Slashdot Mirror


Disease-Resistant Pigs Latest Win For Gene Editing Technology (reuters.com)

schwit1 writes with news that using gene editing technology researchers have bred pigs that do not produce a protein necessary for the Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome (PRRS) virus to spread. According to Reuters: "A British animal genetics firm, working with U.S. scientists, has bred the world's first pigs resistant to a common viral disease, using the hot new technology of gene editing. Genus, which supplies pig and bull semen to farmers worldwide, said on Tuesday it had worked with the University of Missouri to develop pigs resistant to Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome Virus (PRRSv). The condition, also known as blue-ear disease, can be fatal as it affects the animals' immune system and costs farmers hundreds of millions of dollars a year. There is no cure. By using precise gene editing, the team from the University of Missouri was able to breed pigs that do not produce a specific protein necessary for the virus to spread in the animals. Their research was published in journal Nature Biotechnology."

5 of 125 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Countdown ... by Obfuscant · · Score: 3, Insightful

    the complete lack of information about the specific protein other than apparently it is the protein whose job it is to make sure the pig can get a virus.

    No, it is not the "job" of that protein to make sure the pig can host the specific virus. The virus needs that protein to reproduce. Your statement is like saying that the job of a window is so that thieves can break into houses through them.

    The protein was there for some other purpose, but apparently since the pigs don't seem hurt by it not being there, it's a truly vestigial remnant of pig evolution.

  2. Re:Countdown ... by bws111 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Mandatory labels should only be required in cases where there is an actual known problem with something. Voluntary labels can be used right now. In fact, one of the things I had for dinner had a little 'non GMO' label on it. The only reason the anti GMO nuts want mandatory labels is so they can use them to spread FUD.

  3. Re:Countdown ... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As long as you don't know that there is no problem a mandatory label is what the citizens want. Not giving them that behave handwaving like you is a violation of basic human an civil rights.
    I for my part wont eat any GMO food (if I know it is GMO at the first hand), regardless of true or perceived danger until the GMO MAFIA stops interfering with citizens and customers wishes to have said food labeled!

    The only reason the anti GMO nuts want mandatory labels is so they can use them to spread FUD.
    No, they want it because it is their choice what they eat, not somebody else choice.

    But thank you that you dare to chose for me what I should eat. Remind me when we meet in person, that I shove down your throat some kind of food that you most dislike. I'm pretty sure you will figure some way to sue me imediatly.

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  4. Re:Countdown ... by Obfuscant · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That's what I was getting at - the reporting completely left out all details.

    And what I was getting at was that were this specific protein important enough to the life of the pig, then the modified pigs will not survive the market. Farmers aren't going to try raising pigs that won't live long enough to make it to the butcher. They won't buy the modified pigs, and this will become an interesting footnote in the history of gene editing.

    But once again, it doesn't matter what the pig thinks about it. You care more about the pigs than the people who eat them, I get it. But the standard argument against GMO is not what it does to the O, it's what effect that O has on the people who eat it.

    We have a very very long history of people who eat NO pork. Thus we can be sure that pork that doesn't have a specific protein will NOT have any negative effects on people who eat it, because there are no significant negative effects on all the people who already don't eat it.

    I don't know what the "guy below", whoever you are referring to, is talking about. If it's the guy who is talking about blowfish toxins, well, now we can talk about when pigs swim instead of when pigs fly.

  5. Re:Countdown ... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As long as you don't know that there is no problem a mandatory label is what the citizens want.

    You cannot prove a negative, so you are demanding the impossible. Can you prove that crops raised by left-handed Methodists do not cause cancer? If you want to avoid GMO, then you are free to buy any of the thousands of products voluntarily labeled "non-GMO". But you have no right to use the force of law to impose your anti-science agenda on others.