Buyer beware in ancestry testing!

Over at Genomes Unzipped Vincent Plagnol has put up a post, Exaggerations and errors in the promotion of genetic ancestry testing, which to my mind is an understated and soft-touch old-fashioned “fisking” of the pronouncements of a spokesperson for an outfit termed Britain’s DNA. 

From what I can gather this firm is charging two to three times more than 23andMe for state-of-the-art scientific genealogy, circa 2002. So if you can’t be bothered to read the piece, it looks like Britain’s DNA is threatening litigation for researchers having the temerity to point out that the firm is providing substandard services at above-market costs.

View the original article here: Buyer beware in ancestry testing!

What we know—and don’t know—about the biology of homosexuality

The media was abuzz this week after an international group of researchers proposed that scientists may have been looking for the biological underpinnings of homosexuality in the wrong place. Although scientists have spent the last few decades scouring our genome for a “gay gene,” William Rice, Urban Friberg, and Sergey Gavrilets suggest in The Quarterly Review of Biology that homosexuality may have its roots in epigenetics, rather than in genetics.

This new epigentics hypothesis has gotten a lot of press—and is misreported.

View the original article here: What we know—and don’t know—about the biology of homosexuality

Restless genes: How the human compulsion to explore is a defining part of human success

screenshot at  pm

What drove us out from Africa and on to the moon and beyond?

If an urge to explore rises in us innately, perhaps its foundation lies within our genome. In fact there is a mutation that pops up frequently in such discussions: a variant of a gene called DRD4, which helps control dopamine, a chemical brain messenger important in learning and reward. Researchers have repeatedly tied the variant, known as DRD4-7R and carried by roughly 20 percent of all humans, to curiosity and restlessness. Dozens of human studies have found that 7R makes people more likely to take risks; explore new places, ideas, foods, relationships, drugs, or sexual opportunities; and generally embrace movement, change, and adventure. Studies in animals simulating 7R’s actions suggest it increases their taste for both movement and novelty. (Not incidentally, it is also closely associated with ADHD.)

View the original article here: Restless Genes

Synthetic biology can turn soaps and shampoos into fuel

A future without fossil fuels is ideal but impractical in the short term. 

However, for people not afraid of science, a PNAS paper showing that synthetic biology can be used to manipulate hydrocarbon chemicals, found in soaps and shampoos, in cells is some welcome news. This could mean fuel for cars or household power created from naturally-occurring fatty acids. Fossil fuels even more organic than current fossil fuels. Delightful!

View the original article here: Synthetic Biology Future: Fossil Fuels From Ice Cream And Soap

Kashi caves to anti-GMO demands

Kellogg’s Kashi brand has just introduced two new USDA Certified organic cereals, touting that it’s using real organic fruit and whole grains in the wake of its Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) flap earlier this year. “We’ve always believed that nature makes the best-tasting ingredients, like the hearty whole grains and luscious organic fruit you can see and taste in our Berry Fruitful and Blackberry Hills cereals,” states Keegan Sheridan, natural food and lifestyle expert at Kashi, in a press release.

Kashi doesn’t broadcast the fact that it’s owned by Kellogg, nor that it has used GMOs, because it’s trying to be perceived as an independent brand to win a bigger share of the natural and organic food category, which grew 9.5% in 2011 to $31.5 billion in US sales. The brand’s still recovering from being engulfed in a social media firestorm back in April, when a New England store boycotted it after discovering “that 100% of the soy used in Kashi products is genetically modified, and that when the USDA tested the grains used there were found to be pesticides that are known carcinogens and hormone disruptors.”

View the original article here: Kellogg’s Kashi Still Battling GMO Foes 

UK should ban, or at least label, GMOs

de x

 

There is no doubt that it was a declaration of the Government’s colours on genetically modified farming when Environment Secretary Owen Paterson rounded on critics of GM technology as ‘humbugs’ last week, and insisted GM food should be grown and sold widely in Britain.

During the course of his ringing endorsement, he managed to spark outrage and alarm by claiming ‘there isn’t a single piece of meat being served [in a typical London restaurant] where a bullock hasn’t eaten some GM feed’.

His belligerent intent was quite clear. The message he wanted to get across was that GM crops are already here and in the food chain, there’s nothing to fear — and nothing we can do about it.

View the original article here: ‘Frankenstein food’ a good thing? It’s all great GM lies

Probe nails scientists for Bt cotton blot

An inquiry report into the contamination of an indigenously created Bt cotton variety with a Monsanto gene has bared the unethical, unscientific and irresponsible working of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) in general and the integrity of scientists involved in particular.

View the original article here: Probe nails scientists for desi Bt cotton blot

GM proponents face litigation

Litigation threats are forcing biotechnology campaigner Bill Crabtree to rethink his approach to the controversial topic, and call for greater backing and public advocacy from leading farm lobby groups.

Mr Crabtree is one of several individuals and organisations to have received defamation threats from the Safe Food Foundation (SFF) and scientist Dr Judy Carman in recent months.

The threats are in relation to varying claims, seeking differing levels of financial damages and potential legal costs, however, each case is underpinned by escalating common conflict between the different camps over genetically modified (GM) cropping technology.

View the original article here: Threats prompt GM rethink

Personalized medicine offers glimpse into the future

If you want a glimpse into the future of medicine, look at Mary Sullivan.

The 63-year-old retiree from Corning lives anxiously with lung cancer, a disease that causes more deaths each year than breast, prostate and colon cancer combined.

Progress in treatment has been slow, but there are encouraging signs.

Her doctors at Roswell Park Cancer Institute compared her tumor cells with her healthy cells in search of a gene mutation that is found in about 15 percent of patients in the United States and that can cause uncontrolled cell growth. Knowing that she carried the mutation, doctors put her on the drug Tarceva, which targets the mutation with fewer side effects than standard systemwide chemotherapy.

“The drug is working. I’m still here and am content with that,” said Sullivan, who was diagnosed with advanced disease in the fall of 2010.

View the original article here: Personalized medicine offers glimpse into the future

Christmas tree genome relatively unchanged in 100 million years

Science can make better corn and, well, better everything – except perhaps the Christmas tree. The genome of conifers like spruce, pine and fir has remained pretty much the same for the last 100 million years – a remarkable feat of genomic stability.

This great stability goes hand in hand with the low speciation rate of conifers. The world is currently home to only 600 species of conifers, while there are over 400,000 species of flowering plants.

View the original article here: Christmas Tree Genome Hasn’t Changed Much In 100 Million Years

GM food-crops in developing countries: blessing or curse?

There is immense pressure on developing countries to adopt genetically modified (GM) crops in the shortest possible time to supposedly ensure food security and boost agricultural productivity. Being a signatory to the WTO’s Agreement on Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights, however, Pakistan is obliged to protect intellectual property rights (IPRs) of multinational organisations introducing GM plant varieties into the country. Multinational giants like Monsanto have been in a tussle with the Punjab government over payment mechanisms for infringement of these IPRs before it expands it GM seed business.

View the original article here: Genetically modified food-crops: blessing or curse?

UK: Seeds of another GM row are sown

Humbug. Christmastide would not be the same without the word. But while it is usually Scrooge’s denouncement of the festivities, this year the gloriously unrestrainable Owen Paterson has beaten that arch-apostle of austerity to it. 

Not that, as far as I know, the new(ish) Environment Secretary has anything against the season of goodwill. His outburst – in an exclusive interview with The Daily Telegraph this week – was directed at opponents of genetically modified crops and foods. And it seems set to revive a row which for a decade has appeared as dead as Marley himself.

There is still a lack of really good studies [on the safety/effectiveness of GM foods] either way. So there is much to debate, if only we can have a mature exchange, avoiding the false certainties of either side. Mr Paterson may have “no doubt whatever” as Scrooge did of Marley’s demise. But without a more sophisticated approach, the issue looks like once again coming back to haunt a government.

View the original article here: The seeds of another GM row are sown

New class of GM mosquito rattles anti-GMO campaigns

Aedes aegypti biting human

The Food and Drug Administration will soon decide whether or not to allow the release of genetically modified mosquitoes to fight dengue fever in Florida. The issue has caused an uproar among local residents as well as international NGOs, such as Greenpeace, which oppose the use of GMOs at all costs.

If the British biotech company Oxitec gets its way, it will experimentally release thousands of male, non-biting Aedes aegypti mosquitoes in select neighborhoods of Key West. The insects have been genetically engineered to mate with wild female mosquitoes and produce offspring that die before reaching adulthood. By culling the A. aegypti population, the GM insects theoretically lessen the chances that a dengue-carrying bug will bite a human.

Dengue is a painful disease that infects between 50 and 100 million people every year, and kills about 25,000. There’s no vaccine and no treatment. Dengue fever was absent in Florida since 1934, until a 2009 outbreak in Key West left 93 people infected. In 2010, the area saw another 66 confirmed cases of dengue. Some experts think dengue infections will continue to rise in the United States as a result of climate change. 

This isn’t the first time scientists have proposed fighting an insect-borne disease using GM mosquitoes, but the Oxitec mosquito does use a new strategy. Previously scientists sought to eradicate malaria—which is transmitted by Plasmodium-infected mosquitoes—by engineering mosquitoes to have an increased immune resistance to the parasite. 

A lab at Johns Hopkins University created malaria-resistant mosquitoes by introducing a gene that prevents Plasmodium from developing inside the mosquito.  These transgenic mosquitoes were stronger and fitter than their non-GMO comrades, and the gene quickly increased in frequency within the laboratory populations, writes Ed Yong in the Discover blog network.

Marrelli found that [the GM mosquitoes] were about 25% less likely to die early and had more young, with every female laying an average of 60 eggs compared to the 43 managed by infected individuals. With these advantages, the transgenic mosquitoes outlasted and out-bred normal ones, and quickly established a majority in the population.

A variety of research groups have boosted the mosquito’s malaria resistance by transgenically improving the bug’s immune system. Others have proposed infecting mosquitoes with Wolbachia bacteria, which makes the insects unable to transmit dengue.  By seeding laboratory mosquitoes with Wolbachia and then releasing them into the wild, scientist Scott O’Neill got the bacteria to spread into natural populations, NPR reports: “Over a very short period of time, the Wolbachia was able to invade the wild mosquito population until close to 100 percent of all mosquitoes had the Wolbachia infection — and so we presume, greatly reduced ability to transmit dengue between people.”

What all of these systems have in common is that they gave an advantage to the modified mosquito, and relied upon them outcompeting wild mosquitoes in order to spread. In contrast, Oxitec’s mosquitoes are meant to mate once, prevent female mosquitoes from having viable offspring, and then die. The introduced gene does not confer an advantage to the mosquitoes, and is extremely unlikely to stay in the gene pool past one generation; its ecological impacts should be minimal.

Yet anti-GM mosquito activists are using the same old arguments against the proposal. Writing for Scientific American, Helen Wallace—a former Greenpeace scientist who heads up the anti-GMO group Gene Watch UKlists a battery of reasons not to use Oxitec’s dengue-fighting mosquito:

An expert report (pdf) to the European Food Safety Authority lists a wide variety of issues that should be addressed prior to the deliberate release of any GM insects. They include the adverse effects associated with the flow of genes into the wild population; the interactions of the GM insect with target and nontarget organisms; the impact on agricultural management practices and on management measures to control insects that are vectors for diseases; and a variety of potential effects on human health. The latter include allergies and irritation; the presence of live female mosquitoes; potential changes in the ability of mosquitoes to transmit disease; and accidental ingestion (including of larvae and eggs). Other issues that have been raised elsewhere include: the potential for viruses to evolve into more virulent formsthe impacts on human immunity and hence cases of disease; whether other species of mosquito (transmitting the same or different diseases) might occupy the ecological niche vacated by a falling population of the target species (pdf); and whether infection with dengue has a protective effect against yellow fever.

Many of these arguments are simply not relevant to the Oxitec mosquito. For instance, the cited virulence study actually states that measures affecting mosquito mortality are less likely to increase disease virulence, compared to GM mosquitoes with increased disease resistance.  The argument that humans could be adversely affected if bitten by an Oxitec mosquito is not backed by science. And the argument that the mosquitoes could disrupt natural ecosystems is misplaced: the Oxitec mosquitoes disrupt natural systems simply by reducing mosquito populations, and few would argue that we should keep mosquitoes around just to maintain the natural order of things—not when people are dying as a result.

Oxitec’s mosquitoes have already been tested in Brazil, Malaysia and the Cayman Islands. The company’s most recent data showed that 3 million GM mosquitoes released in the Cayman Islands reduced local A. aegypti populations by 80 percent.

This is not to say that the Oxitec mosquito control strategy is flawless. The very fact that the transgene dies out within one generation means that the GM mosquitoes would have to be applied repeatedly, and local governments presumably would have to foot the bill.

The battle between humans and mosquitoes is an arms race, where each side constantly adapts to the others strategies. The insects have evolved resistance to our insecticide sprays, and in response to the bed nets used in some parts of the world, they’ve begun feeding earlier while people are out-and-about. It’s likely females would also adapt to avoid mating with Oxitec’s genetically engineered males, as Ed Yong points out on Slate.com.

But gene technology engineer Mark Q. Benedict says it’s too soon to say which are the best strategies for fighting insect-borne diseases:

GM mosquito technology must be evaluated as a complement to existing control measures. Will it entail the risks that some fear? This should be carefully determined in small trials. Will it be too expensive? That is for those considering it to assess based on experience, their economies and the effects of release. Will it cause environmental damage that can be avoided with other technologies? Let’s find out, one cautious small step at a time and in comparison with all the alternatives. But there is no scientific basis for the assertion that sterile insect technology will get out of control and should not be tested.

On both sides of the debate, people are calling for more testing. And that is exactly what the Key West trial would accomplish.

Additional Resources:

 

Smart food — Is there an alternative to GMOs?

By 2050, we need to figure out how to not only feed but also nourish the three billion new people who will be joining the seven billion of us who are already here on the planet. And we need to figure out how to do this as effectively, ethically and as environmentally sensibly as possible.

Since the 1980s the only celebrated solution has been GMO’s — genetically modified organisms. Genetic modification allows genes from one species to be moved into another. If anyone had never heard of GMOs — like the latest pop band — Prop 37  made GMOs a household name.

It’s absolutely true that we need to be planning now for how we are going to sustainably scale our food distribution systems for a much larger global population on a restricted water supply and nutrient depleted soil. Over 850 million people today do not have access to enough food to lead healthy lives. As our numbers only grow, a serious breakthrough is needed. Is “Franken-food” the only answer?

View the original article here: The Future of Food Series: Exponential Solutions to Transforming Our Food System

Co-founder of Greenpeace: GM opponents need a fundamental conversion

It takes courage, humility and honesty to admit mistakes. And how many of us haven’t jumped to wrong and impetuous conclusions in our youth. But Damascene Conversions don’t come any bigger than that of Dr Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, who these days campaigns against some of what he once stood for.

“Greenpeace and its allies have successfully blocked the introduction of golden rice for over a decade,” he said recently. And he went on to quote the World Health Organisation, which estimates between 250,000 and 500,000 children become blind every year due to vitamin A deficiency which golden rice can correct. Half of those children die within a year of becoming blind.

Golden rice is, of course, a genetically modified form of rice that, unlike conventional rice, contains beta-carotene in its kernel. It’s been available since 1998 and countless experiments have shown it can eliminate vitamin A deficiency. It could be argued that by “spreading misinformation about golden rice” (Moore’s words, not mine) in countries where the problem is most acute, Greenpeace and others have been responsible for the blindness and death of up to seven million children.

View the original article here: GM opponents need a fundamental conversion

N.C. considers compensating victims of eugenic sterilizations

The N.C. House will again pursue legislation in 2013 to compensate state residents sterilized decades ago by a state-sanctioned board, House Speaker Thom Tillis says.

Tillis, the Mecklenburg County Republican expected to lead the 120-member House for two more years, said in an interview that the stripping of people’s ability to reproduce by the former N.C. Eugenics Board is akin to other “government takings,” such as people’s properties through eminent domain.

“To me, the Republican Party is all about opposing government takings,” said Tillis, who was outspoken in his support of payments for eugenics victims earlier this year. “I can’t imagine anything more demonstrative of an egregious government taking than one’s reproductive abilities.”

View the original article here: N.C. House will Consider Eugenics Payouts Again

What 23andMe is really selling

This week, 23andme, the personalized genomics company founded by Anne Wojcicki, wife of Google co-founder Sergey Brin, got an influx of investment cash ($50 million). According to their press release, they are using the money to bring the cost of their genetic test down to $99 (it was previously $299) which, they hope, will inspire the masses to get tested.

So should the masses indulge?

I prefer a quantified self approach to this question. At the heart of thequantified self-movement lies a very simple idea: metrics make us better. For devotees, this means “self-tracking,” using everything from the Nike fuel band to the Narcissism Personality Index to gather large quantities of personal data and—the bigger idea—use that data to improve performance.

If you consider that performance suffers when health suffers then a genetic test can been seen as a kind of metric used to improve performance. This strikes me as the best way to evaluate this idea and leads us to ask the same question about personalized genomics that the quantified self movement asks about every other metric: will it improve performance.

View the original article here: What Is 23andMe Really Selling: The Moral Quandary At The Center Of The Personalized Genomics Revolution

Australian debate over Seralini paper continues

The Australian anti-GMO NGO Safe Food Foundation has reaffirmed its support for the much-derided Seralini paper in the wake of the European Food Safety Authority’s evaluation that the study has serious defects in design and methodology.

Additional Resources:

View the original article here: GM research questioned

Scientist uncover clues about the evolution of hands

hands fins

Fossils show that limbs evolved from fins, and a new study reveals how it may have happened. Spanish scientists injected a zebrafish with the gene hoxd13, which is from a mouse. (It is also naturally found in the fish but is not expressed as aggressively.) Within 24 hours, all the embryos were developing autopods instead of fins. Researchers believe this could be a first step toward human limb production.

Additional Resources:

View the original article here: From Fish to Human: Research Reveals How Fins Became Legs

glp menu logo outlined

Newsletter Subscription

* indicates required
Email Lists