Artificial Chromosome Inheritance 74
Socramon writes "There's been a lot of discussion (and flaming) lately about genetic experimentation. For those who aren't sick of hearing about it already, there's an article on New Scientist about a Canadian
company, Chromos, which has created an artificial chromosome that has (so far) been passed down through three generations of mice.
The company's homepage, www.chromos.com is, unfortunately, "Under Construction"."
Re:Chromosomal Ads? STUPID PIECE OF FUD (Score:1)
Next time you try to make a memorable slashdot personality, why don't you try something more like the Unknown Comedian...
Inheritance? (Score:1)
Oh, where is that UML book again?
Re:How will you tell a human, let alone a woman? (Score:1)
First real germ cell modification (Score:1)
This has some rather serious repercussions. If you screw up a genetic modification to a group of cells in the body (say the heart muscle), no big deal, that modification dies with that body. Now we have potential screwups that can be passed on from generation to generation. Not all that much different than inbreeding
-josh
Re:How will you tell a human, let alone a woman? (Score:1)
Chromosomal Ads? (Score:1)
--
Re:Uh oh... (Score:1)
sorry. couldn't resist
Genetic "Junk"? (Score:1)
I mean, does it seem odd that there would be so much "filler". How much is really understood about exactly what processes take place inside living cells? Could this just be subtle? Something that we don't yet understand, maybe? I mean, I wouldn't want to throw away some of my parents genes just because I don't understand it yet, and then add... what? Something to add more human-produced chemicals into my body?
Maybe I'm just a little to stoned to figure this out. If someone could shoot me a few links to more information on the inner workings of DNA, I think that would be very "informative" (in slashdotese)
Seer Snively
"The Dude Abides"
Big deal (Score:1)
Creating a chromosome is small potatos. What we need to know is how to create a GENE that means something. Create a gene for blue hair or limb regeneration or something cool. Don't just shove more junk in my overcrowded cells.
--
RIght... (Score:1)
Fawking Trolls! [slashdot.org]
Re:What's the point? (Score:1)
Fawking Trolls! [slashdot.org]
KARMA WHORE. (Score:1)
Fawking Trolls! [slashdot.org]
What's the point? (Score:1)
Fawking Trolls! [slashdot.org]
Uh oh... (Score:1)
Fawking Trolls! [slashdot.org]
As are... (Score:1)
Fawking Trolls! [slashdot.org]
Genetic engineering (Score:1)
I think that most people are afraid that we'll do something stupid. This seems strange to me since the number one thing that anyone would try to design a person to be is intelligent. In other words it is a self-correcting problem. Also there are superstitious^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hreligious types who are still smarting from creationism being disproven.
I think the sooner we get started the better. Figure out which genes control, or at least influence, intelligence and use that understanding to make some really bright people. Imagine if the kinds of geniuses which only come around once in a generation, someone like einstein, were as abundant as mensa members. Imagine if the average IQ were somewhere around 150. In other words, the average person would be as bright as the average slashdotter. Wouldn't that be cool??
Lee
Morals? (Score:1)
BTW, why can't any companys with new products come up with websites until six months after i hear about it on
Re:Data Lifespan... (Score:1)
Wow (Score:1)
artificial chromosomes (Score:1)
---
Re:How will you tell a human, let alone a woman? (Score:1)
This actually is adding a additional chromosome. Basically they made a copy of a normal chromosome, gutted it, added in multiple copies of their own specified gene and inserted it into the mouse.
Right, sorry. Re-read the article. Guess I missed that part: extra chromosomes. They should have mentioned it at the end, not the beginning ;)
Down's syndrome is a very specific disorder caused by anomalies with the 21st chromosome pair. It is not a general result of having more than the normal number of chromosomes (for example having XXY sex chromosomes).
I guess I shouldn't have named a specific example like that. I meant to leave it in more general terms but forgot to preview it (actually, I was going to mention Klinefelter's syndrome as another example . . .).
--
Re:How will you tell a human, let alone a woman? (Score:1)
How you tell a human now? chromosome count will be useless.
There are still the same number of chromosomes, they simply changed one (from what I gather). Therefore, the chromosome count is still the same and won't result in Down's syndrome. Of course, plants have been genetically engineered to have more chromosomes for a long time now, resulting in larger and seedless fruits, not to mention those that are resistant to famine and pests. Of course, the effects on humans is questionable . . .
--
Designer Genes (Score:1)
Re:Oh, god... the mice again! (Score:1)
Sweet Deal (Score:1)
Re:Artificial chromosomes are not new (Score:1)
End of the information age.. (Score:1)
----------------------------
Re:Data Lifespan... (Score:1)
Re:Oh, god... the mice again! (Score:1)
Re:Oh, god... the mice again! (Score:1)
Monkeys. (Score:1)
Re:What's the point? (Score:1)
Re:Data Lifespan... (Score:1)
Re:Morals? (Score:1)
Regardless of what's right to do, someone (or some random corporation) will do it, somewhere, if it's possible. If it fucks up, they won't tell anybody. It follows that the way to minimize the fuck-ups (which, in this case, will cause genuine pain to human beings) is for as many people as is possible to try to do it, thus ensuring that technology that can genuinely fuck something up will be well-known as such, and dealt with properly.
Not for credit: Which is better in a world in which nuclear weapons are possible: Public knowledge of the nuke capabilities of each country, and common information about the basis, effects, and ramifications of this technology, or secrecy? Will laws protecting the secrecy of nuke technology keep it secret forever, for a while, or not at all? What about information concerning the effects of nuke technology? Will such laws cause great, acceptable, or slight harm to people who are actively curious or concerned about nuke technology? How effective will these laws be in preventing misuse of the technology by (respectively) citizens, corporations, and countries? Discuss.
Re:Data Lifespan... (Score:1)
Oh, dear GOD. Suddenly, music stores begin selling mice genetically encoded with the latest Billboard hits. Christ, you want to talk about the ASPCA getting in your case... If I find a mouse with Backstreet Boys chromosomes, I'd want to bring the ones responsible to justice. That's not to mention the computer-related implications. You get a new computer, complete with 19" monitor, CDRW, and a 100GB mouse with Linux pre-installed (you could even color his fur to be like a little penguin. Hell, you're storing your MP3s on the guy, what's one more step?)
(that is unless they recombine, in which case all of your documents or whatever are worthless....)
Ooooh, here it comes... You wanna talk about file-sharing, this is the way to go! I, for one, long for the day when kids can come to school with the excuse "I don't have my homework, my hard-drive had babies and died last night". Ahh, wondrous technology, will the marvels ever cease?
/* TNW */
Re:Data Lifespan... (Score:1)
Re:something to noodle over (Score:1)
Unfortunately, if something can be done, it will be done. The developers of the atomic bomb thought that there was a possibility (admittedly remote) that the bomb might ignite a Nitrogen Cycle and burn up the earth's atmosphere. They detonated the thing anyway. There's always going to be someone who's going to be willing 'take that risk' for you.
Re:Genetic "Junk"? (Score:1)
Also, since the compiler was optimizing for speed rather than size, many loops were unrolled, and data segments were inserted all over the place because far pointers in DNA are very cycle expensive.
One step toward making a bioroid... (Score:1)
One interesting view of what a biotech-based future might look like can be found in Masamune Shirow's manga story "Appleseed" [geocities.com]. There are a lot of human/techno. themes woven into the complex plot but a central one is the idea that complex high-tech societies might need to be augmented with a bioengineered subpopulation (bioroids) in order to remain cohesive; and what that might mean for the nature of humanity.
The idea is that the genetic-based behavioural traits that made humans so successfull in the earlier phase of their evolution (agression, greed, tribalism etc.) might prove too disruptive for it to be possible to sustain complex societies with a very high degree of interdependance. In this model the very drives that led us to create the modern world eventually lead us to destroy it because we can't damp them down when they've no longer appropriate.
Overall it's a well drawn and well plotted story from a master of the genre. The anime (animated cartoon) version sucks rocks, however.
It also has some very cool mecha and other high tech toys and Masamune is also very good at drawing female charecters, which don't hurt the eyes. :)
Re:Wow (Score:1)
My first reaction was that the potential for abuse of these things could be pretty high but on reflection it sems to me that, at least for the forseeable future, artifical chromosomes are probably going to fall into the catagory of (expensive) elective medical procedures. That would make them much less useful as a vector for sneaking debilitating stuff into a population's genome than a doctored virus or bacterium would be. If that's so then we might for once be looking at a significant advance that has more of an upside than a downside.
Hmm. (Score:1)
Granted it's not going to happen for awhile, but if a kid is ever made completely with artifical DNA, he's going to have more issues than National Geographic.
Kids seperated from their parents at birth, let alone kids who don't have any, can turn out a little mental.
Re:Data Lifespan... (Score:1)
David Duchovny...droooolll
--
Re:Monkeys. (Score:1)
--
Re:Seems they got at the NewScientist guys already (Score:1)
--
Re:something to noodle over (Score:1)
The problem with humanism in this case is it seems to presume that the human body as it stands (if you'll excuse the pun) is some kind of "divine form." (And I don't mean any kind of religious implications from this, merely using religion as a metaphor.)
The simple fact is that the human body is a pretty crap desing on the whole. We use all kinds of stuff to compensate - clothes to keep us warm, glasses to improve eyesight, books/computers to improve memory, cars to make us go faster - that's just what we do.
Just because we've worked out how to change the instruction code that makes us a crap design doesn't make it a priori a better or worse thing than those external modifications. Knowledge in and of itself is neither good nor evil.
So if we can make ourselves and our lives better, why not? Sure there will be risks, but then again, we didn't get where we are by saying: "That climbing down from the trees lark looks a bit risky. Those sabre-toothed tigers could get me.
Re:something to noodle over (Score:1)
The developers of the atomic bomb thought that there was a possibility (admittedly remote) that the bomb might ignite a Nitrogen Cycle and burn up the earth's atmosphere. They detonated the thing anyway. There's always going to be someone who's going to be willing 'take that risk' for you.
It would be nit-picking if I pointed out that a "Nitrogen Cycle" is the natural process by which nitrogen gets from the air to plants to animals and back again, so I won't.
However, I probably should point out that the story is actually that the scientists were betting on whether or not the bomb would set the atmosphere on fire and destroy human life.
Given the difficulty in collecting upon winning that bet, I somehow doubt they though it was a serious risk.
Oro? (Score:1)
who needs sex? Better yet, asexual reproduction...the endless posibilities...
Re:Hmm. (Score:1)
Re:Chromosomal Ads? STUPID PIECE OF FUD (Score:1)
The article in question IS all about a fucking CORPORATION.. that is doing this for MONEY.. not for the benefit of humanity or because it gives them a fucking stiffy. Read:
Because the company is about to sell shares on the Canadian stock market, it is barred from talking to the media. But in a prospectus available to the public, Chromos says it plans to insert the chromosomes into cells which will be grown in fermenters to produce beneficial proteins and to genetically engineer animals so that they produce valuable proteins in their milk.
So there it is, in a fucking nutshell. Why the fuck does "money" equate to "evil" with you??! Why the fuck is the first thing you think of "Coke paying a town to force its residents to take a gene that makes them drink coke"?? WHY must dipshit fuckers like you spread FUD indiscriminately??!
Why not try posting something about the REAL implications instead of dumb-ass doomsday scenarios? Think about it - obviously these companies are going to start competing to make better genes to one-up the previous company. Also, try considering economic demand - what are the first genes people are going to want after the disease ones?? You got it--bulging biceps and enormous cocks.
So, for you, this might not be such a bad thing after all.
Re:What's the point? (Score:1)
Re:Data Lifespan... (Score:1)
It's all well and good to speculate, (Score:1)
Examine RuPaul. Or, a woman named Helga. (Score:2)
Re:Seems they got at the NewScientist guys already (Score:2)
<p>
I hope that wasn't aimed at me - I did do a Biochemistry degree. As in molecular biology. It's just that back then (mid 1980's) although of course we knew how much the X and Y differed the human chromosomal complement was still <i>always</i> routinely described as "23 pairs". From the three replies I got it sounds as if this might have changed, but it seems like hair splitting to me. The X and Y are indeed a pair, not just because of the homologous region - watch what happens during meiosis if you don't believe me! 23 pairs it is.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Seems they got at the NewScientist guys already (Score:2)
IT TOOK more than a decade for the Human Genome Project to sequence the 24 different human chromosomes...
24?? Last I looked there were 23 pairs in humans. Looks like the author accumulated an extra pair of chromosomes somewhere along the line
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Re:How will you tell a human, let alone a woman? (Score:2)
I just have to ask, why wasn't a physical examination sufficient to determine the sex of the athletes? Excluding weird genetic defects, you either have testicles or ovaries.
Re:Chromosomal Ads? STUPID PIECE OF FUD (Score:2)
Because dipshit motherfuckers do very horrible, horrible things all the time to make money. They poison people, they indocrinate them to consumption-based philosophies, they influence politicians to shift the tax burden away from corporations--anything to make a dollar. Of course this kind of technology is scary and of course we should be worried about what people are doing with it. It isn't FUD to say that people are likely to use new technology to do bad things for money; it's common sense!
And my comment (like most of the others posted so far) has more to do with the implications of the technological possibilties of implanting chromosomes than the specific applications this company is doing. So sue me; I thought that was the kind of thing Slashdot was for.
--
Re:Oh, god... the mice again! (Score:2)
Hey! Mice are *already* much smarter than we are.
After all, this planet was created to their specifications.
Re:Seems they got at the NewScientist guys already (Score:2)
Mouse Eugenics (Score:2)
Haven't we learned ANYTHING from history? If you do nothing when they come for everybody else, who will help you when they come for you? PLEASE, stop the madness!
A thought (Score:2)
Following that, I was just thinking, well, if we had a simulated organism, what's preventing us from given it some inputs and seeing how it reacts? We'd have an artificial organic intelligence
(This has been a test of the Aaron-is-thinking-aloud system. You will now return to your regularly scheduled programming.)
Artificial chromosomes are not new (Score:2)
The new thing here is putting one in and having it stick around between generations. I suspect, although they don't say for sure, that this was done by breeding modified mice to modified mice, so that every newborn had two copies of the artificial chromosome. I say this because otherwise, with every cell division only one of the daughter cells would have the added chromosome. This means that in each mating, only three-fourths of the kids would have a copy; if you mate these offspring two more times, you're going to lose a significant number of your artificial chromosomes.
The idea that one can insert genes into a "safe" spot instead of having them integrate into the main genome is a good one. However, I'd be a bit worried about just inserting a gene without any promoter/represser elements and then amplifying that gene's function simply by adding more copies. The nucleus is not going to like having a large number of extra chromosomes floating around.
IMHO, if you really want to do gene therapy to affect the descendants, you want to cut out the existing gene copy and put the new gene in exactly the same place. (Yes, if you wanted to add a totally new gene, these chromosomes would be a good place for it. Personally, I would not accept a new gene anytime soon, because I don't have faith in humanity's ability to get any technology right on the first pass.)
Re:Artificial chromosomes are not new (Score:2)
"Once modified, the artificial chromosome can be duplicated hundreds of thousands of times. The company says that the amount of protein produced rises in step with the number of gene copies..."
I intially read this as them doing chromosome amplification within a single cell. (Such a thing is not unheard of; it happens in certain cancers, although it's usually not a whole chromosome being amplified.) On reparse, I think you're right; it's more a matter of them inserting extra copies. IMHO, that's not the right solution; you can't regulate that very well. I'd say it'd be a better idea to insert strong promoter elements along with the new genes if you wanted them to be hyperproductive. (That way, if the gene temporarily needs to be turned down, you can administer a compound which inhibits the activator protein (although that may have issues depending on what other genes share that promoter).)
Data Lifespan... (Score:2)
picture storing data in mice, just feed them and keep them warm. even if the parents die the children will have the artificial chromosomes... (that is unless they recombine, in which case all of your documents or whatever are worthless....)
Re:How will you tell a human, let alone a woman? (Score:2)
Down's syndrome is a very specific disorder caused by anomalies with the 21st chromosome pair. It is not a general result of having more than the normal number of chromosomes (for example having XXY sex chromosomes).
Not so grave as people may think (Score:2)
For people not sure what this means, here is a little background:
Biologists have been using artificial chromosomes for years now, except that they have only been able to engineer them for less complex organisms such as bacteria and yeast. Artificial chromosomes are useful carriers for genes that produce proteins that are medically and academically useful without disrupting natural chromosomal function. Also, when cells reproduce they replicate the articifial chromosome along with all the natural chromosomes, so that it is transfered from generation to generation (of cells, or if the chromosome is inserted into the germline, then organism to organism).
However, the major problem with using bacterial artificial chromosomes (BACs) and yeast artificial chromosomes (YACs) is that there are some proteins that bacteria and yeast can't successfully produce (since they are simpler organisms, they lack the proper cellular machinery to manufacture and correctly fold larger proteins). So basically, these researchers have just extended a usefull technique to mice. Now it is possible to manufacture a greater range of useful proteins. Getting the protein from the mouse is a little messier than getting is from bacteria or yeast, however :(
The main reason this is cool is that the machinery to replicate a mouse chromosome is (obviously) more complicated (and the chromosome itself is bigger) than a bacteria or yeast, so constructing a chromosome that has only the necessary scaffolding to ensure that it is replicated is pretty difficult. Unfortunately for the average non-biologist lay person, this New Scientist article was a bit vague (and exagerated) in describing the potential of this technique. At the end, they mention using mouse artificial chromosomes that contain a protein that can help ease the symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis, and that if the system works in rats trials will could begin in people. However, the human trials they are talking about have to do with testing the manufactured protein in people, not injecting humans with artificial chromosomes. That will be a long time coming (however, the Human Genome Project will certainly speed the development of human artificial chromosomes).
Re:something to noodle over (Score:2)
The "humanism" i'm talking about is something a little bit more philosophical, more on the lines of "what makes a person a person" - what makes a human distinguishable from, say, and intelligent computer. - *that* is what i'm afraid we're going to lose. (read: brave new world). Plus, when you get into it - you open up a pandora's box answers to questions that philosophers have been asking for aeons.
oh well - if you take my view though, nothing really means anything, and all in all humans (and all life on earth for that matter) is nothing more than a blip on the cosmic radar. Who cares if we kill ourselves or make ourselves better - in the end, everything's fucked anyway.
FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
something to noodle over (Score:2)
I think the reason many people (including myself) are wary of experimentation like this is the "oh fuck" factor. Genetics is like the nuclear bomb of medicine. There's a line that, at some point, someone's gonna cross and what next?....."OH FUCK!"
The primary reason i advocate caution in this area of research is factors like genetic discrimination, and more philosophically, humanism. Sure - we can all be these 10 foot tall wonder machines with a bunch of genetic manipulation...but with each step anyone takes towards genetic perfection, the lose a piece of themselves. besides, it would be pretty wack it these mice got to a point where they could beat the shit out of the scientists.
FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
Re:Morals? (Score:2)
It could be argued that people's ethical ideas usually boil down to their gut feeling; "Reason is, and should be, the slave of the passions," as Hume said. But it would be more useful to examine your gut feelings to determine a basis of your morality, and deduce from there. For instance, do you believe that the consequences determine the morality of an action, or are actions categorically right or wrong? How do you define, "good" and "bad"? Without making such evaluations, your ideas about particular issues will be ill-founded.
In any case, since I don't understand where you're coming from, I suspect my presenting arguments might not do you much good. "I've been raised under the notion" suggests, perhaps, a religious upbringing... religions tend not to replace the answers to basic philosophical questions, but rather to give them interesting twists.
Anyway, as regards cloning in particular: do you think identical twins are wrong? If so, what should be done about the scoundrels? If not, is it because they were unintentional, or is there another reason? Or are you simply worried about the effects of widespread cloning?
For my part, I say, "cool beans", and look forward to raising myself just as soon as it becomes affordable. Whether cloning is a good practice for society at large I would evaluate based on the effects it turns out to have upon society and the gene pool. It should certainly be legal, IMHO, but then I'm a libertarian looney, and not wholly to be trusted. :-)
How will you tell a human, let alone a woman? (Score:3)
Now, jump 50 years into the future. Everybody has "artificial" genes, most of these made specially for your family or your church or your country (funny perspective, is't, it?).
How you tell a human now? chromosome count will be useless. Appearence? Are you kidding? We are talking chromosome implant here. A single chromosome can carry incountable genes, each one responsible for changes far beyond imaginable.
Which trait, which fundamental fact will make one be considered a human being and another a new kind of ocean beast?
The main candidate will probably be the culture, the inherited and learned memes that make us part of a common history.
And I have not even touched the problem of machine consciouness...
Problems with genetic inheritance... (Score:3)
1. There's no information in the DNA source explaining what the object is. You have to look at the entire object and possibly compile the source to determine what class it belongs to.
2. There are too many levels in the class hierarchy. Not only do we have classes, we have kingdoms, phylums, orders, families and genuses. This is unneccesary and makes inheritance from base objects hard to trace. Additionally, the distinction beetween class and order is ill defined and an optional tool rather than a core part of the language.
3. It's impossible to tell which implementation of eyeColor() will be used when creating a new object.
Can we make God code in Java? Sure it's less powerful than DNA, but it's also much harder to code bugs (or arachnids for that matter) in Java.
--Shoeboy
Re:Data Lifespan... (Score:3)
It's bad enough that code has bugs, do we really need bugs that have code?
Re:Data Lifespan... (Score:3)
Oh, god... the mice again! (Score:4)