Category Archives: Genetic Engineering

The United States produces 18% of the worlds beef with 6% of the worlds cattle. Thats why genetics are important, said Dr. Alison Van Eenennaam, Professor of Cooperative Extension in Animal Genomics and Biotechnology at the University of California, Davis. Van Eenennaam gave her presentation titled Gene Editing Today and in the Future during the Beef Improvement Federation (BIF) Symposium June 24 in Des Moines, Iowa.

Van Eenennaam explained the concepts of introducing editing components into the genome.

Genetic engineering vs gene editing

The 2009 sequencing of the bovine genome allowed for the development of a 50,000 SNP chip, also known as the 50K. Very rapidly adopted by the global cattle breeding community, the genomic test result is incorporated in the genomic-enhanced expected progeny difference (GE-EPD) as an additional data source. GE-EPDs are made up of the animals pedigree, performance, progeny and genomic test result. This technology has evolved greatly since 2010 when DNA information competed with EPDs.

According to Van Eenennaam genome editing allows the introduction of double strand breaks at a specific sequence in the genome.

Genetic engineering, or GMOs, to use the more controversial term, is basically introducing a trait to a breeding program that brings a useful characteristic along, she explained. The difference with genome editing is you can very precisely target any location in the genome for the introduction of a new gene or also just tweaking the DNA within an animal. It is that precision that is kind of new with genome editing, which opens up opportunities to very precisely inactivate genes in the genome without necessarily introducing transgenic or exogenous DNA from another species. This is one of the distinguishing factors between genetic engineering and genome editing.

Gene editing technologies

Van Eenennaam explained that gene editing will be able to introduce useful alleles without linkage drag and potentially bring in useful novel genetic variation from other breeds. There are various advantages and disadvantages of somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) cloning to produce an animal carrying a targeted genome edit. Advantages include germline transmission, confirmed genotype with higher knock-in efficiency in somatic cells. Disadvantages are very low cloning efficiencies, use of a single cell line and not all cell lines clone well.

Van Eenennaam also explained that cytoplasmic injection (CPI) of editing reagents into embryos has multiple advantages and disadvantages. Advantages include no cloning artifacts, diversity of germplasm, and a high efficiency for gene knock-outs. Disadvantages of this technology are mosaicism (more than one genotype in an individual), variable rates of obtaining an edited genome in calves born, and gene knock-in is less efficient in early embryos.

I envision gene editing impacting breed associations and future genetic evaluation by offering an opportunity to repair deleterious genetic conditions, and an opportunity to introduce useful alleles into breed germplasm. It is currently primarily used for single gene or Mendelian traits, and it could potentially be used to alter a defining characteristic of a breed, Van Eenennaam said.

To watch Van Eenennaams full presentation, visit https://youtu.be/ioMx-c2N2PM . For more information about this years Symposium and the Beef Improvement Federation, including additional presentations and award winners, visit BIFSymposium.com.

Read the rest here:
Gene Editing in Today's Beef Industry and the Future - Bovine Veterinarian

Since June, the export of about 500 tonnes of rice from India has triggered an uproar in several European countries on the grounds that it was genetically modified (GM) rice. This emerged during a check by the European Commissions Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed that was testing rice flour by the French company Westhove. In June, France had issued a notification for unauthorised GM rice flour, identifying India as the point of origin, and alerting Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, the U.K. and the U.S. as the possible destination of products made with the flour. So in August, the American food products company Mars, fearing GM contamination, announced that it was recalling four of its product lines of Crispy M&M. GM-free rice that is tagged as organic rice is among Indias high-value exports worth 63,000 crore annually. India does not permit the commercial cultivation of GM rice, but research groups are testing varieties of such rice in trial plots. So the suspicion is that rice from some of these test-plots may have leaked into the exported product. The Indian government has denied this possibility with a Commerce Ministry spokesperson alleging that the contamination may have happened in Europe to cut costs. However, India has indicated that it will commission an investigation involving its scientific bodies.

Indias history of crop modification using GM is one of test-plants finding their way to commercial cultivars before they were formally cleared. Thus, Bt-cotton was widely prevalent in farmer fields before being cleared. Though they have not been cleared, Bt-brinjal and herbicide-tolerant cotton varieties too have been detected in farmer fields. Though the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee is the apex regulator of GM crops, it is mandated that trials of GM crops obtain permission from States. Because of the close connections between farmers and State agriculture universities, which are continuously testing new varieties of crops employing all kinds of scientific experiments ranging from introducing transgenes to other non-transgenic modification methods, and the challenges of ensuring that trial plots are strictly segregated from farms, there is a possibility that seeds may transfer within plots. Because many Indian farmers are dependent on European imports, the Centre must rush to assuage importers that Indias produce is compliant with trade demands. The fractious history of GM crops in India means that passions often rule over reason on questions of the safety of GM crops, and so India must also move to ensure that research into all approaches GM or non GM should not become a casualty in this matter of export-quality compliance.

Read the rest here:
Plugging the leak: On the GM rice controversy - The Hindu

Earlier this week, surgeons at New York Universitys Langone Transplant Institute successfully performed a pig kidney transplant. This in itself would be unremarkable. What does mark the achievement as unprecedented is the identity of the donor a genetically modified pig.

Some days post-surgery, the recipient, a brain-dead patient whose family consented to the experimental procedure, has not rejected the kidney and tests show that it is functioning normally. This incredible feat is significant both as a demonstration of scientific control over biological systems and as a beacon of hope to others in line for a transplant.

The idea of using other species for organ transplants is not new; we have used pig heart-valves for over 50 years. Yet whole organs have presented several challenges, most notably the risk of rejection. This occurs because the body believes the transplant is an invader that must be destroyed, leading to an immune response that attacks the organ. While the triggers for rejection are not completely understood, one of the biggest barriers to cross-species transplantation is a molecule known as alpha-gal, a carbohydrate that immediately elicits a massive immune response.

To counteract this, scientists used a powerful tool of genetic engineering, CRISPR, to modify the pigs genome so that it does not produce alpha-gal. CRISPR has existed for less than a decade, yet its ability to accurately cut and paste specific pieces of genomes is already leading to breakthroughs in many areas of biology including in the development of COVID-19 vaccines.

At present, over 100,000 people in the United States are awaiting an organ donation, among whom 83%, ~91,000, are in need of a kidney. Though 54% of US citizens are registered organ donors, less than 1% of deaths result in useable organs, so supply will always outstrip demand.

Consequently, wait times for a kidney can range from four months to six years depending on blood type, geographic location, disease severity, immune system activity, and other factors. Most of those on the waiting list must have their blood cleaned via hemodialysis, a process that entails commuting to a dialysis centre and spending four hours a day, three times a week, attached to a machine simply to stay alive. The longer they are on dialysis, the smaller their chance of a successful kidney transplant becomes as the procedure can only partially compensate for the damaged organ.

Every year, 5,000 people die waiting for a transplant and another 5,000 are removed from the list because they are no longer healthy enough to receive it, meaning that only 65% of those placed on transplant lists will receive a kidney in time. This latest development could prove to be a gamechanger.

But there will be difficult questions about the ethics of modifying other species to fit our needs, and the event may spark further dialogue on the conditions pigs and other animals are currently raised in. There are also still many unanswered questions surrounding the efficacy of cross-species transplantation. Can pig kidney transplants to humans save lives? Well, before we get to an answer, more robust, longer-term trials will have to take place.

Yet the significance of this pig kidney transplant demonstration should not be underestimated this is a momentous step towards saving the lives of tens of thousands of people awaiting a transplant, not to mention the half a million with kidney failure who do not even qualify because of scarcity. It also speaks to the potential of biotechnology more broadly to transform the health outcomes of millions of people.

Written by

Cameron Fox, Project Specialist, Shaping the Future of Health and Healthcare, World Economic Forum

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

More:
A cross-species kidney transplant from a pig has worked. What you need to know - World Economic Forum

In the Netherlands, around 90 thousand people have a chronic intestinal disease, such as Crohns disease. These inflammations are easy to detect. The only thing you need for that is an endoscopy: a camera that goes into the intestinal tract. Invasive and unpleasant, says Luke Rossen, team manager of the iGEM student team in Eindhoven. The team developed a method where gas bubbles from E.coli bacterium and an ultrasound machine reveal whether there is an infection and where it is located.

If you have an inflammation in your intestines, your body produces a substance, Rossen explains. That substance can bind with certain proteins which can trigger the production of gas bubbles. If you introduce these proteins into E.coli bacteria, then it acts as a kind of sensor. Those gas bubbles that then form can subsequently be visualised using ultrasound. That way, you can detect the inflammation with an ultrasound machine. All the patient has to do is take a pill containing the bacteria the day before.

The team is participating in the global iGEM competition, part of the International Genetically Engineered Machine (iGEM) Foundation with their discovery. An independent, non-profit organisation dedicated to the advancement of synthetic biology, the (re)design and construction of organisms or parts thereof. This year, 356 student teams from countries in Europe, Asia, North and South America and Australia are competing in the competition. Each year there is a Giant Jamboree, although this year a smaller version is being held digitally in Paris due to corona.

Your weekly innovation overviewEvery sunday the best articles of the week in your inbox.

It is also the case nowadays that people suffering from intestinal complaints first take a self-test, Rossen goes on to say. That test is not very specific. Even if there is nothing wrong, a person is sometimes still sent to hospital for an expensive invasive endoscopy examination. That person has to make sure their bowels are empty beforehand, so the day before, they have to take strong laxatives and fast. They are also given an anaesthetic during the treatment. A trained doctor and two nurses are present during an endoscopy. Whereas in almost 30 per cent of cases, this is not necessary.

The iGEM teams so-called IBDetection method falls somewhere between the self-test and the extensive follow-up examination. The students have modified the intestinal bacterium E. Coli so that it acts as a sensor. That implies cutting and pasting with DNA, says Rossen. Its like doing a puzzle with very small building blocks. We put some DNA and the bacterium together and examine what does and doesnt work. You take out a certain piece, see what the reaction is and keep going until you have the right reaction with those gas bubbles.

Actually, the biology textbooks of primary and secondary schools should be rewritten, Rossen states. Because working with so-called genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is still new, the team manager notes. You hardly ever learn anything about it in primary and secondary schools. In order to educate young people about genetic engineering, the team gives guest lectures. For example, we show them what soap does. You wash your hands every day, but what happens? Actually, it is just a molecule that binds water and fat. We want to explain the basic principles, which can also be applied to what we do. For instance, how a protein binds to a substance.

The team also came up with an escape room, escape the cell. You walk through parts of a cell in each room and have to solve a puzzle. That is how you learn what a cell looks like. A number of secondary schools are now making use of the escape room to try it out, Rossen adds.

On 21 October, the team uploaded everything from their cases, documentation, research and tests into a wiki. Like their research that they did in collaboration with a student team from Vienna that is developing something similar. The teams interviewed people with chronic inflammatory bowel disease about whether they would prefer an examination using an endoscopy or an ultrasound machine and swallow a pill. This revealed that people were sympathetic to our idea, says Rossen. Very different from what we had assumed beforehand. We thought people would be more negative about it because we are working with genetic manipulation.

In addition, the students participated in the RIVM Safe by Design competition to demonstrate that their method is safe. During the Sustainable Healthcare Challenge, the team finished in third place. The last test results were also a success: the team succeeded in inserting the definitive DNA into the bacteria.

After 21 October everything will be open to the public. Rossen: If you want to know exactly what we do, then it is in there. After that time, there will be a period of relative calm. It was a lot of hard work and then it was finished. To bridge the time until the Giant Jamboree, the iGEM team is organising a mini jamboree for the Benelux. Everything in miniature but with judges and a prize.

Rossen signed up for participation in the team at the end of last year. His professor sent all his students a call out to participate I had only just had a taste of some practical lessons when the lockdown started. I missed doing practical work. Being able to participate in this was a godsend. The masters student in Biomedical Engineering worked full time on the project from May. Once the competition is over, the team will hand over the baton to a new team.

If it all works out, the biggest challenge is to change legislation so that it can be put into practice, Rossen says. Thats lagging behind in Europe. He spoke to Lucie McMurtry of EuropaBio, about the European Legislation on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). What is the future outlook? My reply was that there is not much chance of our concept being approved within the next ten years. Purely because we use living GMOs as sensors, regardless of whether it is safe or not. Rossen is convinced that research within synthetic biology makes sense. We want to use fundamental research to show that it is safe. It is a first step towards the future: there is potential in it, its not scary, as long as you think about it properly and thoroughly and test everything meticulously. Then its just like any other drug only a bit more complex.

Also interesting: If a section lights up a color, a biomarker has been found

Visit link:
Detecting chronic intestinal inflammation with a pill - Innovation Origins

Decades of ivory poaching have reportedly contributed to an increase of tuskless elephants, meaning that humans are essentially changing the anatomy of a wild species.

Tuskless elephants were originally studied as a rare genetic mutation. However, the defect has become very common amongst groups of African elephants.

The study, published in the journal Science reveals that the change follows a period of mass tusk poaching. Researchers focused on why female elephants in Mozambique Gorongosa National Park were being birthed without tusks.

The study revealed that the animals were affected by genetic engineering ultimately the result of ivory poaching.

During the Mozambican Civil war (1977-1992) elephants with tusks were at high risk of poaching. An astonishing 90 per cent of the elephant population were killed for their ivory in order to fund the conflict of the war.

Tuskless elephants were left alone and therefore increased the likelihood of offspring being born without tusks. The impact of this is still evident generations later, with the 700 elephants in the national park displaying the effects.

Robert Pringle, scientist and leader at Princeton University, was at the forefront of the ground-breaking evolution study.

What I think this study shows is that its more than just numbers. The impacts that people have, were literally changing the anatomy of animals.

Gorongosa national park had always been of interest to researchers with the suspicion that poaching had led to these abnormalities.

The team of researchers were intrigued by the lack of elephants being born without tusks. Although a known phenomenon, no one had ever researched the cause.

It had long been suspected that the mutation stemmed from a genetic cause and was most likely linked to sex.

This was proven through the use of genome sequencing. Further study revealed that a pair of candidate genes on the X chromosomes, including one linked to tooth development.

The mutation on one or more of the genes ultimately protects female elephants from poaching. Approximately half of the male elephants born to tuskless mothers will share the abnormality.

It has led to a noticeable decrease in males within herds affected by poaching. This is however reversible over time.

The rest is here:
Elephant anatomy is changing... and humans are to blame - Happy Mag

Gene Therapy Market The Gene therapy market was valued $2.26 Bn in 2020 and is expected grow at a CAGR of xx%.Market Introduction and Overview

Gene therapy and novel therapeutics applying gene therapy-based techniques have experienced a drastic advance in the past 10 years. Clinically functional gene therapies are established now for certain diseases, and many other promising therapeutics have been developed, with such a trend being most noticeable in the field of haematological diseases. Recent advances in gene therapy and gene therapy-based approaches have been quite considerable, which include delivery vectors, gene engineering technologies and application to chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy.

The most comprehensive market research report, Global Gene Therapy Market 2021 by Manufacturers, Regions, Type and Application, Forecast to 2026, provides a summary of broad market structure, potential, trends, and forecasts for the global market from 2021 to 2026. The report contains an overview and in-depth analysis of factors that are thought to have a significant impact on the markets future development, such as market size, market share, and various dynamics of the worldwide Gene Therapy industry, as well as market businesses and regional analysis. The key market aspects have been thoroughly explored and statistically analysed in this analysis.

This research also includes a full analysis of the purchasing criteria and challenges faced in the Gene Therapy industry. It also includes a thorough study of the markets restrictions, industry structure, and business strategy. To present primary market information, meetings and interviews with prominent market participants were conducted. In addition, this research provides an in-depth analysis of the global Gene Therapy markets size and application scope. The study contains thoroughly reviewed and assessed data on well-known firms and their market position, taking into account the impact of recent events. The study contains thoroughly reviewed and analysed data on notable organisations and their market position in light of Coronaviruss influence. While separating the improvement of the important companies performing in the market, measured tools such as SWOT analysis, Porters five powers analysis, and assumption return debt were used.

Enquiry before buying this premium Report: https://www.maximizemarketresearch.com/request-sample/85074

List of Key players: Following are the number of key players studied to understand the Gene Therapy market: REGENXBIO, Inc. Bayer Oxford BioMedica plc Dimension Therapeutics, Inc. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company SANOFI Applied Genetic Technologies Corp F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. Bluebird Bio, Inc. Novartis AG Taxus Cardium Pharmaceuticals Group, Inc. (Gene Biotherapeutics) UniQure N.V. Shire Plc; Cellectis S.A. Sangamo Therapeutics, Inc. Orchard Therapeutics Gilead Lifesciences, Inc. Benitec Biopharma Ltd. Sibiono GeneTech Co., Ltd. Shanghai Sunway Biotech Co., Ltd Gensight Biologics S.A. Transgene Calimmune, Inc Epeius Biotechnologies Corp Astellas Pharma, Inc American Gene Technologies BioMarin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Human Stem Cell Institute Spark Therapeutics LLC GlaxoSmithKline Voyager Therapeutics

COVID-19 impact:

The appearance of COVID-19 brought the entire planet to a halt. We recognise that the health-care crisis has had a significant influence on the industrys business. Increased government and corporate backing could aid in the fight against this extremely contagious disease. There are industries that are booming and industries that are struggling. Pandemics are likely to have an impact on practically every industry. We are dedicated to ensuring that your company survives and thrives during the Covid-19 outbreak. By offering impact analyses on Gene Therapy market of coronavirus outbreaks across the sector, our experience and skills will help us plan for the future.

Gene Therapy Market segments:By Indication, the spinal muscular atrophy segment led the market in 2020 with a highest revenue share of 41%. The large B-cell lymphoma segment is expected to grow significantly in the forecast period. SMA is a hereditary disease that causes weakness and muscle wasting because patients lose lower motor neurons (nerve cells) that control movement. SPINRAZA is the first therapy approved to treat infants, children and adults with spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) and is approved in more than 50 countries. As of December 31, 2019, more than 10,000 individuals have been treated with SPINRAZA. On August 7 2020, Roche received the approval for Evrysdi (risdiplam) to treat patients two months of age and older with spinal muscular atrophy (SMA. This is the second drug and the first oral drug approved to treat this disease.

By vector type, Adeno-associated virus (AAV) vector segment held the largest market share of 43% in 2020, Owing to the vectors low immunogenicity, safety and long-term transient expression. Investigators from Dyno Therapeutics, Google Research, and partners have reported successfully using artificial intelligence to generate an unprecedented diversity of adeno-associated virus (AAV) capsids, in order to identify functional variants capable of evading the immune system, a key hurdle to wider use of gene therapy.

According to a recently published study of the Gene Therapy industry, consumers have many chances to enhance their incomes. Size, location, and growth estimates are covered in a digestible Gene Therapy market research guide, along with many company statistics tables and forecasts. This analysis has an impact on imported/exported product sales, supply and demand, adoption, cost, volume, and gross margins. The Gene Therapy industrys significant geographical advancements, business dynamics, and country-level market structure are all explored in depth.

Do Inquiry Before Purchasing Market Gene Therapy Report Here : https://www.maximizemarketresearch.com/inquiry-before-buying/85074

This report can be customized to meet the clients requirements. Please connect with our sales team ([emailprotected]), who will ensure that you get a report that suits your needs.

About Maximize Market Research Pvt. Ltd.:

Maximize Market Research has served esteemed clients including Yamaha, Boeing, Sensata, Etnyre, Canada, ALCOR M&A, Microsoft, Harman, and other 200 MNCs worldwide. The Company provides B2B and B2C market research on 5000 high growth emerging technologies & opportunities in Transportation, Chemical, Healthcare, Pharmaceuticals, Electronics & Communications, Internet of Things, Food and Beverages, Aerospace and Defense and other manufacturing sectors.We, at Maximize Market Research, are a strong unified team of industry specialists and analysts across sectors to ensure entire Industry ecosystem is taken in perspective, factoring all recent development, latest trends and futuristic the technological impact of uniquely specific industries.

Contact Details:MAXIMIZE MARKET RESEARCH PVT. LTD.Phone: US: +1 774 775 2163; APAC: +91-9607365656Email: [emailprotected]Website: http://www.maximizemarketresearch.com

More here:
Gene Therapy Market: Industry Analysis, Growth, Segmentation and Forecast-2020-2026 Maximize Report Puck77 - Puck77

Figure 1: Gregor Mendel. Source: Wikipedia

In 1866, Gregor Johann Mendel published his work on pea plants which was the foundation for a new scientific area: Genetics. His work consisted of combining different types of pea plants and then statistically defining what happened with the heritage.

From these experiments, many scientists began to researchgenetics and itseffect on any form of life. Since then, it has been discovered that modifying the genes of a living being can alter their physical configuration.

Imagine having the power to decide exactly what your baby will look like or to rid your body of any disease known to man. Some may say this is science fiction, but genetic engineering is a science that could produce such results.

This website is informative and is directed to anyone who wants to learn basic information about genetic engineering.

The material found in this website was obtained from an interview and electronic sources such as scholarly articles, news articles, electronic databases, and websites.

This website includes basic information about genetic engineering, more specifically about its process, interesting uses, ethical issues, and pros and cons of its application. Click HERE to view the executive summary.

Read the original:
Genetic Engineering | The Basics of Genetic Engineering

For some, simply earning a good salary and enjoying strong job stability isnt enough to satisfy. Working in a field that allows them to have a major impact on the future of our species is something that is just as important as a paycheck. If this sounds like you, one option you may want to consider for your career is to become a genetic engineer.

While it isnt specifically a health oriented career like nursing would be, genetic engineering will have a big impact on the health and wellbeing of the planet. As such, the process to become one of these highly trained specialists involves hard work and dedication. Its not a perfect job for everyone, but for many it could be a dream career. Keep reading to learn more about the job and what it involves.

What Is a Genetic Engineer?

Genetic engineers are highly trained experts who use a variety of molecular tools and technologies to rearrange fragments of DNA. The overall goal in doing so is to add or remove an organisms genetic makeup for the better, or to transfer DNA code from one species into the other. The overall goal of this is to enhance organisms so that they are better able to thrive in certain environments. An example is when a plant is modified to thrive better in drought conditions or when a bacteria is adapted in such a way that it helps improve drug treatment.

Common job duties include:

The job involves a lot of things, and usually you will specialize in a very niche area of genetic science so that your attention is solely focused on that area throughout your career.

Characteristics

As with any other job, possessing a few personal skills will have a big impact on your ability to excel in the position. Here are some of the areas youll need to be strong in.

Nature of the Work

Genetic engineers rarely work outside a laboratory setting. The vast majority of the work is done in a lab, while some minor office work such as drafting reports and writing papers for publication may be handled at times.

Usually, genetic engineers work for private companies. Pharmaceutical companies, research organizations, and even some hospitals or universities will often hire these professionals. Some government level jobs exist as well, and those who enter this field of work will usually have options when deciding where to focus their skills.

Education and Training

To become a genetic engineer, the bare minimum education requirement will be a bachelors degree in biochemistry, biophysics, molecular biology, or molecular genetics. However, in most cases it will be much more beneficial to have a masters or doctorate level degree in molecular genetics or molecular biology instead. Undergraduate degrees may provide an initial entry point into the field, but holding a PhD is the primary path used to enter the field and conduct your own work.

Additionally, experience of at least 3 years in the field under the direct guidance of a supervisor will also be used to help gain employment. Obviously, different employers will have their own specific requirements but the points above make a good example of what youll need to enter the field.

Salaries vary greatly, and generally run from $45,000 up to about $140,000. The average salary is about $82,800 annually. Again, your experience, your specific employer, and a variety of other things will have a big influence on your overall pay.

Read more:
Genetic Engineer | Careers in Public Health.net | Jobs ...

Genetic engineering can be used in a variety of ways to protect plants from damaging pests and diseases. Why is it important to protect plants from pests and diseases? In commercial agriculture, plants are typically grown in genetic monocultures, especially staple crops like corn, wheat, rice and others. If a pest or pathogen is present or introduced and conditions are favorable, the crop is quite vulnerable. If not addressed, serious crop losses can occur.

Agricultural crops are not the only plants that can be protected with the use of genetic engineering. In the first half of the twentieth century, the American chestnut, a major component of the eastern hardwood forest, was all but eliminated following the introduction of an Asian fungal disease, chestnut blight. Unlike Asian chestnut, American chestnut has absolutely no genetic resistance to the disease. Why is this important? American chestnut once made up 25% of the forest throughout much of its natural range. The leaves were a food source for many insects and the nutritious nuts provided food for animals including turkeys, bears, squirrels and more. And, of course, people enjoyed eating them, too. The wood was valued as a source of decay resistant lumber for construction and many other uses. Both traditional cross breeding and genetic engineering are possible solutions in the effort to bring back this significant species.

Farmers use many tools and techniques to prevent or manage plant pests and diseases. These include:

Genetic engineering may be used when other available tools are ineffective, unavailable, or when a clear benefit, such as reduced reliance on pesticides or increased yield, can be achieved.

Lets look at three examples of traits used in agricultural crops today, what they do, how they work, which crops have them and why.

Trait I. Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) toxin

What does it do? It kills caterpillars (in most cases) that eat it (or genetically engineered plants that contain it). Other insects, including pollinators, are unaffected.

How does it work? Bacterial genes that result in production of a protein harmful to insect cells are inserted into genes of the plant. The plant cells now contain the toxic protein and caterpillars that feed on the plant will be killed.

Which crops have Bt toxin genes? Corn, cotton, and eggplant (Bangladesh) (not all seed/plants are genetically modified).

Why was this trait introduced? Some of the most damaging pests of these crops, typically requiring regular applications of insecticides, are caterpillars. By making the plant toxic to the pest, chemical insecticide applications can be reduced. This can reduce harmful effects of pesticides on non-target organisms, handlers and the environment while reducing costs. Read more: http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/insecticidal-plants/

Trait II. Resistance to papaya ringspot virus (PRSV).

What does it do? Transgenic (genetically engineered) papaya is resistant to PRSV.

How does it work? Genes from part of the virus itself have been incorporated into the papaya genome to achieve resistance.

Which crops have PRSV resistance? Rainbow papaya.

Why was this trait introduced? No other preventive or curative options were available to protect papaya in Hawaii from this disease. It is credited with saving the papaya industry in Hawaii. Read more: http://www.apsnet.org/publications/apsnetfeatures/Documents/2004/HawaiianRainbow.pdf

Trait III. Resistance to potato late blight.

What does it do? Modified potato plants are resistant to the serious disease, late blight,that was responsible for the Irish potato famine of the 1800s and still causes major crop losses today. In addition, these potatoes are reported to have improved storage life and reduced amounts of a potentially carcinogenic chemical produced when potatoes are cooked at high temperatures.

How does it work? Genes from a South American potato with resistance to the disease have been added to the genome of these food crop potatoes. Consumers may be more receptive to plants modified using genes from the same or a closely related species.

Which potatoes have this trait? The new varieties are Russet Burbank, Ranger Russet and Atlantic.

Why was this trait introduced? For disease control. More info: https://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2017-02-28/us-approves-3-types-of-genetically-engineered-potatoes

By Joan Allen, Assistant Extension Educator, UConn Department of Plant Science and Landscape Architecture

Read the original:
Genetic Engineering and Plant Protection | Science of GMOs

Genetic engineering refers to the techniques whereby recombinant DNA, hybrid DNA made by artificially joining pieces of DNA from different sources, is produced and utilised. The term has gradually broadened out from this earlier more stringent definition to encompass virtually any process involving DNA manipulation. The applications of genetic engineering are now so widespread and well established within the biomedical sciences that it is difficult for younger investigators to envisage what research life was like in the era before genetic engineering. A quick skim of the articles in the current issue of the Journal of Immunology, a journal that ranges from clinical perspectives to molecular characterisation, reveals that out of 79 articles no less than 65 (82%) utilised genetic engineering as an important component of their investigation. In the more molecular journals that figure would certainly be 100% and even in the most clinical journals genetic engineering utilisation is prominent. This helps to explain why biomedical research laboratories around the world now tend to look so similar: irrespective of the precise discipline involved, the widespread use of molecular biology imposes its own constraints upon architecture and, indeed, on the sociology of scientific communities.

The publication of the mouse genome sequence in late 2002 highlighted the enormous importance of the mouse as a model for human disease.1 Of the roughly 30 000 genes present in both human and mouse, 99% of the human genes have homologues in the mouse genome (and vice versa). In practice what this means is that nearly all the genes that contribute to human disease can be studied in the mouse, although of course gene function is not necessarily identical in the two contexts. Deleting genes out of mice (making knockouts in laboratory jargon) and over-expressing genes in particular lineages (making transgenics) has been with us for more than a decade. Today these earlier strategies are giving way to more sophisticated approaches, such as lineage-specific conditional knockouts in which a selected gene can be deleted in a particular cell lineage following its normal development. In knock-in strategies, point mutations can be introduced into a specific gene, enabling an exquisite level of specificity in structure-function analysis. The old jibe that all a knockout mouse would tell you is how a mouse copes without a particular gene product has been addressed not only by such newer approaches, but also by the reconstitution of knockouts with a range of mutated versions of the deleted gene that again brings greater specificity into the story. In cancer studies a mouse can be engineered to develop a tumour, such as chronic myelogenous leukaemia caused by expression of the Bcr-Abl fusion protein (encoded by the Philadelphia chromosome in human chronic myelogenous leukaemia), and tumour regression then investigated following silencing of the transgene.2 By tagging tumour genes with a fluorescent probe the growth and remission of tumours can be readily assessed using whole body imaging.3 It is also now possible to introduce defined chromosomal rearrangements into the mouse genome by first genetically engineering them in embryonic stem cells.4 Other new technologies are enabling genomic DNA in bacterial artificial chromosomes to be directly modified and subcloned by a new approach known as recombineering.5

The rapid advances in the applications of genetic engineering to the mouse are mirrored to varying degrees by the speed at which the technology is transforming other research areas. As fig 1 illustrates, the applications of genetic engineering are myriad and the potential for positive use and potential misuse increases proportionally with the power and extent of the technology. The burgeoning biotechnology industry is to a large extent genetic engineering-driven and recombinant reagents are increasingly becoming a normal part of the pharmaceutical repertoire. In a typical application of genetic engineering to biotechnology, the US company Biogen has recently obtained licensing for its recombinant reagent Alefacept for the treatment of psoriasis, a T-cell mediated inflammatory disorder of the skin that affects about 100 million eople worldwide. Alefacept binds simultaneously to the CD2 antigen on T-cells and to a receptor expressed on NK cells thereby acting as a bridge to promote autologous killing of activated T-cells. Whether this mechanism explains Alefacepts clinical efficacy is a topic of active research. In a different kind of genetic engineering application, this time to identify novel pharmaceutical targets, the UK biotechnology company Polgen is using drosophila (fruit fly) to identify genes involved in cell cycle regulation. By systematically deleting the approximately 14 000 or so genes in the drosophila genome using interfering RNA technology it is possible to work out which gene products control the cell cycle. Since around 40% of human genes are identifiable in the drosophila genome and genes that control the cell cycle are highly conserved in evolution, this approach is expected to reveal human gene products that could become drug targets in the treatment of cancer and other disorders involving uncontrolled cell proliferation. These two very different examples illustrate the breadth of application of genetic engineering in the biotechnology industry, ranging all the way from target identification and validation through to production of the pharmaceutical reagent itself.

The applications of genetic engineering to medicine may be broadly divided into two subdivisions, involving either diagnosis or treatment. Applications in diagnosis may be prenatal or postnatal. The use of genetically engineered probes in the prenatal diagnosis of disease using cultured amniotic cells or tissue obtained by chorionic villus tissue biopsy has greatly extended analytical techniques already being carried out using more traditional approaches. But in the case of preimplantation genetic diagnosis, the technique itself only became feasible by the use of genetic engineering, in this case by amplifying DNA sequences using the polymerase chain reaction (PCR).6 Like other prenatal diagnostic procedures, preimplantation genetic diagnosis is typically offered to parents who are already known carriers of genetically lethal mutations, including those involving familial predisposition to cancer. After in vitro fertilisation, one or two cells are removed from the very early embryo on day 3 at the 812 cell stage. Subsequently PCR amplification is carried out on DNA derived from a single cell and the DNA sequence is then investigated for the presence of the mutation. By amplifying several different sequences simultaneously (multiplex PCR), including the sequence known to contain the mutation and one or more containing polymorphic markers that are closely linked to that mutation, the possibility of misdiagnosis is decreased. The removal of two cells rather than one, although not essential, also enables duplicate assays to be carried out, providing additional confirmation. In the case of X-linked disorders in which no single cell methods are available to screen a specific mutant gene, sex determination can be carried out to ensure the implantation of female embryos only. Typically this is used for the prenatal diagnosis of fragile X syndrome, Duchenne or Becker muscular dystrophies, and haemophilia. Fluorescence in situ hybridisation is used whereby DNA probes that are complementary to sequences on the X and Y chromosomes, as well as a non-sex chromosome sequence as control, are hybridised to the nuclear DNA from a single embryonic cell.

It is apparent that preimplantation genetic diagnosis has the potential for abuse. Indeed it is not allowed in many countries (for example, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Argentina), and has only recently been allowed in France, whereas in other countries it is virtually unregulated. In the UK it is a procedure regulated by licence from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) under the terms of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act (1990). The central aim of the procedure as enshrined in current UK regulations is to prevent the birth of children affected with very serious, life threatening conditions. The use of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for sex determination outside of this aim is forbidden by the HFEA. As with any new medical technology there is also a grey area in which ethical decisions are particularly controversial. This was highlighted by the use of preimplantation genetic diagnosis to ensure the birth of a baby boy tissue typed so that he could become a donor of haematopoietic stem cells for his sister who suffered from Fanconis anaemia.7 In the UK the HFEA recommended in 2001 that preimplantation tissue typing should only be used when an embryo was being screened for an inherited genetic disorder. However, this decision has recently been under judicial review. The direction such selection procedures could potentially take is illustrated by a recent case in which a child was deliberately conceived using donor insemination by a male with a genetic history of deafness, to be deaf like its lesbian parents.8 Ethically it seems wise to focus the use of preimplantation genetic diagnosis on the prevention of births involving lethally destructive genetic mutations, as in present HFEA regulations, and to avoid using the procedure for generating children for utilitarian purposes judged beneficial to their parents or their siblings, but which carry no conceivable benefit to their own welfare. In a market-driven society the commodification of babies is a real danger and the intrinsic value of each human individual irrespective of their genetic endowment needs persistent emphasis. Likewise the use of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for the preimplantation selection of embryos on the basis of trivial genetic characteristics without medical implications should be avoided. The emotive term designer baby so loved by the media in such discussions is inaccurate as the key human action involved is one of embryo selection not of design. Nevertheless, public unease over excessive levels of selection and control over another persons life are ethically well founded. Such concerns are exacerbated by the small subset of scientists who insist on presenting human genetics in arch reductionist terms.

The postnatal diagnosis of genetic diseases will be greatly facilitated by the sequencing of the human genome, now almost complete. There are already around 1000 documented disease genes out of the approximately 30 000 genes in the genome.9 Where treatment or a change in lifestyle can ameliorate symptoms there seems every reason to proceed with diagnosis. However, the issues become more complex when, as in Huntingtons disease, symptoms may not develop for several decades after the person has received the news that they carry the defective gene. Identification of mutant genes that predispose towards disease but do not guarantee it are likewise difficult to handle, particularly if there are no known environmental changes that will lower the risk. In such cases the right not to know ones genetic constitution may be as important as the right to know. A potential abuse of genetic engineering is to give people genetic information about which they can do nothing, a trend that could encourage genetic fatalism. There is also the continued risk of creating a genetic underclass who are less able to obtain life insurance or loans. As Francis Collins, Director of the National Center for Human Genome Research, comments: Unfortunately there is going to be a gap between our ability to carry out diagnostic work and our ability to intervene therapeutically for a large number of diseases, at least for the next few years. Living in that gap is going to be an uncomfortable experience for all of us . . ...10

Fortunately the applications of genetic engineering in the treatment of genetic disease is at last yielding some positive results, albeit modest and not without setbacks. In April 2002, after a gene therapy trial that occurred two years previously, French researchers announced that the immune systems of several children with X-linked severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID) were nearly normal.11 Out of the 11 children in the trial at the Necker Hospital in Paris, nine were cured. A successful and improved gene transfer protocol for treating SCID patients with adenosine deaminase deficiency was also recently reported.12 Unfortunately two of the Necker Hospital SCID patients later developed a leukaemia-like condition due to T-cell hyperproliferation, caused by integration of the vector into the LMO-2 gene, mutations which are known to be involved in childhood cancers. The potential risk of such insertional mutagenesis events remain a matter for active discussion and may impinge on the 600 gene therapy trials already ongoing worldwide.

The future potential for somatic cell gene therapy remains enormous. The possibility of germ line therapy has also frequently been mooted, but the increasing success of preimplantation genetic diagnosis appears to render this approach unnecessary. Why bother with genetic therapy of an affected early embryo when a non-affected embryo may already be available for implantation?

An important focus for genetic engineering continues to be the diagnosis and healing of human disease. In contrast the suggested use of genetic engineering for so-called additive or enhancement therapies represents a very different kind of application and the potential for abuse seems high. The term therapy is in any case inappropriate as in reality no therapy would be involved, only the aim to enhance certain specified characteristics. Fortunately the complexity of the genome itself represents a natural defence against such interventions. Humans all too frequently aspire to god-like power and wisdom, but the reality of war, the inequitable distribution of resources, and the frequent misuse of science act as constant reminders that our actions do not always live up to our aspirations. The techniques of genetic engineering, if used wisely, can continue to bring enormous benefits to humankind. Arguably those benefits can best be safeguarded within a world view that ensures a high view of the value of the human individual that is independent of the variation in their genetic endowment.13

Multiple uses of genetic engineering; the figure is illustrative only, not exhaustive. White arrows indicate applications that have aroused little ethical controversy whereas black arrows highlight more controversial applications, either actual or proposed.

Consortium MGS. Initial sequencing and comparative analysis of the mouse genome. Nature2002;420:52062.

Huettner CS, Zhang P, Van Etten RA, et al. Reversibility of acute B-cell leukaemia induced by BCR-ABL1. Nat Genet2000;24:5760.

Schmitt CA, Fridman JS, Yang M, et al. Dissecting p53 tumor suppressor functions in vivo. Cancer Cell2002;1:28998.

Yu Y, Bradley A. Engineering chromosomal rearrangements in mice. Nat Rev Genet2001;2:78090.

Copeland NG, Jenkins NA, Court DL. Recombineering: a powerful new tool for mouse functional genomics. Nat Rev Genet2001;2:76979.

Braude P, Pickering S, Flinter F, Ogilvie CM. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Nat Rev Genet2002;3:94155.

Verlinsky Y, Rechitsky S, Schoolcraft W, et al. Preimplantation diagnosis for Fanconi anemia combined with HLA matching. JAMA2001;285:31303.

Savulescu J. Education and debate: deaf lesbians, designer disability, and the future of medicine. BMJ2002;325:7713.

Jimenez-Sanchez G, Childs B, Valle D. Human disease genes. Nature2001;409:8535.

Collins F. The human genome project. Science and Christian Belief1999;11:99111.

Hacein-Bey-Abina S, Le Deist F, Carlier F, et al. Sustained correction of X-linked severe combined immunodeficiency by ex vivo gene therapy. N Engl J Med2002;346:118593.

Aiuti A, Slavin S, Aker M, et al. Correction of ADA-SCID by stem cell gene therapy combined with nonmyeloablative conditioning. Science2002;296:24103.

Alexander DR. Rebuilding the matrixscience and faith in the 21st century. Oxford: Lion, 2001.

Continue reading here:
Uses and abuses of genetic engineering | Postgraduate ...