Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Genetically-Engineered Death Carp 38

Posted by michael from the chinese-needle-snakes dept.
angkor writes "Kinda cool... Carp that produce only male offspring. They do something like this with sterile fruitflies as well."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Genetically-Engineered Death Carp More

Genetically-Engineered Death Carp

Comments Filter:
  • Daughterless genes? This kind of thing seems like something that would be awfully close to being used in humans if it was safe. Seems like just another step in the process of 'designing' a child. The scary thought is i'm sure the demand is already there for these kinds of things, thankfully anything like that in humans would require the gene from birth or at the least some mean genetical manipulation of the embryo.
  • And this seems like an awefully ridiculous way to cure the problem of Carp.

    First of all, the fish that can't produce females have to have a reproductive advantage. By this, I mean that the fish have to get to the eggs "first" or gain preferential mating, otherwise, say, after the first year, the percentage of daughterless carp will be the same as the year before. Why would it change?

    Not only this, but since half of the zygote has normal genes (presumably, they're treating males - females wouldn't be alive in the second generation to pass on the 'bad' genes) - there's no way to really eradicate the fish. Basically, it's like this: Say you have 500 people, 250 of which are male, 250 of which are female. 50 of those males can't have female offspring because of a genetic defect. 200 of those males can. Not only will they have normal female offspring, but the 200 males will also have 'un-tainted' male offspring. In the f2, then, the ratios don't neccessarily change towards the better - half of the fertilized fish are normal males and the female population is slightly reduced - however, all of those females can mate with normal males and have more females.

    This will take YEARS to have a noticeable effect on the Carp population. The ratio of 1/5 carp with that daughterless gene is ridiculously high, they'd have to release thousands of the fish into the wild and drastically *increase* the population in order to decrease it. This article sounds more like sensationalism than science.

    Just my opinion.
    • Allowing it to take years is fine. Having it take 10-20 years is far better than introducing another species to hunt the carp, then spending another 100 years trying to get rid of that species, and so on and so forth.

      Patience is a virtue, especially in this case.
    • RTFA - On page 3 they adress your concerns.
      Don't mean no disrespect but how could you, the highschooler with the genetics class, ever think for a single moment that you know more than a team of experts?
      • Maybe he's a thinking human being with an idea in his head. Anyway, in a population of abnormally high males, it is advantagious to produce females, which is why they have to keep pumping new fish in the system, and also why it might be considered safer than other methods of fighting the fish.
      • RTFAYYFHI! (Read The Fuckin' Article Yourself, You Fuckin' Hypocritical Idiot!)

        On PAGE 3, they quote a U of MN geneticist voicing concerns similar to this "lowly highschooler":

        ------------
        Anne Kapuscinski, a University of Minnesota geneticist and a leading expert on transgenic fish, suspects the complex dynamics of fish populations and genetics may resist a daughterless assault. Nature could conspire to give the carp a higher survival rate or simply turn off the daughterless gene.
        ------------

        EGGSTASY, how could you ever think for a single moment that you are ACTUALLY QUALIFIED to post such a condescending response on SLASHDOT??? A requirement is to understand what the fuck you are reading before posting such a flamingly idiotic response...

    • Let's do the math (Score:3, Informative)

      by geoswan ( 316494 )
      Okay, let's play out your thought experiment.

      There are complicating factors -- like the hangers on from previous generations that are still fertile, and that with fewer carp eggs are hatched maybe more of them will survive, since they won't have as many other carp to compete with. Let's ignore those factors, and, for the sake or argument, work with thought carp that only breed once.

      Your assumptions were 250 normal females, 200 normal males, and 50 males with the daughterless gene, correct?

      Generation 1, 40% female, 40% male, 20% daughterless males

      Generation 2, 33% female, 33% male, 33% daughterless males

      Generation 3, 25% female, 25% male, 50% daughterless males

      Generation 4, 8% female, 16% male, 75% daughterless males

      Generation 5, 2% female, 4% male, 93% daughterless males

      And each generation from generation 2 on, since there are less females there are fewer eggs laid, and therefore fewer fish reaching maturity. Ignoring those factors I mentioned above generation 3 would be down a third to 333 adult fish, 81 of which would be female. Generation 4 would be 162 adult fish, with about a dozen females. Generation 5 would be about two dozen adult fish.

      Okay, they only plan to introduce males with the daughterless gene representing less than 1% of the current population, during the first year.

      I don't have the right tools to do the math for an addition of 1% per year of males with the daughterless gene. Maybe when I get home.

  • Now think people: what would Freud have to say about something like this? Those carp are going to have to have a lot of psychotherapy after this. I say just end the program now before the lawsuits start rolling in.

  • Kids these days... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Twintop ( 579924 ) <david@twintop-tahoe.com> on Tuesday September 17, 2002 @01:19AM (#4271233) Homepage Journal
    Baby Carp: "Daddy, where do babies come from?" Father Carp: "Well son, when a mommy carp and a daddy carp fall in love, they make little baby carp." Baby Carp: "Will I have babies someday, daddy?" Father Carp: "Not until humans descide to play god again, son."

  • Before you complain... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by OneFix ( 18661 ) on Tuesday September 17, 2002 @02:32AM (#4271355)
    I've been seeing alot of ppl complaining that this is "playing god"...

    First off, carp have a tendency to kill off eveything in their eco-system (they use up all of the oxygen and they eat all of the vegitation) so endangered species are feeling the "pinch".

    Second, these are most likely the offspring of bait!!!

    Yes, fishing has caused this problem. They're just trying to put things back the way they were.
    • not only do carp eat all the vegetation, but in the process they make the water muddier. they should make carp that taste better and don't retain the poisons and toxic chemicals that they absorb from being bottom feeders AND give them Arnold-like muscles so that they actually put up a fight when you catch them. maybe then people would actually fish for them, and eat them. a couple of years ago i landed a 3.5 footer which just felt like i was reeling in a log. much different from the 18" steelhead which shot across the stream so fast my reel became hot from the drag.

  • The Carp aren't scary... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Boronx ( 228853 ) <evonreis@mohr-e n g i n e e r i ng.com> on Tuesday September 17, 2002 @02:48AM (#4271380) Homepage Journal
    but this sure is (from page three)

    A similar but contagious immunocontraceptive technique is being tested on Aussie rabbits.

    If that jumps to humans, we are screwed.

  • next... (Score:1, Interesting)

    by agnosonga ( 601770 )
    if only they could do that to plants like morning glory and scotch broom
  • "I'm not Henry the eighth I'm not, Henry the eigth I'm not."

    Let's just hope this strain does not make it to asia. If I'm not mistaken, carp are their primary source of protien.

    Not to mention the devastation this could cause the koi pond industry.

    Thousands of years of selective breeding to get a sterile generation.

  • oh dear - naysaying warning (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DrSkwid ( 118965 ) on Tuesday September 17, 2002 @03:23AM (#4271433) Journal
    Let's introduce a new species that will work.

    Let's introduce a new predator that will work.

    Let's genetically modify them, that will work.

    Nothing can go wrong.

  • Repopulation? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Nyphur ( 514992 )
    Enough about the male-only genetic engineering... Is the next step not to make it possible to genetically engineer postive female-only offspring every time? In this way, the technique could be applied to endangered species, resulting in a vast increase in repopulation rates. If the technology can make a speciaes extinct, so too can it bring a species fromt eh brink of extinction.
  • Don't you think it's about time they get the point?
  • All I want is Death Carp with fricken Laser beams attached to there heads.
  • "Omigod, what if someone sneaks one of these carp to Europe? Are you going to endanger the species globally?" The short answer is no. If someone snuck a thousand of these things to Europe and released them into the Danube, it really wouldn't make a significant impact," he says.

    Riiiight.

  • Mutant fish? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Dannon ( 142147 ) on Tuesday September 17, 2002 @09:58AM (#4272798) Journal
    Are they.... ill-tempered?
    ((insert Dr. Evil pinky finger gesture))
  • I think we all know what is going to happen next:

    Carp will spawn. Dr. Alan Grant will come out and preach to us that nature found a way. Nature always finds a way.

    -Sean
  • All I want is carp with Freakin laser beams attached to their heads.
  • I remember seeing a program about giant, genetically engineered salmon and how they would decimate the world salmon population if released into the wild. They are engineered to be larger than normal, so they have a competitive advantage for mating. But, they also eat twice as much as normal salmon, so they wouldn't be able to feed themselves. Could this technique be required of those who breed genetically modified fish?
  • my question is this ... what are the chances of this gene "jumping" via viruses et al. to other fish species?

    otherwise i think that this is an excellent idea, it will be interesting to see whether these fish just upregulate their aromatase genes to overcome the non-sense RNA (anti-aromatase) gene, i wonder if these scientists placed the new gene immediately downstream from the gene it's blocking (so they both become transcribed at the same time), or saturated the upstream nonsense RNA gene region with retroviral promoters (it's advantageous for many retroviruses to trick the cell into overexpressing their genetic material for new virons) or something of the like... i'm curious to know...

    -tid242

    • I suppose it depends on how this would spread. Since this is a deliberate genetic failure, as opposed to a virus, chances are it's not contagious but only spread via offspring and not via contagion. Since they likely don't mate with other fish, this should be ok. The alteration should only take place at the fertilization or "sperm" level.

      Of course, the problem here is (as mentioned before) the alterned offspring cannot produce female offsping. Thus, the altered species may breed itself out before affecting the wild species.

      • I suppose it depends on how this would spread. Since this is a deliberate genetic failure, as opposed to a virus,

        i never said, nor insinuated that this was a virus, but it's been long established that viruses (among others, but viruses are by far the most common) may serve as carriers of bits of DNA to and from different organisms, and alas, different species of organisms, so my question was regarding the feasibility of a (wild, not introduced) virus would/could carry the gene into other fish species.

        The alteration should only take place at the fertilization or "sperm" level

        obviously the 'alteration' will occur when the eggs are fertalized (2 copies of aromatase gene, maternal & fraternal, however a (presumably dominant) gene which codes for a negative RNA sequence to said gene, fraternal), but the fish will carry the gene throughout their lives, thus a virus could potentially carry it from the modified carp to other fish (or their eggs or whatever)...it's not highly probable that it would make its way into the germ lines of the non-intended fish, but i was asking about the odds as it cannot be considered an absolute impossibility.

        Of course, the problem here is (as mentioned before) the alterned offspring cannot produce female offsping. Thus, the altered species may breed itself out before affecting the wild species.

        i'm also not sure what this statement has to do with my original question, if i'm missing something please, enlighten me... the beautiful thing about this technique is that although each aromatase-inhibited individual organism is an eventual reproductive dead-end this doesn't stop it from breeding hordes of similar dead-end males, thus the species eventually dies by outbreeding by a population of fish much greater than that origionally introduced to the environment... while this institution's mathematical analysis of the number of fish required to successfully destroy or devistate a native fish population looks as though it were performed for carp, i would imagine other species would react differently due to particular qwerks of their species' breeding & lifestyle habbits... which is why my improbable aforementioned point was worthy of a supported answer.

        :)

        -tid242

Slashdot Top Deals

Our policy is, when in doubt, do the right thing. -- Roy L. Ash, ex-president, Litton Industries

Close