Slashdot Mirror


New Advance Confines GMOs To the Lab Instead of Living In the Wild

BarbaraHudson (3785311) writes In Jurassic Park, scientists tweak dinosaur DNA so that the dinosaurs were lysine-deficient in order to keep them from spreading in the wild. Scientists have taken this one step further as a way to keep genetically modified E. coli from surviving outside the lab. In modifying the bacteria's DNA to thwart escape, two teams altered the genetic code to require amino acids not found in nature. One team modified the genes that coded for proteins crucial to cell functions so that that produced proteins required the presence of the synthetic amino acid in the protein itself. The other team focused on 22 genes deemed essential to a bacterial cell's functions and tied the genes' expression to the presence of synthetic amino acids. For the bacteria to survive, these synthetic amino acids had to be present in the medium on which the bacteria fed. In both cases, the number of escapees was so small as to be undetectable."

12 of 130 comments (clear)

  1. Jurassic Park by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Isn't this how they kept the dinosaurs from escaping in the first Jurassic Park book? And we all know how well that worked out... CHAOS THEORY!

    1. Re:Jurassic Park by morgauxo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But Lysine IS found in nature. The extra security here is that they are dependant on something they cannot obtain because it is not found in nature.

  2. Until... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A mutation in the DNA undoes the genetic engineering and we've got a new strain of e. coli in the wild.

    1. Re:Until... by ichthus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Righto -- statistics is in favor of evolution not happening. Gotcha.

      --
      sig: sauer
  3. I`ll be the pessimist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ``the number of escapees was so small as to be undetectable``.

    This doesn`t exactly sound encouraging. Even one escapee out of trillions of bacteria, through the wonder of exponential clonal replication, will result in escape. This method might buy a day or two. And I haven`t even mentioned natural selections proclivity to ruin even the most well thought out containment schemes. And that messing with the basic cell machinery will greatly reduce the viability (and economic productivity) of these bugs.

    1. Re:I`ll be the pessimist by sirlark · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The whole idea is that the escapees won't survive long enough to reproduce, as being without their essential amino acids, their growth would be limited, and bacterial reproduction rates are tied to growth rates. Also, consider that as long as they're provided with the non-native amino acids, they're under no selective pressure to revert to the wild type. Yes, it's possible, but very very unlikely.

  4. Lest we Forget.. by Bonzoli · · Score: 5, Insightful

    http://news.firedoglake.com/20...
    The provision protects genetically modified seeds from litigation in the face of health risks and has thus been dubbed the “Monsanto Protection Act” by activists who oppose the biotech giant. President Barack Obama signed the spending bill, including the provision, into law on Tuesday
    Since the act’s passing, more than 250,000 people have signed a petition opposing the provision and a rally, consisting largely of farmers organized by the Food Democracy Now network, protested outside the White House Wednesday. Not only has anger been directed at the Monsanto Protection Act’s content, but the way in which the provision was passed through Congress without appropriate review by the Agricultural or Judiciary Committees. The biotech rider instead was introduced anonymously as the larger bill progressed — little wonder food activists are accusing lobbyists and Congress members of backroom dealings.

  5. Wait...escapess undetectable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So they are letting modified E.Coli out into the wild. And they can't detect it, and who honestly knows if some mutation is or is not going to allow the bacteria to still live and thrive.

  6. Mutations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How to they propose to prevent these lab E. coli from mutating the ability to survive in the wild?

  7. They want us all to be dependent on them by cjonslashdot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And now they can sell farmers the missing ingredient!

  8. Re:Quick history lesson by Art+Challenor · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm sorry, this time it's totally different. For starters, there's much more money to be made by simply ignoring all the possible problems.

  9. Re:Mutations and natural selection by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not to mention that bacteria have been known to transfer genes between bacterium near them. (Bacteria: The original file sharers!) Say one of these gets out and encounters a similar bacteria without the "confinement genes". Could it laterally transfer genes that would help it survive without the "lab required environment"?

    I'm not saying we should never experiment on anything (we should) or that building in safeties like this isn't a good idea (it is), but we should never let our guard down and say "We've thought of everything! This has fully secured us against any possible problem!"

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.