Genetically Modified Mouthwashing Bacteria 47
Moxen writes: "The BBC is running an article about a genetically modified bacterium that is intended to replace the existing lactic-acid-producing variety currently residing in your mouth. Once the new bacteria have replaced the old, you can apparently expect the elimination of 'most tooth decay.' Rather clever, if you don't mind playing host to a colony of GMOs."
At last! (Score:2, Funny)
This is good science! (Score:2)
(I am not being sarcastic, I really think this is exactly the kind of thing that science should be doing.)
Do these guys actually have a clue? (Score:2, Interesting)
Is this, for example, going to be so successfully alive in my mouth that it'll decide to live elsewhere too? Maybe it will kill my digestive bacteria? Possibly cause less functional first stage digestion in my mouth?
I suppose this, like any new GE type revelation, is one that is only testable imperically. I don't know about anyone else, but that kinda willies my out. Maybe we're creating bacteria-zilla, eh?
I find it surprising that many people I speak with about GE generally place it at the same level of complexity of *any* scientific discipline. Much as I'd like to think that I am a smart fellow because I know some computer stuff, the GE world is waaay waaay more complex than the one I live in. I am convinced that we do NOT have the ability to ensure any level of safety in the deployment of any GE in any form, whatsoever. We just don't have any way of being deterministic about outcomes of GE on any organism.
Maybe I am out to lunch. Please (PLEASE) prove me wrong - but GE seems to be very much a "what happens if we push *this* button" kind of discipline.
Kissing is a patent infringement. (Score:5, Interesting)
If it did spread through kissing, how would they make their money back?
Police Officer: I'm sorry, son, you're going to have to come with me. Seems like you've got an illegal copy of DNA sequence 9422136A residing in the bacteria in your mouth.
Darwin. (Score:3, Insightful)
Dave
Re:Darwin. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Darwin. (Score:2)
Evolution is really just one huge long testing process keeping mutations in check.. I don't see how applying some intelligence to the equation will make things worse.
Lack of intelligence (Score:2, Interesting)
By intentionally creating something which is viable in the short term, we give a huge (and arbitrary) survival bonus to the changes we have introduced. When something evolves in the wild, it is given many more survival tests along the way as it gradually changes.
These survival tests are also test exposures for other organisms. If you are exposed to a totally new bacteria to which no human has been exposed before, you have no defences tailored to fight that bacteria, even though that bacteria may have been given (intentionally or accidentally) specific weapons to attack you. Humans are likely to have developed a resistance to any non-modified bacteria which they have been in contact with over the generations while it was mutating.
Re:Lack of intelligence (Score:2)
Sure, major screwups are going to have potentially very serious consequenses, so we need to work towards minimising them, not just drop it as being a Bad Idea[tm] and loose the massive benefits it can bring.
Information gathering stage (Score:1)
We are certainly not at a point in our understanding where we are ready to let any of this stuff out of the lab yet (although much of it has been released into the wild and has now contaminated other crops which were supposed to be safe).
One problem is that the more arrogant scientists out there believe that they can learn to avoid major screwups while committing them.
Take the mission critical computer programming analogy. You do not test out a new bake of software on a machine which is performing life support on a patient, or operating part of the power grid. You make absolutely sure that the software is going to behave as expected in an isolated environment before installing it in an environment where it is capable of killing people if it fails.
The fact that synthetic DNA codes have propagated in the wild in ways which the GE scientists never expected is very strong evidence that at least some of those scientists failed to complete the testing process.
DNA is the ultimate mission critical system in the sense that if it suffers total failure, all life on Earth bites the dust. It only takes one sloppy engineer/scientist shortcutting the process to break the system in a way which is devastating to the system; however, scientists are currently free to release genetic sequences into the wild which are not properly tested (as evidenced by the fact that they behave differently than expected).
Again, it only takes one of these scientists screwing up (think of how often some engineer in a team breaks the build by throwing in some last-minute bugs) to cause major damage. Like software companies, some scientists are going to be more careful than others (for many different reasons - compare Windows to QNX), and some scientists are bound to do crappy work and try to get it released.
As long as scientists around the world are releasing under-tested DNA sequences (which at this point in our understanding means just about anything that we have come up with), we have a very dangerous situation on our hands.
Here is some reference:
Professor Hans-Heinrich Kaatz of the Institute for Bee Research at the University of Jena found that genes used to modify oilseed rape (canola) were transferred to bacteria in the guts of bees. He experimented with honey bees and GM oilseed rape, which had been modified to resist a specific herbicide; he removed oilseed rape pollen from legs of bees and fed the pollen to young bees. When he examined the intestines of the young bees he found that some carried the gene that resisted the herbicide.
In Mexico, tailored DNA sequences have contaminated native varieties of corn - even those growing in remote areas (100km from the nearest industrial farm). Read the BBC article [bbc.co.uk].
In Canada, they recently discovered that the minimum distance required between fields of GM crops and fields of 'elite' crops is almost an order of magnitude smaller than the distance that is actually necessary to prevent 'unacceptable' levels of contamination (because they found that earlier assumptions about how far pollen would spread were false). Too bad they didn't bother to find this out in the lab... Here's the New Scientist article [newscientist.com].
Re:Darwin. (Score:2)
I agree, and strongly suggest you stop brushing your teeth immediately. Don't fuck with nature.
-
This will never work :( (Score:3, Interesting)
If we could be free of cavities forever with just one whiff of a spray, then half the dentists out there would be out of business, and so would toothpaste/brush industries.
I would sure like a bit of that spray though.
I have a genetic condition that weakens my teeth somehow. My grandmother had mostly false teeth when she turned 20 and my mother has the same problem. I brush my teeth like 5 times a day and I keep getting cavities. Most of my teeth have already been drilled at least once and I'm only 22 years old
Re:This will never work :( (Score:2, Funny)
Aaahhh...but you forget there will be errors (accidental or deliberate) in their genetic code. Just think--they'll be a notice to all those version 1.0 "users" that says "warning: there is a serious problem with v1.0 of our product. Please purchase v1.1, or your teeth will fall out, and you'll die within the year."
After a decade or two, there will be a monopoly called Genetisoft led by a guy named Gill Bates. The justice department will be investigating why people who have the Genetisoft(TM) Mouthwash(TM) bacteria are only able to eat Genetisoft(TM) food, and use Genetisoft(TM) medical products.
The courts will find that indeed Genetisoft(TM) is a monopoly, and as their punisment, they will find that Genetisoft(TM) must give free samples of their bacteria to all school children. The children will not be given a choice, of course, because the fight against tooth decay is a national initiative.
Re:This will work :) (Score:1)
What do you get instead of lactic acid? (Score:1)
Re:What do you get instead of lactic acid? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What do you get instead of lactic acid? (Score:2, Funny)
It would also make antidrug laws a moot point. No honest officer I swear I got high by accident. I picked up this jock itch that causes ergotamine poisoning. Look at all the colors.
Re:What do you get instead of lactic acid? (Score:1)
Mouthwash (Score:3, Interesting)
More importantly, it seems implausible that this treatment is a once-in-a-lifetime affair. I might believe it would last a week, but no more than that. What if someone brushes his teeth? Even if one need no longer worry about cavities, brushing is still required to remove plaque and prevent gum disease.
Re:Mouthwash (Score:1)
You can quote the article all you want, it doesn't mean someone didn't screw up the biology here.
Is Listerene once-in-a-lifetime? (Score:3, Interesting)
Either way, if the new bacteria outcompete the old bacteria (which is the requirment for ensuring that they will take over your mouth), then the new bacteria will probably be better able to survive a Listerene attack than the old one.
Re:Mouthwash (Score:1)
In fact, if brushing or using a mouthwash killed all the bacteria in your mouth, you would not have the tooth decay problems you have now.
(Of course, you would have other problems since you probably need some bacteria in your mouth, but that's a different story)
just wait... (Score:3, Funny)
View from a Biochemist (Score:5, Informative)
Of course, there is the question of why this strain would outcompete the resident S. mutans. After a rather infuriating search of the U.FL website I found http://www.dental.ufl.edu/Offices/Oral_bio/Faculty _pages/JHillman.html [ufl.edu] which includes a list of peer reviewed journal references.(Note: there isn't much more there.)
A quick read of Infection and Immunity, February 2000, p. 543-549, Vol. 68, No. 2 indicates that they created the GM bacteria by deleting almost the entire gene responsible for lactic acid production (lactic dehydrogenase) and make up for the loss by inserting another alcohol dehydrogenase (from Zymomonas mobilis) in the gap. (Which means the other poster was correct - it produces alcohol instead of lactic acid .) The paper also indicates that the bacteria are able to compete with resident mouth bacteria by producing a "Lantibiotic" antibiotic (mutacin 1140). This antibiotic was not introducd by the researchers, but instead is naturally occuring in the (naturally occuring) strain of S. mutans which they selected (because of the antibiotic).
Effects? (Score:1)
Re:Effects? (Score:2, Interesting)
Breath analysis (Score:1)
In some states, the blood alcohol level for considering a minor to be under the influence is .02%. I have heard that breath freshening chewing gum can make your mouth "alcoholly" enough to fail the test (only if you are a minor - so they probably think you were only chewing the Dentyne to hide the marijuana smell, anyway).
Re:Effects? (Score:2)
Contrary to popular belief, alcohol breath tests (in the US, anyway) do not detect the presence of alcohol itself, but a metabolized result - excess CO2 in the breath, I think.
Re:Effects? (Score:1)
According to this [2588888.com] site, alcohol is used by all the devices used (in the state of Arizona anyway).
I have reservations about the first device listed (breathalyzer), because the use of acidified dichromate can also show a positive result for ketones present in the breath of diabetics, which is why, I assume, blood tests are required (in the UK) for use in court.
Re:View from a Biochemist (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:View from a Biochemist (Score:2)
Re:View from a Biochemist (Score:1)
link to paper (Score:1, Informative)
Infection and Immunity, February 2000, p. 543-549, Vol. 68, No. 2:
http://iai.asm.org/cgi/content/full/68/2/543?vi
Sugar (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Sugar (Score:2, Insightful)
We also have less well-developed teeth now than we once did for the same reasons mentioned above. This also contributes to decay since we have poorer enamel and crooked, crowded teeth that are predisposed to harboring food and bacteria.
Get a copy of the somewhat dated but still invaluable "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration" by Dr Weston A. Price...but check your biases at the front cover if you're a vegetarian...
Re:Sugar (Score:1)
If you do not believe me (I use my given name), then you could spend 4-5 years as a dietetics major in college, or do the research: I suggest starting with the American Dietetics Association, http://www.eatright.org/.
Re:Sugar (Score:1)
While sodium may indeed play a role in osteoporosis as well, I don't think that the effects of the significant decline in the consumption of certain vitamins and minerals can be discounted. For instance, vitamin D was much more commonly consumed via dietary animal fats and supplemental cod liver oil. People were also much more regularly exposed to the sun resulting in greater vitamin D synthesis. Their diets were generally much richer in calcium (although its role in osteoporosis is greatly exaggerated) as well as other bone building minerals like magnesium and boron supplied by rustic greens, dairy, bone broths, nuts, whole grains etc.
On the issue of salt too, its also worth noting that the amounts of salt that people used to consume are, I think, sometimes underestimated. While our consumption of processed foods is indeed shamefully high, the foods of 100 or more years ago often used salt both as one of the only means of preservation as well as one of the only economical ways of making food taste better. Spices, herbs and various other condiments were not as readily available to many as they are today.
Of course, it's not all diet either. People used to have a much greater degree of physical activity than most people do these days. Multiple studies have shown that excercise helps to minimize bone loss...whether you're in space or the nursing home.
Hope that clears up what I was trying to communicate in my first post.
DMCA and Patent law (Score:1)
Some people seem to have natural variant of this. (Score:1, Interesting)
Why don't they sample these people and isolate the naturally evolved kind, instead of trying to GM-engineer one? <conspiracy theory>Could it be that you can't as easily get funding if you can't anticipate reliable patent-enforced market and production control?</conspiracy theory>
<soapbox>We ought to fix the system somehow, so greed[1] and little-boy-in-the-lab enthusiasm[2] could be better harnessed for the common good.</soapbox>
<fud>Sooner or later we'll get the GM-biological equivalent of introducing rabbits into Australia, except the continent will be our bodies.</fud>
([1,2] Note that I didn't say to eliminate those things. Just to move towards more benign ways of getting rich and having fun. [2] I recognize that there are enthusiastic little-girls-in-the-lab too).
<more soap>Wouldn't it be great if the LCS/AI folks could engineer some cheap, programmable, incapable-of-self-reproduction, insect-size robots that would swarm on command into crop fields and mechanically chew up weeds and pest insects, instead of having GM-engineered crops that resist herbicides[3] and produce insecticides[3] of their own? We could stop fouling our world nest with poison[3], and let oceans, lakes, rivers, streams, etc., gradually recover instead of gradually die. Mother Nature could start thinking of us as a balm instead of a bad skin condition.</more soap>
[3] This is not a call for eliminating Monsanto-type companies and their profits. Just a wish that they would transform themselves and get behind something better than contaminating and poisoning the world.
Good, now can they make this? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Good, now can they make this? (Score:1)
I think that would have the ultimate effect of making me hate bananas. =)
mark