Posted by
timothy
on from the no-two-cats-are-alike dept.
bbsguru writes "When Texas A&M researchers announced the first Cloned Kitty about a year ago, everyone expected to see a Multiplicity-style pair of cats by now. Not so! The clone is genetically identical, but in many other ways totally a different cat. This
CNN Story has details."
Impossible to...
by
e8johan
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
This pretty much shows that it will be impossible to use cloning (as we know it today) to raise the dead.
However a human teleporter and a little sniffing on the transmission line would probably do the trick. However, the two individuals would not be exposed to the same surroundings and diverge pretty soon.
Re:Impossible to...
by
KDan
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Depends what you mean by raising the dead. If you mean "oh, make a clone of John, educate it, let it grow up to John's age, and you have John again", then obviously that's never going to work, and there was never really any doubt about that. Unless you can reproduce the exact environment of John's life, down to the quark configuration of the entire universe (every little bit can alter events), it's impossible to get John again through that method.
However, another much better method is this: Make a clone of John, keep its brain blank as you grow it (maybe in an accelerated fashion) to John's size, and then transfer John's thoughts to that clone. Of course that requires very advanced brain knowledge to "read" and "write" a brain - assuming that's even possible.
But that would give you immortality (so long as you keep your brain safe).
Daniel
-- Carpe Diem
Nature vs. Nurture
by
DJPenguin
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
It's the old Nature vs. Nurture debate - I would imagine these cats were treated differently, and this could account for differences in behaviour.
It might however have been a different story if both cats had been cloned before birth to make them identical twins. The older cat in the article would have had to change it's behaviour when the new one came along.
It just goes to show the genetics doesn't define "who we are".
Re:Nature vs. Nurture
by
Billly+Gates
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
But its not personality.
The coats are different colors. How is this possible?
I know when they cloaned dolly, the clone experienced premature aging. The theory is that when each cell divides it stores the information about the division internally. After so many divides the cells began to not regenerate as much and this causes aging. Perhaps something similiar happened and caused the hairs to not display in full colors due to false information stored from the other cat that was implanted in the egg cell of the clone.
Anyway this is a mystery and alot more research is needed on this.
Actually, the reason that these coats don't look entirely alike is probably entirely genetic. Although, you're correct, it's not predictable or controllable.
When a female cat is conceived, it begins to grow, duplicating its cells. Each of these cells, however, has two copies of the x-chromosome. Only one of these is useful. So, in a random pattern, the cells will switch off one of the chromosomes by forming Barr bodies that surround it. It's a well understood process called Lyonization for anybody interested in looking into it. However, this only happens for females.
One might then ask whether a male cat's clone would look identical. My guess is again that it would not, although Lyonization would not be an adequate explanation. However, I believe that they would look much more similar than any two cloned calico cats (which are all female and whose coats are formed by this mechanism).
why on earth would you expect a carbon copy ?
by
psycho_tinman
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Its been established that nature plays a lesser role than nurture in the personality of a human.. obviously, the same must apply to animals as well..
No matter even if you clone an Einstein, they're not going to pop out spouting theorems, it just doesnt work that way.. from a purely research oriented perspective, though, it might be interesting to have an Einstein clone, simply to see how he may use his innate talents along ANOTHER field of science (or maybe not even a science, he might have been a GREAT musician, for all we know)..
For any person, most things we do are not innate but rather taught.. Would Mozart have started composing from the age of 4 if he hadnt had parents who encouraged him ? I doubt it.. With a clone, the only thing you CAN get is the potential to achieve the same things as the "original" (I hate using that term, but whatever)..
So, finally, in typical Slashdot-style, let me ask.. Is this really news ? (yeah, it is, it probably helped correct a lot of peoples misconceptions about the cloning process, which is GREAT, but it should have been obvious from the start)
Nobody was expecting the same memories; they were, however, expecting the same behavior patterns.
I admit I was surprised. More and more behavioral aspects of an organism are being defined by genetics these days. Look at how identical twins raised in different environments exhibit similar behavioral patterns, down to the occupations they choose. Nature vs. nurture's an ongoing battle, but over the past few years it's seemed that nature would win.
I don't get it
by
peterpi
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I am genetically identical today to how I was yesterday, but I expect I'll do loads of different stuff.
Yes, but what are the similarities?
by
shamir_k
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Even the coat pattern of the two cats is different!! Then what exactly are the similarities. I have heard stories of human twins leading very similar lives. Genese definitely do have a big effect on personality and behaviour. So the interesting question is : what are the similarities between two cats with the same DNA, but very different environments (and ages). Could shed some new and interesting light on the old nurture vs. nature arguements. Even for humans .
The follow-on research
by
hussar
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
What will be interesting is the follow-on research to determine why the two cats (or any two cloned cats) are not the same. Using clones, they have removed the DNA as a variable. The differences that resulted must therefore be due to other factors. What the other factors are and how they effect the end result should then become the central question.
My guess is that the end analysis will be that these other factors are too many and too widely variable to be consistently controlled.
--
Bureaucracy loves company.
Re:It's all good
by
halny
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I don't see anything illogical about this. Try baking three cakes using the same recipe. Chances of them being *identical* are rather small.
It would be theoretically possible to estimate information capacity of DNA molecue (after all it isn't infinite). I don't know how big it would be, but I don't know why would anyone believe DNA could store information about everything.
people apparently left out the "nurture" part of the equation entirely.
It seems to me an incredible stretch that people actually believed their pet's behavior/personality was hard-coded in the DNA.... but maybe that's just my studied-the-hard-sciences-all-my-life bias.
Behaviors are very complex things... both genetic tendency and environmental interaction play important roles. Even in psychiatric disorders that have strong genetic links (schizophrenia, bipolar disorder) having both parents (or an identical twin) afflicted will only buy the child or sibling a 50-60% chance (give or take 10%) of developing the disorder.
Yes, genes are the building blocks of our bodies... but you have to give nurture its chance at bat.
-- Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
Scientists and the Public missing the point
by
Nemus
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Alot of the general public, and unfortunately alot of companys and independent scientists as well, have forgotten what the true purpose and logical extension of cloning is.
Of course there will always be infertile couple who will want use this method to have babies, someday maybe, but otherwise we don't really need cloning to duplicate life forms. We already have a method. Its called sex. And while some arguments can be made for cloning endangered or extinct animals, until we could make a clone that was capable of reproduction, would there really be anything besides a novelty interest in this? I mean sure, yay, you've got a zoo with a thousand pandas. Unfortunately they'll all be dead in x number of years, and you'll have to clone a thousand more. Rather pointless.
The true purpose of cloning is, and should remain, complete and utter mastery of genetics and medical science. This is why the whole stem cell thing is so important, and should not be constarined in the way it is (For those who object to it on moral grounds saying it encourages abortions, it doesn't. The abortion doctor who made sales pitches like that to pregant women would be shot on principle.)
Stem Cell research and the race to human cloning are, objectively, two leaves on the same branch. Both should be refined and mastered to the point where the dream of human immortality is no longer a dream. This should be all about pushing genetics and microbiology to their absolute limits, not trying to make a Bob mark II or Fluffy 3.0 . Cloning a human just for the hell of it though, or trying to bring back to life a dead child or loved one or pet out of hopes for a "replacement" is irresponsible both scientifically, and morally.
So what would be "legitimate" applications of these technologies. Obviously, and one that was a main topic of debate during the stem cell controversy in congress, was the cloning of indivual organs, like hearts and livers. This way, instead of someone having to wait for months or years for a vital heart or liver transplant, a compatible one could be made up on the spot. And, since research into these fields will also yield advances in fields like neurological medicine, the possibility of new arms or legs, or even new eyes or audial organs becomes a possibility.
However, I do disprove of the notion that some people seem to think that we'll be planting out minds into "blank slate" bodies, sometime in the distant future. Thats not just ultra-late term abortion, thats essentially murder, unless something was done to the brain to keep it only restricted to base biological functions, and not the development of a psyche, and even that would be just weird.
And, for the record, I am pro-life, so no flames from pro-lifers on the stem cell stuff like last time.
-- Mod Points: Helping you keep your opinion to yourself.
Re:Look at the photo!
by
dughat
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Not remembering much of my genetics, does this mean:
All clones from this cell would be these two colors?
Clones from a different cell might well be two, and only two, different colors?
There is no way to clone a calico to get another calico?
This was one of the big questions when Dolly the sheep was created. Dolly was also supposed to test whether a clone is as genetically "old" as the donor. Both answers were lost in the media hype, and will most likely be lost with Cc the cat as well.
It appears that:
1. Yes. All clones from one cell will have the same two colors.
2. Yes/No. All clones from a tan patch will be white/tan. All clones from a black patch will be white/black. The white fur isn't sex linked and will always be present.
3. Yes. Apparantly, you can't get a calico clone for the same reason you can't find a male calico - it takes the random on/off of 2 X-chromosomes to form the colors.
The uniform X chromosome deactivation would happen with female clones from any animal, it's just visually obvious on a calico cat. I'm curious if it would have any effect on a human.
Re:Look at the photo!
by
Sgt+York
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Interesting.
If it holds up, that would imply that there are changes at the sequence level associated with the formation of Barr bodies. The Barr structure should be destroyed during the donor DNA preparation, and if the information is conserved, the information may be in the sequence.
Of course, one X had to be inactivated regardless, so you'd have to know which one was in a Barr body in the donor in order to know the circumstance was duplicated.
You could establish it by cloning CC several times; If >>50% of her "offspring" had the same coat, that would suggest a conserved change.
--
There is a reason for everything. Sometimes that reason just sucks.
Actually... No
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I think you are confusing breeding with cloning. In breeding, two cats give half of their genes to combine into one set of genes. It would then make sense to say one gene is active and the other gene counterpart is inactive. In cloning, the genes come from the same donor so it is not possible for the clone to have an active gene while the original have not.
The reason why the cats have different fur patterns is the same reason why identical twins do not have identical fingerprints even though they have identical DNA. Don't believe me? Check your twin friends' DNA and compare their fingerprints. The DNA only provides the general blueprint, the cell has some leeway on the implementation... much like our manufacturing industries.:-)
Mitochondrial DNA not the same in clones
by
bmcent1
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
IANAB, I think I'm correct on this point. (Someone else in the know please elaborate.) A major point most people overlook when they talk about cloning is mitochondrial DNA.
Mammalian cloning so far has only used the DNA extracted from the nucleus of the doner (original ?) animal. There is also a whole bunch of mitochondrial DNA that is floating around in the cells of that doner that they don't get and use. Further more, the egg that the DNA is inserted into contains its original mitrochondrial DNA.
So, while the nuclear DNA may be a match, the mitochondrial DNA is not... Its not a perfect copy.
--
"Hey Albert, Good luck exploring the infinite abyss."
Anyone who knows a set of identical twins should have been able to predict this out of the box.
I know two sets.. and both of them were raised in identical environments, however each is quite distinct from their sibling in a million ways.
*sigh*
How could _any_ rational person think that a clone of your old dog would know you and know the old tricks when it was born? They said it TWICE in the article, which makes me think someone somewhere thinks this is possible.
Maeryk
-- Feminine Protection? What is that? A chartreuse flame thrower?
Re:so it is not a copy cat?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Ok, so an identical genetic copy of a cat won't have the same environmental characteristics (what some would consider the "soul" of the cat), but what questions does this raise about our physical appearance?
I was under the impression that an identical genetic makeup would be physically (as in the characteristics, e.g. hair colour) would be the same as it is the genes that make that decision. After reading the artical, this is now not possible...
So, if it was just a delusion that genes decide our hair colour etc., what is it that does actually decides this? I understand that the genetic makeup can contain a gene makeup from a previous generation, that is not taken physically in its current incarnation...Does this mean that there is another randomness added to the choice? That not all genes are used, but a random choice of the "available" genes (similar to the random choice when me and my misses gets together to make a little todler) and creates the physical characteristics as such...Or does it involve slightly more complex algorithms whereby the random choice of genes is repeated throughout the growth period (hair changes colour after all, eyes can too) to create a rather more unique model?
This latter ramble seems to make sense if you consider someone that has a genetic makeup that gives it the possibility to develop some horrible disease, but doesn't develop it early in its life, but later...It just so happens that on x date, my internal random gene choice has selected x, y and z genes that, unfortunately for me, has started the chain reaction to cancer(or whatever)...Or is it just one choice of random genes that chooses cancer, maybe it is a sequence of choices that leads to the full-blown illness?
Wow, so from a simple makeup code, we can develop into an infinite (or near as dammit to be of any import) number of possibilites...So, is genetic research really worth pursuing? I mean, if you change a gene to remove the possibility of disease x, are you not running the risk of creating a (possibly)more dangerous disease y, and in doing so, through natural reproduction, replicate this to a point where you kill humanity...?All in the name of achieving what? A faster route to a "naturally perfect" human? Nature will eventually choose our best destiny, whether be extince or "perfected." We could even end up making things longer, especially as now, as far as I can tell, we have no idea how our physical characteristics are chosen...
Another thought: Our first gene choice in life is made, then, through life other choices are made, but this doesn't necessarily mean that we would change instantly hair colour, merely that a taint will arrive. If that same choice is made repeatedly, then sure your hair will gradually change...
Re:Look at the photo!
by
goodmanj
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
A quibble regarding the excellent post above: The poster says "The other X chromosome is completely inactive", but actually, the deactivated X chromosome reactivates in the ovaries, so that the eggs all end up with functioning X chromosomes.
The really interesting thing about this is that while Cc is genetically a calico, she looks exactly like a white-patched gray tabby. In all probability, she is the only calico cat on the planet with no orange spots.
Even more interesting, she is probably the only gray cat on the planet who can mate with a gray or black male and give birth to orange kittens!
For a "perfectly normal" cat, Cc is actually a pretty strange critter.
Slashdot Mirror
This pretty much shows that it will be impossible to use cloning (as we know it today) to raise the dead.
However a human teleporter and a little sniffing on the transmission line would probably do the trick. However, the two individuals would not be exposed to the same surroundings and diverge pretty soon.
It's the old Nature vs. Nurture debate - I would imagine these cats were treated differently, and this could account for differences in behaviour.
It might however have been a different story if both cats had been cloned before birth to make them identical twins. The older cat in the article would have had to change it's behaviour when the new one came along.
It just goes to show the genetics doesn't define "who we are".
Its been established that nature plays a lesser role than nurture in the personality of a human.. obviously, the same must apply to animals as well..
No matter even if you clone an Einstein, they're not going to pop out spouting theorems, it just doesnt work that way.. from a purely research oriented perspective, though, it might be interesting to have an Einstein clone, simply to see how he may use his innate talents along ANOTHER field of science (or maybe not even a science, he might have been a GREAT musician, for all we know)..
For any person, most things we do are not innate but rather taught.. Would Mozart have started composing from the age of 4 if he hadnt had parents who encouraged him ? I doubt it.. With a clone, the only thing you CAN get is the potential to achieve the same things as the "original" (I hate using that term, but whatever)..
So, finally, in typical Slashdot-style, let me ask.. Is this really news ? (yeah, it is, it probably helped correct a lot of peoples misconceptions about the cloning process, which is GREAT, but it should have been obvious from the start)
Nobody was expecting the same memories; they were, however, expecting the same behavior patterns.
I admit I was surprised. More and more behavioral aspects of an organism are being defined by genetics these days. Look at how identical twins raised in different environments exhibit similar behavioral patterns, down to the occupations they choose. Nature vs. nurture's an ongoing battle, but over the past few years it's seemed that nature would win.
I am genetically identical today to how I was yesterday, but I expect I'll do loads of different stuff.
Even the coat pattern of the two cats is different!! Then what exactly are the similarities. I have heard stories of human twins leading very similar lives. Genese definitely do have a big effect on personality and behaviour. So the interesting question is : what are the similarities between two cats with the same DNA, but very different environments (and ages). Could shed some new and interesting light on the old nurture vs. nature arguements. Even for humans .
more about me
What will be interesting is the follow-on research to determine why the two cats (or any two cloned cats) are not the same. Using clones, they have removed the DNA as a variable. The differences that resulted must therefore be due to other factors. What the other factors are and how they effect the end result should then become the central question.
My guess is that the end analysis will be that these other factors are too many and too widely variable to be consistently controlled.
Bureaucracy loves company.
I don't see anything illogical about this. Try baking three cakes using the same recipe. Chances of them being *identical* are rather small.
It would be theoretically possible to estimate information capacity of DNA molecue (after all it isn't infinite). I don't know how big it would be, but I don't know why would anyone believe DNA could store information about everything.
people apparently left out the "nurture" part of the equation entirely.
It seems to me an incredible stretch that people actually believed their pet's behavior/personality was hard-coded in the DNA.... but maybe that's just my studied-the-hard-sciences-all-my-life bias.
Behaviors are very complex things... both genetic tendency and environmental interaction play important roles. Even in psychiatric disorders that have strong genetic links (schizophrenia, bipolar disorder) having both parents (or an identical twin) afflicted will only buy the child or sibling a 50-60% chance (give or take 10%) of developing the disorder.
Yes, genes are the building blocks of our bodies... but you have to give nurture its chance at bat.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
Of course there will always be infertile couple who will want use this method to have babies, someday maybe, but otherwise we don't really need cloning to duplicate life forms. We already have a method. Its called sex. And while some arguments can be made for cloning endangered or extinct animals, until we could make a clone that was capable of reproduction, would there really be anything besides a novelty interest in this? I mean sure, yay, you've got a zoo with a thousand pandas. Unfortunately they'll all be dead in x number of years, and you'll have to clone a thousand more. Rather pointless.
The true purpose of cloning is, and should remain, complete and utter mastery of genetics and medical science. This is why the whole stem cell thing is so important, and should not be constarined in the way it is (For those who object to it on moral grounds saying it encourages abortions, it doesn't. The abortion doctor who made sales pitches like that to pregant women would be shot on principle.)
Stem Cell research and the race to human cloning are, objectively, two leaves on the same branch. Both should be refined and mastered to the point where the dream of human immortality is no longer a dream. This should be all about pushing genetics and microbiology to their absolute limits, not trying to make a Bob mark II or Fluffy 3.0 . Cloning a human just for the hell of it though, or trying to bring back to life a dead child or loved one or pet out of hopes for a "replacement" is irresponsible both scientifically, and morally.
So what would be "legitimate" applications of these technologies. Obviously, and one that was a main topic of debate during the stem cell controversy in congress, was the cloning of indivual organs, like hearts and livers. This way, instead of someone having to wait for months or years for a vital heart or liver transplant, a compatible one could be made up on the spot. And, since research into these fields will also yield advances in fields like neurological medicine, the possibility of new arms or legs, or even new eyes or audial organs becomes a possibility.
However, I do disprove of the notion that some people seem to think that we'll be planting out minds into "blank slate" bodies, sometime in the distant future. Thats not just ultra-late term abortion, thats essentially murder, unless something was done to the brain to keep it only restricted to base biological functions, and not the development of a psyche, and even that would be just weird.
And, for the record, I am pro-life, so no flames from pro-lifers on the stem cell stuff like last time.
Mod Points: Helping you keep your opinion to yourself.
This was one of the big questions when Dolly the sheep was created. Dolly was also supposed to test whether a clone is as genetically "old" as the donor. Both answers were lost in the media hype, and will most likely be lost with Cc the cat as well.
It appears that:
1. Yes. All clones from one cell will have the same two colors.
2. Yes/No. All clones from a tan patch will be white/tan. All clones from a black patch will be white/black. The white fur isn't sex linked and will always be present.
3. Yes. Apparantly, you can't get a calico clone for the same reason you can't find a male calico - it takes the random on/off of 2 X-chromosomes to form the colors.
The uniform X chromosome deactivation would happen with female clones from any animal, it's just visually obvious on a calico cat. I'm curious if it would have any effect on a human.
If it holds up, that would imply that there are changes at the sequence level associated with the formation of Barr bodies. The Barr structure should be destroyed during the donor DNA preparation, and if the information is conserved, the information may be in the sequence.
Of course, one X had to be inactivated regardless, so you'd have to know which one was in a Barr body in the donor in order to know the circumstance was duplicated.
You could establish it by cloning CC several times; If >>50% of her "offspring" had the same coat, that would suggest a conserved change.
There is a reason for everything. Sometimes that reason just sucks.
I think you are confusing breeding with cloning. In breeding, two cats give half of their genes to combine into one set of genes. It would then make sense to say one gene is active and the other gene counterpart is inactive. In cloning, the genes come from the same donor so it is not possible for the clone to have an active gene while the original have not.
:-)
The reason why the cats have different fur patterns is the same reason why identical twins do not have identical fingerprints even though they have identical DNA. Don't believe me? Check your twin friends' DNA and compare their fingerprints. The DNA only provides the general blueprint, the cell has some leeway on the implementation... much like our manufacturing industries.
IANAB, I think I'm correct on this point. (Someone else in the know please elaborate.) A major point most people overlook when they talk about cloning is mitochondrial DNA. Mammalian cloning so far has only used the DNA extracted from the nucleus of the doner (original ?) animal. There is also a whole bunch of mitochondrial DNA that is floating around in the cells of that doner that they don't get and use. Further more, the egg that the DNA is inserted into contains its original mitrochondrial DNA. So, while the nuclear DNA may be a match, the mitochondrial DNA is not... Its not a perfect copy.
"Hey Albert, Good luck exploring the infinite abyss."
Anyone who knows a set of identical twins should have been able to predict this out of the box.
I know two sets.. and both of them were raised in identical environments, however each is quite distinct from their sibling in a million ways.
*sigh*
How could _any_ rational person think that a clone of your old dog would know you and know the old tricks when it was born? They said it TWICE in the article, which makes me think someone somewhere thinks this is possible.
Maeryk
Feminine Protection? What is that? A chartreuse flame thrower?
I was under the impression that an identical genetic makeup would be physically (as in the characteristics, e.g. hair colour) would be the same as it is the genes that make that decision. After reading the artical, this is now not possible...
So, if it was just a delusion that genes decide our hair colour etc., what is it that does actually decides this? I understand that the genetic makeup can contain a gene makeup from a previous generation, that is not taken physically in its current incarnation...Does this mean that there is another randomness added to the choice? That not all genes are used, but a random choice of the "available" genes (similar to the random choice when me and my misses gets together to make a little todler) and creates the physical characteristics as such...Or does it involve slightly more complex algorithms whereby the random choice of genes is repeated throughout the growth period (hair changes colour after all, eyes can too) to create a rather more unique model?
This latter ramble seems to make sense if you consider someone that has a genetic makeup that gives it the possibility to develop some horrible disease, but doesn't develop it early in its life, but later...It just so happens that on x date, my internal random gene choice has selected x, y and z genes that, unfortunately for me, has started the chain reaction to cancer(or whatever)...Or is it just one choice of random genes that chooses cancer, maybe it is a sequence of choices that leads to the full-blown illness?
Wow, so from a simple makeup code, we can develop into an infinite (or near as dammit to be of any import) number of possibilites...So, is genetic research really worth pursuing? I mean, if you change a gene to remove the possibility of disease x, are you not running the risk of creating a (possibly)more dangerous disease y, and in doing so, through natural reproduction, replicate this to a point where you kill humanity...?All in the name of achieving what? A faster route to a "naturally perfect" human? Nature will eventually choose our best destiny, whether be extince or "perfected." We could even end up making things longer, especially as now, as far as I can tell, we have no idea how our physical characteristics are chosen...
Another thought: Our first gene choice in life is made, then, through life other choices are made, but this doesn't necessarily mean that we would change instantly hair colour, merely that a taint will arrive. If that same choice is made repeatedly, then sure your hair will gradually change...
The really interesting thing about this is that while Cc is genetically a calico, she looks exactly like a white-patched gray tabby. In all probability, she is the only calico cat on the planet with no orange spots.
Even more interesting, she is probably the only gray cat on the planet who can mate with a gray or black male and give birth to orange kittens!
For a "perfectly normal" cat, Cc is actually a pretty strange critter.