Category Archives: Genetic Engineering

Hybrid: an Interspecies Opera is having its premiere at the Esther Klein Gallery. The approximately 20-minute film is screening on a loop inside a darkened room built into the lobby of 3600 Market. It can be viewed anytime during gallery hours, which are 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Mondays through Saturdays.

It is one part of a small retrospective of Dewey-Hagborgs work, Closer Than Your Family, which also includes a love virus that can replicate the hormonal chemicals generated by being in love (an actual engineered virus, but never tested on a person), and 3D printings of peoples faces based on the genetic information in their DNA.Watsons ghost is one of three works by Heather Dewey-Hagborg that make up the last exhibit at the Esther Klein Gallery. It shows different interpretations of how James Watson, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, might look based on DNA alone. (Emma Lee/WHYY)

Closer Than Your Family is the final exhibition in 3600 Market. After the show closes Dec. 16, the Esther Klein Gallery will be gone.

Since 1976, the gallery, named after its original benefactor and founding director Esther Klein, has driven the art programs of the University City Science Center, a hub for science innovation and entrepreneurship spread across several buildings. The gallery moved into 3600 Market shortly after it was built in 1989.

Curator Angela McQuillan said the art program of the Science Center will re-establish itself in 2024 under a different, still undetermined name, across the street at 3675 Market Street, a newer building finished in 2018 with a larger ground-floor community space called the Quorum.The Quorum on Market Street will be the new home of the Esther Klein Gallery, although it will no longer be known by that name. The science-based art gallery will expand its mission to address health issues. (Emma Lee/WHYY)

They have this big lounge in there, and they have a coffee shop and free wi-fi and everything, McQuillan said. People have migrated over there and less people come through this space. We want to capitalize on the amount of people going through that space, to have more people view the work.Angela McQuillan is curator of the Esther Klein Gallery in University City. (Emma Lee/WHYY)

The Esther Klein Gallery has championed science-based art for more than 45 years. In its early days, the gallery featured artwork that tended to revolve around robotics and technology. When McQuillan became curator nine years ago, she steered the gallery toward art involving biology and bioethics.

The Science Center also has an artist residency program, putting artists into the laboratories of its tenant scientists to inspire new work. That is where Dewey-Hagborg developed the love virus in 2018 with scientists in the lab of Integral Molecular.

Go here to see the original:
After 45 years of science-based art, Esther Klein Gallery winds down - WHYY

The Neanderthals have won a Nobel prize. Well, almost. Even if most people havent heard of Svante Pbo, the Swedish geneticist whose work on ancient genomes and human evolution has landed him with 2022s award for physiology or medicine, or the exact science behind palaeogenomics and ancient DNA, they certainly have heard of Neanderthals.

Honouring his contribution to building this incredibly vibrant field of palaeogenomics, the award is much deserved: you need vision, persistence and pioneering methods to recover and sequence immensely old, fragile genetic material. But its also a recognition of the astonishing revelations about our deep history that have come from palaeogenomics, which holds many untapped secrets about who we are today, including settling the long-debated question of whether Neanderthals and Homo sapiens ever encountered each other and, lets say, warmed up those icy tundra nights (the answer is yes, many times).

For research communities, the prize also feels like a recognition of the relevance of work on palaeogenomics, human origin and archaeology more broadly and its continuing importance. Research in the 21st century on our hominin relations, including Neanderthals, is an entirely interdisciplinary, collaborative endeavour. All kinds of material analyses take place, in all sorts of ways. We use photogrammetry or lasers to record entire caves in 3D; trace how stone tools were moved across the land; examine microlayers within ancient hearths; even pick out the starches preserved in grot between ancient teeth. And the advent of the ability to retrieve palaeogenomics from extraordinarily old contexts was nothing short of revolutionary. Today, DNA can be extracted not only from bones, but even from cave sediments: the dust of long vanished lives, waiting for millennia to be found. It has made it possible to assess individual Neanderthals genetic profiles, and has opened windows into previously invisible population histories and interactions.

More than a decade on from the first big findings, today there is a huge community of palaeogenomics researchers, in large part thanks to Pbo, with many having trained with him. Among the younger generations at the front end of the sampling, processing and analytical work who may be the first to make and recognise key new discoveries many are women. They include Mateja Hajdinjak of the Crick Institute whose work has identified complex patterns of interbreeding among Neanderthals and the earliest Homo sapiens in Europe, and Samantha Brown from the University of Tbingen, whose meticulous work on unidentifiable bone scraps found the only known first-generation hybrid, a girl whose mother was Neanderthal and father Denisovan (closely related hominins from eastern Eurasia). Alongside wielding scientific clout, they are overturning outdated ideas that the hard sciences of statistics and white coats (or, in palaeogenomics, full-body protection) are male domains.

As an incredibly fast-moving field, palaeogenomics has achieved an enormous amount in a relatively short space of time. Innovative approaches are constantly being developed, and it must be admitted, even for those of us working in human origins, that keeping up with new methods and jargon can be challenging. The rapidity of advances, especially in competitive academic contexts, has also led to a number of ethical issues. While many are being tackled, the direction of some research may soon force the field to lay out official standards and draw ethical red lines when, for example, reconstructing the brains of Neanderthals using genetic engineering.

Ultimately, while decoding ancient hominin genomes has allowed us to identify which inherited genes we have today hence the physiology or medicine element of the Nobel prize the recognition of Pbos work seems more about much deeper themes, resonating with something of a Neanderthal zeitgeist. Since the discovery of their fossils more than 165 years ago, science has been engaged in dethroning Homo sapiens, demoting us from special creations to something still marvellous but not entirely unique.

Palaeogenomics bolstered this vision of an Earth that hosted many sorts of human, at least five of which were still walking around just 40,000 years ago; translate that figure to a generational scale, and youd see a chain of just 2,000 people linking hands. Ancient DNA has confirmed that we are both embedded within a rich history of hominin diversity, and that we still embody that history ourselves. Alongside the genetic material we acquired sideways through interbreeding with Neanderthals and other species, a recent study found that less than 10% of our genome is distinctive to Homo sapiens, evolved uniquely in us.

Most strikingly, popular understanding has shifted too. While some still drag out Neanderthal as a slur, it now seems somewhat abstracted from general public views. The archaeological evidence for Neanderthals complex, sophisticated minds, with genetic revelations of how close we really are to them, has transformed opinion on who they were, and what that means for us. The knowledge that the very stuff of Neanderthals is still present today in each human heart, thumping with fear or joy has forged a new emotional connection not just to them, but to all our other hominin relations. It also underlines the fact that they, and we, have always been part of a planetary web of life.

The most profound legacy of Pbos establishment of palaeogenomics is, or should be, humility. Because it turns out that many of the earliest Homo sapiens populations entering Eurasia eventually shared the same fate as the Neanderthals they met and mingled with. Their lineages vanished, culturally but also genetically, leaving behind no descendants among living humans. Perhaps the greatest inheritance they left us is understanding that our story is not one of predestined, exceptional success, but a blend of serendipity and coincidence; and that being the last hominin standing is not necessarily something to be proud of.

More here:
Behind this Nobel prize is a very human story: theres a bit of Neanderthal in all of us - The Guardian

Beer, with roots dating to before 6000 B.C.E., is one of the oldest drinks in history. It has been vital to human culture since antiquity: Mesopotamians praised a Sumerian goddess of brewing, Ninkasi, in a 3800-year-old hymn that includes a recipe for brewing beer with barely. We havent lost our fondness for the stuff. Today, the beer industry is worth an estimated $768.17 billion and could grow to as much as $989.48 billion by 2028.

But, especially since the the 1970s when brewers adopted new manufacturing techniques, beer may have lost some of its past flavor. Beer had historically been brewed in open, horizontal vats, but the industry switched to the larger, closed vessels, as seen on any present-day brewery tour. These containers are easier to fill, empty, and clean, and they enable larger brewing volumes to save costs. But this modern method can reduce the flavor produced in the process.

[Related: How Evolution Determines The Flavor Of Beer and Whiskey.]

There may be a way to revive some of that taste, thanks to new developments in gene editing. Belgian scientists report improving the flavor of contemporary beer by identifying and engineering a gene in yeast and some other alcoholic drinks, in a new study out in the journal Applied and Environmental Microbiology.

During the fermentation process, yeast converts 50 percent of the sugar in the mash to ethanol, and the other half to carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide pressurizes the closed vessels, dampening the flavor and causing the problem.

Johan Thevelein, an emeritus professor of molecular cell biology at Katholieke Universiteit in Leuven, Belgium, and his team first figured out how to identify the genes responsible for commercially important traits in yeast. (Thevelein is also founder of NovelYeast, which works with other companies on industrial biotechnology projects.) They used this technique to identify the genes responsible for flavor in beer by screening large numbers of yeast strains and evaluating which was best at preserving flavor while under pressure. According to Thevelein, they focused on a gene for a banana-like flavor, because it is one of the most important flavors present in beer, as well as in other alcoholic drinks.

[Related: How have non-alcoholic beers gotten so good?]

In a press release, Thevelein explained, To our surprise, we identified a single mutation in the MDS3 gene, which codes for a regulator apparently involved in production of isoamyl acetate, the source of the banana-like flavor that was responsible for most of the pressure tolerance in this specific yeast strain.

The team used CRISPR/Cas9, the groundbreaking gene editing technology, to create this gene mutation in other brewing strains. The genetic engineering improved the strains ability to tolerate carbon dioxide pressure and enriched the beers flavor.

The mutation is the first insight into understanding the mechanism by which high carbon dioxide pressure may compromise beer flavor production, said Thevelein.

He noted that the MDS3 protein is likely part of an important regulatory pathway that might inhibit carbon dioxide in banana flavor production, but the team is not sure how it does so. The same technology has also identified the genetic elements that are important for rose flavor production by yeast in alcoholic drinks.

This specific beer isnt on the market just yet, but it is not out of the realm of possibility, as the world becomes more interested in the future of genetically modified foods. A Japanese study from 2021 relied on CRISPR to edit barley, used in beer, to help the crop thrive despite climate change. And if youre hankering for a gene-edited burger with your gene-edited cold one, in May the FDA cleared the sale of beef from gene-edited cattle.

Read more:
The key to tastier beer might be mutant yeastwith notes of banana - Popular Science

According to Cain, via Per NPR, cotton candy grapes don't simply grow on vines. To generate growth, scientists have to extract the embryos from baby grape hybrids and fertilize them in test tubes. It probably won't come as much of a surprise, then, that they're notoriously expensive. At a Whole Foods Market in Brooklyn, cotton candy grapes run for $4.99 per pound, compared to $1.99 per pound for red seedless grapes. But, the high cost of production isn't the only reason this wine will probably never happen.

In 2016, Jim Beagle, CEO and co-founder of Grapery, said some grape farmers tried making cotton candy grape wine via Bon Apptit and it was a disaster. As Beagle puts it, "It's so bad. It tastes nothing like cotton candy... no acidity structure to give you [a] balanced mouthfeel. It tastes like the flabbiest Chardonnay you've ever had. And it smells like stale donuts." Scientifically, this feedback makes sense. Most wine grapes belong to the "Vitus vinifera" grape species, says Cain, but cotton candy grapes are a hybrid specie of V. vinifera and a yet-undisclosed Concord-adjacent specie. Therefore, not only do cotton candy grapes taste super unique, but they're also fundamentally different from other grapes at a biological level. So, perhaps cotton candy grapes should remain the super-sweet superstar of the fruit bowl and leave wine-making to the others. (If you're super into the idea, luckily, cotton candy-flavored dessert wine is still a thing.)

See the original post:
Why You'll Probably Never See Cotton Candy Grape Wine - Tasting Table

GEOSCIENCEMichael Uglo

By MICHAEL JOHN UGLOWELCOME all to our sixth lecture on the sciences of the earth.The sciences of the earth also involve living things of all sorts that contribute to the formation of the earth and its earth structures through geologic time.Hence working smarter in this time we call the technology age, we have to make greater use of what is available rather than letting it to the earth to allow the earths natural processes to take place through the lithification processes whereby once-living matter and non-living matter such as silts, shells, sediments and bones are turned into rocks.Materials in the living world are a major source of materials and resources that can be used applications to do with biogeotechnology or geobiotechnology in both the commutative and associative as well in their applications.For instance, in the biology of evolutionary applications, it is the huge area of biotechnology and genetic engineering that are a resource on the earth. Natural selection and genetic drift result in the species and populations of organisms and biodiversity seen on the planet earth both in the past for extinct life and in the present.

As a link, people have been doing artificial selections of organisms for so many years to contain the favourable characters of the organisms. There were cross-breedings done in plants to produce hybrid plants that produce good yields as well as producing plants that are drought-resistant and plants that can thrive in lengthy wet seasons and water-logged areas.Cross-breeding is also done in the rice plant as an example, to come up with the hybrid rice to grow in the dry ground instead of only water-logged areas and wetlands.The natural immunity to counter cancer is no longer effective. Cancers have evolved to decimate populations of organisms. Microbes such as bacteria, fungi and viruses have evolved to outpace the available effective drugs for their treatment. Soon microbes will become resistant to all the effective available drugs because they are continually evolving.In the field of agriculture, pests and weeds have become resistant to available pesticides and weedicides. The trend is continuing and the industry is going through a chemical treadmill to treat resistant weeds and pests.

Hence, understanding the evolutionary genetics at the molecular level in the nucleotides of the DNA and RNA is vital. Knowing how the genes programme the enzymes and proteins to produce parts of plants, animals and microbes will result in the understanding of the first-hand information on how the nitrogen bases and genes programme the synthesis of the organic polymers. This will also help in the understanding of the basis of genetic mutations and protein alterations to find a cure for cancer as well as the effective diagnosis of the problems arising in medicine, agriculture as well as in botany and other fields.For instance, in engineering an evolutionary computer-algorithm results in solving very complex and multi-faceted engineering problems. The algorithms programmed by man are not so multi-dimensional like the evolutionary algorithm in superiority.Materials found naturally on the earth are the rocks, soil, minerals and water. There are also metals and precious stones that are found on the earth such as gold, silver and gemstones. Other important materials are diamonds which are allotropes of carbon just like graphite and the fullerenes Buckminster as a resource base for carbon nanotubes.These materials become very important resources for life, agriculture, industry and technology.Specific areas have various resources of those earth materials. The rocks become a resource for construction work such as in buildings and roads. Materials such as sandstone, mud, soil, granite, limestone and marble are very important for civil works and engineering construction. For instance, marble can be quarried and cut at site for construction like a local resource.Caliche is a soft limestone material that can be used as a resource. It is found at the site of limestone bedrock as well as calcium carbonate soils. Caliche are collected and squashed to be mixed with cement for making building structures as well as structural walls.The rammed earth that is 30 per cent mud and 70 per cent sand is also made to be used for buildings and other structures in civil constructions and engineering. Like caliche, their porosity is very important for holding water and creating chemical bonds with the additives like the cement which are to be used as the structures of walls which adds the compression.

The caliche and rammed earth structures as well as stone products can be used as finishing characteristics of constructions. They can become good heat radiators or thermal bodies in winter. These structures can also be used for providing cool environments in summer. Further, these materials are fire-proof.At the sites of the clay soil, brick plants can be located to make and supply bricks for constructions. Bricks are made by conditioning and heating the clay or it is baked for uses such as structural tiles, roof tiles, pavers and floor tiles.The caliche block, rammed earth and stone with brick structures become very useful for structural constructions such as structural walls, road constructions as well as buildings.Soils are always tested in laboratories to see their structures for construction work. Some soils are not so suitable for constructions, especially soils with very high expansibility factor.s And example opf such soils is bentonite. AAll rocks and soil resources are good to use locally because these reduces the cost of transport. The material cost will come down because of the low transport costs. Also, non-renewable resources are to be used whereby the ecology of the site must not be affected with more extractions. They have to be used sustainably.My Prayer for PNG today is: I will proclaim to all your people, the wonders you have done for me. You are indeed a God of goodness, you draw me gently to your heartNext week: Physical events

Read the original here:
Earth materials in technology The National - The National

Published 7:47 am Monday, October 10, 2022

Does your fall dcor feature sunflowers, burlap and orange leaves? Or super-scary-creepy things for All Hallows Eve?

We do things differently. Ive got a bunch of shiny discarded CDs making beautiful rainbows as they spin from a magnolia tree. Its a fall tradition that seems to amuse and get compliments from neighbors walking their dogs.

On the inside, its a different story. Sugar skulls in the Dia De Los Muertos tradition adorn my house from candles and towels to salt and pepper shakers. People give me these colorful pieces of Mexican heritage.

Thats how I got hot sauce in a skull jar. My original intent was to go through the store-bought stuff so I could always make my own and keep it in the jar.

Spooky right?

Its a warning to others: I like it hot. I usually go red, but Ive gone green of late.

One hot green version: Simply cut up fresh jalapenos and run them through the blender with garlic and a little vinegar. The green stuff can be mixed in to yogurt to cool it down.Play around with that. Have fun. Dont be scared.

Monkeys and Sea Creatures Laid-back monkeys, skulls and sea creatures announce some tasty canned beverages that will take you into the season. No reason to say goodbye to island flavors in our mild winter area.

Osena is spiked coconut water cocktail as close as a pop of the top Lush Dragon Fruit, Exotic Pineapple and Pure Original are smooth flavors that allow you 100 calories of beachy feeling. The electrolytes just come naturally. Cute little monkeys are sharing a coconut drink with straws on the label. Try @drinkosena on social media.

Our friends at Fire Dept. Coffee have always meant businesses. The skull in a fire hat just calls me in for some adventure. Now Nitro-Charged Shellback Espresso with a dual-trident armed sea king is taking no prisoners.

Theres no alcohol in Spirit-Infused Irish Coffee and Nitro Latte is right in there with the new cans that arent for novice coffee drinkers. Its in good fun and based on the concept our fire fighters need to stay alert. Read atfiredeptcoffee.com how efforts help those hurt on the job.

Soil to shelf and not sketchy I truly enjoyed a meal of Chi, which is fake meat to haters. To Culinary Thrill Seekers looking for new flavors and some healthy fun, I say give this 100 percent plant-based meat a go.

It impressed a guest who found the good texture and flavor familiar. He guessed that nuts played a role in the good texture. I served it with tortilla and beans and we all felt good about our choices.

It cooks in 4 minutes and the box says theres No Sketchy Stuff like genetic engineering and artificial flavors or dyes. I cant wait to see how a box ofCHI-rizo upgrades my next Taco Tuesday. Italian Herb comes after that. Join in the fun fromchifoods.us.

Pork Yeah! Its Plants.

Darragh Doiron is a Port Arthur area foodie looking for her one sweater she pulls out each of our brief autumn seasons. Share your foodie finds with her atdarraghcastillo@icloud.com.

Read more:
CULINARY THRILL SEEKING Proceed with caution. It's hotter than blazes season. - Port Arthur News - The Port Arthur News

Granting legal rights and protections to non-human entities such as animals, trees and rivers is essential if countries are to tackle climate breakdown and biodiversity loss, experts have said.

The authors of a report titled Law in the Emerging Bio Age say legal frameworks have a key part to play in governing human interactions with the environment and biotechnology.

Ecuador and Bolivia have already enshrined rights for the natural world, while there is a campaign to make ecocide a prosecutable offence at the international criminal court. The report for the Law Society, the professional body for solicitors in England and Wales, explores how the relationship between humans and mother earth might be recalibrated in the future.

Dr Wendy Schultz, a futurist and report co-author, said: There is a growing understanding that something very different has to be done if our children are going to have a planet to live on that is in any way pleasant, much less survivable, so this is an expanding trend. Is it happening as fast as any of us would want? Possibly not, which is why its important to get the word out.

Her co-author, Dr Trish OFlynn, an interdisciplinary researcher who was previously the national lead for civil contingencies at the Local Government Association, said legal frameworks should be fit for a more than human future and developments such as genetic modification or engineering. This means covering everything from labradors to lab-grown brain tissue, rivers to robots.

We sometimes see ourselves as outside nature, that nature is something that we can manipulate, said OFlynn. But actually we are of nature, we are in nature, we are just another species. We happen to be at the top of the evolutionary tree in some ways, if you look at it in that linear kind of way, but actually the global ecosystem is much more powerful than we are. And I think thats beginning to come through in the way that we think about it.

An example of a right might be evolutionary development, where a species and individual is allowed to reach its full cognitive, emotional, social potential.

Such a right could apply to sows in intensive pig farming, calves taken away from their mothers and even pets, said OFlynn, adding: I say that as a dog lover. We do constrain their behaviour to suit us.

Developments in biotechnology also pose questions about the ethics of bringing back species from extinction or eradicating existing ones. Scientists are exploring reintroducing woolly mammoths and there has been discussion of wiping out mosquitoes, which carry malaria and other diseases.

The planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essential

We arent wise enough to manage all of these capabilities and to manage the ripple effects of decisions we make about our relationship with the living environment, said Schultz. Part of the issue is embedding some sort of framework for accountability and responsibility for the consequences of these things we do, and thats where law comes in.

The authors acknowledge potential resistance from very different traditions and beliefs in some western countries, compared with Ecuador and Bolivia, where rights to nature were granted under socialist governments and influenced by Indigenous beliefs (as was the 2019 ban on climbing Uluru in Australia).

Granting something that is culturally numinous rights just so you can preserve it gets us to a kind of valuation that, among other things, is a cultural shift away from the Judeo-Christian great chain of being dominion over nature, said Schultz. This is reconfiguring it to place us where we have always been and where we should be thinking of ourselves as belonging, as just a node in this greater web of life on the planet.

If that worldview can be enshrined in law, essentially granting personhood rights to the spirit of the river, the spirit of the trees or the spirit of the elephant, youre talking about enshrining a kind of neo-pantheism into 21st-century legal frameworks.

Visit link:
Give legal rights to animals, trees and rivers, say experts - The Guardian

Nuclear fusion reactions in the sun are the source of heat and light we receive on Earth. These reactions release a massive amount of cosmic radiation including x-rays and gamma rays and charged particles that can be harmful for any living organisms.

Life on Earth has been protected thanks to a magnetic field that forces charged particles to bounce from pole to pole as well as an atmosphere that filters harmful radiation.

ADVERTISEMENT

CONTINUE READING BELOW

During space travel, however, it is a different situation. To find out what happens in a cell when travelling in outer space, scientists are sending bakers yeast to the moon as part of NASAs Artemis 1 mission.

Cosmic radiation can damage cell DNA, significantly increasing human risk of neurodegenerative disorders and fatal diseases, like cancer. Because the International Space Station (ISS) is located in one of two of Earths Van Allen radiation belts which provides a safe zone astronauts are not exposed too much. Astronauts in the ISS experience microgravity, however, which is another stress that can dramatically change cell physiology.

As NASA is planning to send astronauts to the moon, and later on to Mars, these environmental stresses become more challenging.

The most common strategy to protect astronauts from the negative effects of cosmic rays is to physically shield them using state-of-the-art materials.

Several studies show that hibernators are more resistant to high doses of radiation, and some scholars have suggested the use of synthetic or induced torpor during space missions to protect astronauts.

ADVERTISEMENT

CONTINUE READING BELOW

Another way to protect life from cosmic rays is studying extremophiles organisms that can remarkably tolerate environmental stresses. Tardigrades, for instance, are micro-animals that have shown an astonishing resistance to a number of stresses, including harmful radiation. This unusual sturdiness stems from a class of proteins known as tardigrade-specific proteins.

Under the supervision of molecular biologist Corey Nislow, I use bakers yeast, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, to study cosmic DNA damage stress. We are participating in NASAs Artemis 1 mission, where our collection of yeast cells will travel to the moon and back in the Orion spacecraft for 42 days.

This collection contains about 6,000 bar-coded strains of yeast, where in each strain, one gene is deleted. When exposed to the environment in space, those strains would begin to lag if deletion of a specific gene affects cell growth and replication.

My primary project at Nislow lab is genetically engineering yeast cells to make them express tardigrade-specific proteins. We can then study how those proteins can alter the physiology of cells and their resistance to environmental stresses most importantly radiation with the hope that such information would come in handy when scientists try to engineer mammals with these proteins.

When the mission is completed and we receive our samples back, using the barcodes, the number of each strain could be counted to identify genes and gene pathways essential for surviving damage induced by cosmic radiation.

ADVERTISEMENT

CONTINUE READING BELOW

Yeast has long served as a model organism in DNA damage studies, which means there is solid background knowledge about the mechanisms in yeast that respond to DNA-damaging agents. Most of the yeast genes playing roles in DNA damage response have been well studied.

Despite the differences in genetic complexity between yeast and humans, the function of most genes involved in DNA replication and DNA damage response have remained so conserved between the two that we can obtain a great deal of information about human cells DNA damage response by studying yeast.

Furthermore, the simplicity of yeast cells compared to human cells (yeast has 6,000 genes while we have more than 20,000 genes) allows us to draw more solid conclusions.

And in yeast studies, it is possible to automate the whole process of feeding the cells and stopping their growth in an electronic apparatus the size of a shoe box, whereas culturing mammalian cells requires more room in the spacecraft and far more complex machinery.

Such studies are essential to understand how astronauts bodies can cope with long-term space missions, and to develop effective countermeasures. Once we identify the genes playing key roles in surviving cosmic radiation and microgravity, wed be able to look for drugs or treatments that could help boost the cells durability to withstand such stresses.

ADVERTISEMENT

CONTINUE READING BELOW

We could then test them in other models (such as mice) before actually applying them to astronauts. This knowledge might also be potentially useful for growing plants beyond Earth.

Hamid Kian Gaikani, PhD Candidate, Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Also read | Why Chinas lukewarm support for Russia is likely to benefit Ukraine

Latest Stories

Continued here:
How yeast DNA may help protect astronauts from cosmic radiation in space - EastMojo

Most people have seen or at least know the premise of the Jurassic Park franchise. Man tries to bring back dinosaurs from the dead and ends up pushing the limits of science too far, with disastrous consequences. The movies serve as a lesson in caution and respecting natural life, portraying the dangers of not doing so through a very fictionalized scenario. Although we may be a long way from bringing back the dinosaurs, the technology used to genetically engineer the DNA of existing species is well-established and could potentially be used to bring extinct species back.

The process of reverse-engineering species involves taking the genetic material from a living species and using the genetic material of similar species in order to achieve a creature similar in genes and physical appearance to an extinct species. This is difficult to do for dinosaurs, as we do not have good enough documentation of their DNA sequences to create an accurate picture, and would instead have to guess by working backwards from reptiles or birds. However, just because Jurassic Park is further away than we might think doesnt mean this technology cannot be used to bring back more recently extinct species, such as certain rhinos, birds and tortoises.

In fact, in 2003, scientists attempted to use genetic engineering technology in order to bring back the extinct Pyrenean ibex, a type of goat. Although the attempt ultimately failed, it showed that scientists have the ability to bring back extinct species if they have access to the genetic material of that animal. With strides in gene-editing technology, it might not be necessary to have the full genetic sequence of a species in order to resurrect it.

CRISPR is a widely known DNA editing technique that involves taking short sequences of DNA and splicing them together to create a new DNA strand. In humans, this experimental technology has been largely used for editing out specific mutations to treat diseases on a genomic level. In extinct animals, it could be used to splice together DNA of existing animals to emulate an extinct animal for which scientists might not have the complete genetic information.

Even if this process has yet to be fully developed, as the possibility becomes more realistic it necessitates thinking through not only if it could happen, but if it should.

Bringing back extinct species, especially those from as far back as the Jurassic period, could have disastrous environmental effects. A study found that reintroducing extinct species to the ecosystem could overall decrease biodiversity, rather than increase, especially if the government or private institutions start allocating more resources towards the revived species rather than our existing life. Bringing back extinct species also means bringing back their sources of food. It means making sure that they are able to withstand different global temperatures, pathogens and predators of today. Without all this, they would have to be kept under close watch in enclosures, requiring even more resources.

The cost of the resources that these revived species would need to survive is expensive, and not just in monetary terms. Currently, species are going extinct 100 to 1,000 times faster than anticipated, meaning that at least 2,000 species go extinct each year (and that number might be a severe underestimate). Instead of focusing efforts on trying to bring back each of these, it would be much more efficient and effective to simply focus on spending money, time and energy on finding ways to reduce the rate at which human activity is killing life on Earth.

Investigating more sustainable sources of energy, developing consumption policies for individuals and corporations and trying to limit our global pollution would all be much more likely to sustain or at least slow down the destruction of our current biodiversity. When we can limit the destruction of biodiversity, then the whole planet will benefit, from improving water and air quality to mitigating food shortages and resource depletion.

The concept of genetic engineering is not inherently bad. It could be used to bring back recently extinct species, i.e., ones that are more adapted to the current environment, without negatively affecting our biodiversity. It could be used to treat life-threatening heritable disorders. But when put into the larger context of our planet and the current climate crisis, it seems to be a waste of resources and time. There are many other ways to improve our planets health without looking to the past, if only we look to preserve the future instead.

Continue reading here:
Life finds a way, but should it? The ethics of genetic engineering - The Trinitonian

Against the backdrop of the cost-of-living crisis it is argued that the UK could bolster food security, combat climate change and lower food prices by relaxing the rules on and around genetic engineering. By designing more resistant crops which are less reliant on fertiliser and are more nutritious, progress could be made. On the other hand, this may be a short-sighted approach to deregulation and taking the risk could result in disastrous consequences.

The Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill 2022

The arguments are surfacing as The Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill (GT (PB) Bill) which is currently in the House of Commons at the report stage (allowing the House to consider further amendments) heading for its 3rd reading. Much of the debate centres around the understanding of the technology.

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) are organisms in which the genetic material (DNA or RNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally, and the modification can be replicated and/or transferred to other cells or organisms. This typically involves the removal of DNA, manipulation outside the cell and reinsertion into the same or other organism. Gene editing (GE) is arguably different as rather than inserting new DNA it edits the organisms own DNA - which could happen over time, but this essentially speeds up the natural process. Both plants and animals can be genetically manipulated.

Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 provides the general framework for regulating genetically modified (GM) food in the EU with a centralised procedure for applications to place GM food on the EU market. It focusses on the traceability and labelling of GMO and the traceability of food and feed products to ensure a high level of protection of human life and health. GM foods can only be placed on the market after scientific risk assessment of the risks to human health and the environment.

The EU implemented these regulations back in 2001 which heavily restricted the use of GMOs and it has maintained that conservative position since. To continue not to allow GMOs is at odds with other countries, such as Australia, Japan and the US. As the technology developed several member states (including the UK) felt that a more relaxed approach to genetic editing would be beneficial. However, in 2018 the European Court of Justice in, Confederation Paysanne v Premier Minister (C-528/16) decided that there was no real distinction with gene editing (also described as Precision breeding) and they were to be treated as GMOs within the meaning of the GMO Release Directive 2001.

Nevertheless, in the UK in 2019 the then prime minister famously declared that he would liberate the U.K.s extraordinary bio science sector from anti-genetic modification rules. Consequently, since leaving the EU the UK has been working on moving away from the EUs stricter definition of a GMO as evidenced by the GT (PB) Bill.

The Bill defines precision bred to be, if any, or every feature of its genome results from the application of modern biotechnology and every feature of its genome could have resulted from either traditional processes or natural transformation.[1]

It is argued that this removes unnecessary barriers to innovation inherited from the EU to allow the development and marketing of precision bred plants and animals, which will drive economic growth and position the UK as a leading country in which to invest in agri-food research and innovation.

The main elements of the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill are:

Creating a new, simpler regulatory regime for precision bred plants and animals that have genetic changes that could have arisen through traditional breeding or natural processes. No changes are proposed to the regulation of animals until animal welfare is safeguarded.

Introducing two notification systems for research and marketing purposes where breeders and researchers will need to notify Department for Environment, food and Rural Affairs (Defra) of precision bred organisms. The information collected on precision bred organisms will be published on a public register.

Establishing a new science-based authorisation process for food and feed products developed using precision bred organisms.

This is the result of an All-Party Parliamentary Group which called for amendments to be made in 2020 to the, at the time, forthcoming Agriculture Bill 2019-21 (now the Agriculture Act 2020) to allow precision breeding in the UK.

The amendments would require changes to the UK Environmental Protection Act 1990, including changing the use of the EU definition of a GMO which would allow UK scientists, farmers and both plant and animal breeders access to gene editing technologies that other countries outside the EU have.

The focus in the UK is to allow traditional breeding methods to alleviate some of the effects such as extreme weather, food shortages, the cost-of-living crisis and to encourage pest-resistance.

The Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2022

On 11th April 2022, the Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2022 implemented an alignment of GE with the regulation of plants using traditional breeding methods. The Regulations removed the need to submit a risk assessment and seek consent from the Secretary of State before releasing certain GE plants for non-marketing purposes. They apply to England only.

This will allow for the release and marketing of gene edited products under certain circumstances that has so far been prohibited by the EU. It will allow UK scientists to develop plant varieties and animals with beneficial traits that could also occur through traditional breeding and natural processes, while providing safeguards in both marketing and authorisations via regulation.

Taking a Risk?

Another consequence of leaving the EU is that the Food Standards authority (FSA) is now responsible for authorising Novel foods applications in the UK. The FSA points to this need for authorisation as a further check and balance on any risks that may arise from a divergence from EU regulation.

Although it is argued that the Bill may have been drafted a little hastily, any food developed using new technology is subject to the scientific scrutiny of a Novel foods application. If there is a risk of unintended consequences from GE (it is argued that there is a risk of unidentified and untested mutations resulting from gene editing) the role of regulatory authorities such as DEFRA and the FSA is to ensure that no unintended product gains approval.

The debate is becoming increasingly focussed as the cost-of-living crises deepens.

Co-Authored by Laura Hipwell, Trainee Solicitor at CMS.

See the original post:
To modify or not to modify? Genetic Modification and Gene Editing - A divergence by the UK - Lexology