polystyrene microbeads coated with specific silicateins were put through a mineralization reaction by incubating the beads in a water-in-oil emulsion that contained chemical precursors for mineralization: metals of either silicon or titanium dissolved in the oil or water phase of the emulsion. As the silicateins reacted with the dissolved metals, they precipitated them, integrating the metals into the resulting structure and forming nanoparticles of silicon dioxide or titanium dioxide.

With the creation of a silicatein gene pool, through what Bawazer only somewhat euphemistically calls "molecular sex" the combination and recombination of various silicatein genetic materials the scientists were able to create a multitude of silicateins, and then select for the ones with desired properties.

"This genetic population was exposed to two environmental pressures that shaped the selected minerals: The silicateins needed to make (that is, mineralize) materials directly on the surface of the beads, and then the mineral structures needed to be amenable to physical disruption to expose the encoding genes," said Bawazer. The beads that exhibited mineralization were sorted from the ones that didn't, and then fractured to release the genetic information they contained, which could either be studied or evolved further.

The process yielded forms of silicatein not available in nature, that behaved differently in the formation of mineral structures. For example, some silicateins self-assembled into sheets and made dispersed mineral nanoparticles, as opposed to more typical agglomerated particles formed by natural silicateins. In some cases, crystalline materials were also formed, demonstrating a crystal-forming ability that was acquired through directed evolution, said Bawazer.

Because silicateins are enzymes, said Bawazer, with relatively long amino acid chains that can fold into precise shapes, there is the potential for more functionality than would be possible using shorter biopolymers or more traditional synthetic approaches. In addition, the process could potentially work with a variety of metals, to evolve different types of materials. By changing the laboratory-controlled environments in which directed evolution occurs, it will be possible to evolve materials with specific capacities, like high performance in an evolved solar cell, for example.

"Here we've demonstrated the evolution of material structure; I'd like to take it a step further and evolve material performance in a functional device," said Bawazer.

Research for this paper was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy.

Visit link:

Synthesis of genetically evolved semiconductor material

The European Commission would like to relax limits on genetically modified organisms in food. But Germany's agriculture minister supports a no-tolerance policy.

When the Augustinian monk Gregor Johann Mendel crossed a yellow with a green pea 150 years ago, he hardly could have guessed what his experiment would unleash. It was the starting point for a brand new area of science: genetic technology, which polarizes today more than ever.

The latest point of controversy for business, politicians and citizens is the current zero-tolerance policy, which the European Commission would like to relax. Under current regulations, genetically modified organisms (GMO) which have not been approved are not allowed in food products, but regulators would like to change that to allow contamination by up to 0.1 percent.

Germany's Agriculture Minister Ilse Aigner believes the EU's proposal goes too far.

"When we're talking about unapproved GMOs, then security must be given highest priority, especially when it comes to food," Aigner said in an interview with Deutschlandfunk radio.

Consumers seem to agree with her. But questions remain. How dangerous are food products manipulated in this way? And are we not eating them already without knowing it?

Alexander Hissting prefers the zero tolerance approach

A loophole on zero tolerance

The fact that many foods already include GMOs is usually ignored in the debate on the zero-tolerance policy. Organisms with manipulated genes have been used in Germany for about ten years - provided they have been approved by the EU. Consumers often don't know that because approved GMOs don't have to be identified.

"For approved GMOs, we don't have a zero-tolerance policy," said Alexander Hissting of Lebensmittel ohne Gentechnik (Food without Genetic Technology), a group that advocates against genetically modified foods. "The laws permit GMOs that have been checked for safety to be used in products to a certain degree."

Visit link:

EU may ease genetic engineering rules on food

Genetic engineering could hold the key to artificially creating semiconductors in a lab.

A team of academics at the University of California, Santa Barbara is looking at ways to create synthetic proteins that could form new structures of silicon dioxide to make computer chips with. These chips would then be used in all kinds of electronics. The proteins could also form titanium dioxide, used in solar cells.

The process is a bit different from regular genetic engineering because it uses synthetic cells made of the randomly combined genes of two related silicateins replete with random mutations, surrounded by a nucleus of minute plastic beads.

The artificial cells are put through the proverbial wringer, killing many along the way. Those that survive the process have their genes cherry picked by the scientists from either the silicon or titanium dioxide-forming proteins.

The results were somewhat surprising, with researchers finding not just the original silicateins used to form the artificial cell in the first place, but also another, different gene.

Tests on the new gene found it contained a silica-forming protein which has been dubbed silicatein X1, which may prove useful in the making of folded sheets of silica-protein fibers.

Silica skeletons of radiolaria in false color.

While that may sound strange and complicated, it's worth noting that even in nature, creatures like marine sponges can produce materials like fiberglass, while ARS notes that some bacteria can even build magnetic nanoparticles.

Now that scientists know it's possible to create entirely different silica proteins, the next step will be to change the conditions in order to achieve things like semiconductor performance.

- Sylvie Barak EE Times

Read the rest here:

Study enables genetically engineered chips

SAN FRANCISCO--Genetic engineering could hold the key to artificially creating semiconductors in a lab. According to technology news site Ars Technica, a team of academics at the University of California, Santa Barbara is looking at ways to create synthetic proteins that could form new structures of silicon dioxide to make computer chips with.

These chips would then be used in all kinds of electronics.

The proteins could also form titanium dioxide, used in solar cells.

The process is a bit different from regular genetic engineering because it uses synthetic cells made of the randomly combined genes of two related silicateins replete with random mutations, surrounded by a nucleus of minute plastic beads.

The artificial cells are put through the proverbial wringer, killing many along the way. Those that survive the process have their genes cherry picked by the scientists from either the silicon or titanium dioxide-forming proteins.

The results were somewhat surprising, with researchers finding not just the original silicateins used to form the artificial cell in the first place, but also another, different gene.

Tests on the new gene found it contained a silica-forming protein which has been dubbed silicatein X1, which may prove useful in the making of folded sheets of silica-protein fibers.

Silica skeletons of radiolaria in false color

Now that scientists know its possible to create entirely different silica proteins, the next step will be to change the conditions in order to achieve things like semiconductor performance.

Read the original here:

Genetic engineering for synthetic semiconductors

MADISON, Wis., June 7, 2012 /PRNewswire/ --Cellular Dynamics International, Inc. (CDI), the world's largest commercial producer of human induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cell lines and tissue cells, today announced the launch of its MyCell Services. These services include novel iPS cell line reprogramming, genetic engineering and differentiation of iPS cells into commercially available iCell terminal tissue cells (for example, heart or nerve cells).

"CDI's mission is to be the top developer and manufacturer of standardized human cells in high quantity, quality and purity and to make these cells widely available to the research community. Our MyCell Services provide researchers with unprecedented access to the full diversity of human cellular biology," said Bob Palay, CDI Chief Executive Officer. "The launch of MyCell Services furthers CDI founder and stem cell pioneer Jamie Thomson's vision to enable scientists worldwide to easily access the power of iPSC technology, thus driving breakthroughs in human health."

Over the past 2 years, CDI has launched iCell Cardiomyocytes, iCell Neurons and iCell Endothelial Cells for human biology and drug discovery research. MyCell Services leverage CDI's prior investment in building an industrial manufacturing platform that can handle the parallel production of multiple iPSC lines and tissue cells, manufacturing billions of cells daily.

Chris Parker, CDI Chief Commercial Officer, commented, "Not all studies requiring human cells can be accomplished by using cells from a limited set of normal, healthy donors. Researchers may need iPS cells or tissue cells derived from specific ethnic or disease populations, and MyCell Services enable them to take advantage of our deep stem cell expertise and robust industrial manufacturing pipeline to do so. Previously, scientists had to create and differentiate iPS cells themselves. Such activities consume significant laboratory time and resources, both of which could be better applied to conducting experiments that help us better understand human biology. CDI's MyCell Services enable scientists to re-direct those resources back to their experiments."

CDI pioneered the technique to create iPS cells from small amounts of peripheral blood, although iPS cells can be created from other tissue types as well. Additionally, CDI's episomal reprogramming method is "footprint-free," meaning no foreign DNA is integrated into the genome of the reprogrammed cells, alleviating safety concerns over the possible use of iPS cells in therapeutic settings. These techniques have been optimized for manufacture of over 2 billion human iPS cells a day, and differentiated cells at commercial scale with high quality and purity to match the research needs.

Modeling Genetic Diversity

CDI has several projects already underway using MyCell Services to model genetic diversity of human biology. The Medical College of Wisconsin and CDI received a $6.3M research grant from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), announced July 2011, for which CDI's MyCell Services will reprogram an unprecedented 250 iPS cell lines from blood samples collected from Caucasian and African-American families in the Hypertension Genetic Epidemiology Network (HyperGEN) study. In addition, MyCell Services will differentiate these iPS cells into heart cells to investigate the genetic mechanisms underlying Left Ventricular Hypertrophy, an increase of the size and weight of the heart that is a major risk factor for heart disease and heart failure.

Researchers are also using CDI's MyCell Services to generate iPS cells and liver cells from individuals with drug induced liver injury (DILI), toward an eventual goal of identifying genetic factors linked to idiosyncratic liver toxicity. "The most problematic adverse drug event is sudden and severe liver toxicity that may occur in less than one in one thousand patients treated with a new drug, and thus may not become evident until the drug is marketed. This type of liver toxicity is not predicted well by usual preclinical testing, including screening in liver cultures derived from random human donors," said Paul B. Watkins, M.D., director of with The Hamner - University of North Carolina Institute for Drug Safety Sciences. "The ability to use iPS cell technology to prepare liver cultures from patients who have actually experienced drug-induced liver injury, and for whom we have extensive genetic information, represents a potential revolution in understanding and predicting this liability."

Screening Human Disease

While most diseases are multi-systemic, focus typically centers on only one organ system. For example, congenital muscular dystrophy (CMD) is a group of rare genetic diseases with a focus on skeletal muscle, yet other systems, including heart, eye, brain, diaphragm and skin, can be involved. Understanding the molecular mechanisms underlying complex disease phenotypes requires access to multiple tissue types from a single patient. While some systems are readily accessible for taking a biopsy sample, for example skin, other organs are not.

Read the original here:

Cellular Dynamics Launches MyCell™ Services

A few blogs ago I asked, "Where, in fact, do 'the good ones' really come from?" By "good ones" I meant useful genome changes in evolution. This question stimulated some debate about whether it was possible to distinguish good changes from bad changes before they occur.

In the abstract, this may seem an overwhelmingly difficult problem. But if we think a bit about the highly organized state of the genome and non-random natural genetic engineering, biasing changes toward "good ones" becomes more conceivable.

I have already discussed purposeful, targeted changes in the immune system. The immune system illustrates how efficiently cells can target DNA restructuring by recognizing specific sequences and coupling DNA changes to transcription (copying DNA sequence into RNA).

Some evolutionists object that a somatic process like antibody synthesis provides no model for germline changes in evolution. So let's examine natural genetic engineering events in microbial cells. We'll look at mobile genetic elements targeted in ways that increase their evolutionary potential.

Mobile genetic elements come in many forms. Some operate purely as DNA. Others make an RNA copy and reverse transcribe it back into DNA as it inserts at a new location. Elements that move, or transpose, to multiple new locations are called "transposons" or "retrotransposons" (if they use an RNA intermediate).

Other mobile elements only insert in particular locations by a process called "site-specific" recombination. In bacterial evolution, this process is used in specialized structures called "integrons" that capture casettes containing protein coding sequences for antibiotic resistance, pathogenicity, and other functions.

What all mobile elements share are proteins that aid them to cut and splice DNA chains so that they can construct novel sequences, much as human genetic engineers do in their test tubes. These proteins have various names, such as "recombinase," "transposase," and "integrase." It is the specificity of the cutting reactions involving these proteins that determines where a mobile element moves in the genome.

One fascinating case of highly biased integration is the bacterial transposon Tn7. Tn7 has two specialized proteins to target its transposition. The TnsD protein directs Tn7 to insert into a special "attTn7" site in the chromosomes of many bacterial species where it does not disrupt any host functions and so causes no deleterious effects.

Another, more interesting protein, TnsE, directs Tn7 to insert into replicating DNA molecules. The reason this is important is that transmissible plasmids replicate their DNA as they transfer from one cell to another. TnsE targeting to plasmids in transit to new cells thus enhances the spread of Tn7 and the resistances it carries to many different kinds of bacteria.

Tn7 carries its antibiotic resistance determinants in an integron. Integrons and their recombinase proteins are likewise specialized to participate in plasmid spreading through bacterial populations. Plasmids enter new cells as single-stranded DNA. We learned just in 2005 that integron site-specific recombinases are special in operating on single-stranded DNA, not double-stranded molecules like previously studied recombinases. Moreover, integron recombinase synthesis is triggered by the entrance of single-stranded DNA into a cell. So integron activity is intimately linked in more than one way to plasmid transfer.

Read more:

James A. Shapiro: Can Cells Bias Natural Genetic Engineering Toward Useful Evolutionary Outcomes?