Slashdot Mirror
What You Eat Affects Your Genes
purkinje writes "Tiny bits of genetic material, called microRNAs, can make their way from the food you eat into your blood stream, and change how your genes are expressed, according to a new study. A team of Chinese scientists found tiny bits of white rice microRNA floating around in people's blood after a meal. When they looked at what was happening on a cellular level, they found that the microRNAs were changing gene expression, decreasing levels of a receptor that filters out LDL (bad) cholesterol. When the scientists gave mice both rice and a chemical to block the microRNAs, their levels of that receptor returned to normal — showing that the microRNAs weren't just swimming through the blood stream, but acting on genes in the animals' cells."
... Jeans
Can't tell if trolling or just very ignorant. I could have modded, but I'd rather educate. First off, treating all GMOs as if they have the same traits is just stupid. There are bunches of different genes that have been inserted and potentially any gene could be used, so acting as if one trait should matter for every other one is beyond senseless. Second, the traits you're talking about were not designed for that purpose (although that was a side effect the companies no doubt considered), but rather was to prevent the flow of the genes to other people's crops (the very thing people are trying to sue Monsanto over now...they're evil bastards if they do, and evil bastards if they don't. Third, those traits are not in use anyway. Because most seed sold nowadays is hybrid seed (hybrid and GMO are different and commonly confused but not mutually exclusive things) farmers typically want to buy new seed anyway, as they have been doing long before GMOs came on the scene. Before you complain about something, might want to do some basic fact checking first. Fourth, I highly doubt the study you mention was done all that well in light of the hundreds showing no harm from GM food and the fact that the best causative mechanism for why GMO food would be inherently dangerous is...oh wait, no one has ever proposed any coherent way that could happen. Fifth, this new paper (assuming it is accurate) says nothing about GMO safety. There are thousands of genes for all sorts of stuff in every single thing you eat. I highly doubt transgenes are going to behave differently, especially considering that the only three traits currently in use (the Bt gene, an EPSP synthase gene, and viral coat protein genes) can very easily be found in non-GM food too. So basically, no, this has no relevance on genetic engineering whatsoever, but I have no doubt someone out there will cite it as such.
Yes, because up until recently we thought that cell membranes kept all the environmental chemicals out except only the ones that are allowed in. Every year we're learning that cell membranes are much more permeable than we thought and that chemicals we used to think never entered cells are in fact binding to stuff inside cell nuclei (even more membranes to go through) and affecting genes directly. We used to think that anything that happened in the nucleus was strictly controlled by a cells own internal messaging mechanisms. Now we're not sure. Much more environmental interaction is allowed than what was previously believed.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
It might be your long held dogma, but people in the field have long known about epigenetic changes to DNA and it's implications. We've known about mitochondrial DNA for decades, same with DNA methylation. The microRNAs are fairly new and an open field but it has been realized that the "Central Dogma" (DNA -> RNA -> Protein) has been barking up the wrong tree for some time.
TFA is interesting and rather unexpected. Small, unprotected RNA molecules aren't "supposed" to survive long outside. If this is true, if it can be repeated it might explain some of the more confusing relationships between diet, growth, cancer and other diseases. The nice thing is that this experiment should be 'relatively' easy to replicate (at least from the detail one gets in TFA - they're not using anything all that unique, weird or expensive).
Since it is such a potentially high profile experiment, the cynic in me wonders why it didn't get published in a higher profile journal. Of course, not every important discovery is published in Nature or Science, but one wonders.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
I'm going to start eating cats, to make me faster and cuter. I will become the king of Quake 3, and girls.
Sorry kittehs but I must consume you for your positive attributes.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
so tell me... why is Genetic Modification of food allowed?
Selective breeding over generations is genetic modification, and it's been going on for the past four millennia. Did you mean " recombinant genetic modification"?
what happens when someone decides to "leverage" food crops to produce drugs, and those accidentally cross-pollinate with the world's food supply?
Patent lawsuits like Monsanto v. Schmeiser.