Slashdot Mirror


Scientists Genetically Engineer Pigs Immune To Costly Disease (theguardian.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: The trial, led by the University of Edinburgh's Roslin Institute, showed that the pigs were completely immune to porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS), a disease that is endemic across the globe and costs the European pig industry nearly $2 billion in pig deaths and decreased productivity each year.

Pigs infected with PRRS are safe to eat but the virus causes the animals breathing problems, causes deaths in piglets and can cause pregnant sows to lose their litter. There is no effective cure or vaccine, and despite extensive biosecurity measures about 30% of pigs in England are thought to be infected at any given time. After deleting a small section of DNA that leaves pigs vulnerable to the disease, the animals showed no symptoms or trace of infection when intentionally exposed to the virus and when housed for an extended period with infected siblings.
The study has been published in the Journal of Virology.

80 comments

  1. Reminiscing about the movie "I am Legend" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TV Personality: The world of medicine has seen its share of miracle cures, from the polio vaccine to heart transplants. But all past achievements may pale in comparison to the work of Dr. Alice Krippin. Thank you so much for joining us this morning.

    Dr. Alice Krippin: Not at all.

    TV Personality: So, Dr. Krippin, give it to me in a nutshell.

    Dr. Alice Krippin: Well, the premise is quite simple - um, take something designed by nature and reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it.

    TV Personality: You're talking about a virus?

    Dr. Alice Krippin: Indeed, yes. In this case the measles, um, virus which has been engineered at a genetic level to be helpful rather than harmful. Um, I find the best way to describe it is if you can... if you can imagine your body as a highway, and you picture the virus as a very fast car, um, being driven by a very bad man. Imagine the damage that car can cause. Then if you replace that man with a cop... the picture changes. And that's essentially what we've done.

    TV Personality: And how many people have you treated so far?

    Dr. Alice Krippin: Well, we've had ten thousand and nine clinical trials in humans so far.

    TV Personality: And how many are cancer-free?

    Dr. Alice Krippin: Ten thousand and nine.

    TV Personality: So you have actually cured cancer.

    Dr. Alice Krippin: Yes, yes... yes, we have.

    [cuts to post-apocalyptic New York three years later]

    1. Re: Reminiscing about the movie "I am Legend" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I, too, base my fears of progress on movies designed to sell a fear of progress as entertainment.

    2. Re: Reminiscing about the movie "I am Legend" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I, too, ignore all the prophets of my time in my devotion to the great god PROGRESS.

    3. Re: Reminiscing about the movie "I am Legend" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By prophets, do you mean the uneducated hippy left that thinks gluten is evil, or the uneducated redneck right that thinks some guy literally built an ark?

      The two groups typically share the same fears and somehow manage to coexist all while the rest of us drag them kicking and screaming to a better world.

    4. Re: Reminiscing about the movie "I am Legend" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Things that make the world better include the atomic bomb, chemical and biological weapons. Things that can be used for good can also be used for ill. The reference to a virus that for out of control isnt unrealistic. We do not understand the long term risks associated with such modifications. If you believe we do then it is you who are the uneducated dolt not the gp.

    5. Re: Reminiscing about the movie "I am Legend" by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I can make the case that, so far, the atomic bomb has kept us from having WW3 as the major powers can't afford that kind of destruction. Better to get along somehow than bomb civilization back to the stone age. Hard to actually "win" a war when all your cities glow in the dark without electricity. The same with bio and chemical. The planet is too small for the consequences. Hell, even Hitler didn't use gas in combat. Only for ethnic cleansing in controlled environments. WWI convinced the military that gas is not an effective weapon against modern equipped armies.

  2. This should be all we focus on as a species by musixman · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Ethics aside, because nobody in an emergency room wouldn't want a cure. We as a species IMO should be focusing 75% of our resources on biology for curing diseases and life extension, There is lots of space in this universe & our limiting factor right now is age / death

    1. Re:This should be all we focus on as a species by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ethics aside, because nobody in an emergency room wouldn't want a cure.

      I’m not sure we can genetically engineer a cure for gunshot wounds or car accidents.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:This should be all we focus on as a species by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I’m not sure we can genetically engineer a cure for gunshot wounds or car accidents.

      That's probably a good thing, though. Imagine getting this phone call: "I'm sorry Mr. Wagon, but your wife was killed while being carjacked by a genetically modified pig. Witnesses report that he opened the door and threw her onto the pavement, shot her in the head, ran over her half a dozen times, and then got out and picked up her money off of the ground. One witness added, 'she only loaded $13. Why he have to do her like that?' and then started casually walking into the wall before losing connection."

    3. Re:This should be all we focus on as a species by Joce640k · · Score: 2

      We as a species IMO should be focusing 75% of our resources on biology for curing diseases and life extension,

      Oh, sure. What we really need is nobody dying any more. There simply aren't enough of us at the moment.

      There is lots of space in this universe

      In the Universe, yes, but we can't get to any of it. We only have access to one tiny dot and we're busy fucking it up as fast as we can.

      --
      No sig today...
    4. Re:This should be all we focus on as a species by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure we can genetically engineer a cure for gunshot wounds or car accidents.

      Well, maybe we can remove the "violent" and "criminal" genes from folks who are violent criminals who use guns to commit crimes. "A Clockwork Orange" solution.

      For car driver folks who run over pedestrian folks because the driver is watching TV instead of looking at the road . . . we can remove the "idiot" and "asshole" genes.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    5. Re:This should be all we focus on as a species by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No gun and no car seems pretty efficient. Contrary to virus, bacteria and genomic variants, we have a choice on their preponderance and/or usage.

      For guns, it seems mostly cured in EU. For cars, well managed public transportation is by far safer than car.

    6. Re:This should be all we focus on as a species by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's just lack of imagination, I look forward to my future as a giant armadillo.

    7. Re: This should be all we focus on as a species by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because having less guns and more public transit is hard to do? Fuck you Amerikuks are such defeatist pussies.

    8. Re:This should be all we focus on as a species by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, maybe we can remove the "violent" and "criminal" genes from folks who are violent criminals who use guns to commit crimes. "A Clockwork Orange" solution.

      For car driver folks who run over pedestrian folks because the driver is watching TV instead of looking at the road . . . we can remove the "idiot" and "asshole" genes.

      Do you want to end up living in a dystopian novel scenario? Because that's how you end up living in a dystopian novel scenario.

    9. Re:This should be all we focus on as a species by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ethics aside, because nobody in an emergency room wouldn't want a cure. We as a species IMO should be focusing 75% of our resources on biology for curing diseases and life extension, There is lots of space in this universe & our limiting factor right now is age / death

      Are you as a person committing 75% of your resources (money, time, talent, etc.) to caring for your own health? Then what gives you the right to impose rules which even you are not following on everyone else?

    10. Re:This should be all we focus on as a species by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      We as a species IMO should be focusing 75% of our resources on biology for curing diseases and life extension,

      Oh, sure. What we really need is nobody dying any more. There simply aren't enough of us at the moment.

      So ... you'd like to end medical research into curing and preventing disease, in order to control population? Or you just enjoy clever ripostes?

    11. Re:This should be all we focus on as a species by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Oh, sure. What we really need is nobody dying any more. There simply aren't enough of us at the moment.

      If all the pessimistic tech-hating hippies get their wish and quietly die off, there will be plenty of rom for the rest of us.

    12. Re:This should be all we focus on as a species by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We as a species IMO should be focusing 75% of our resources on biology for curing diseases and life extension,

      Oh, sure. What we really need is nobody dying any more. There simply aren't enough of us at the moment.

      There is lots of space in this universe

      In the Universe, yes, but we can't get to any of it. We only have access to one tiny dot and we're busy fucking it up as fast as we can.

      Amen.

    13. Re:This should be all we focus on as a species by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Using the word "all" there is really weird. I couldn't argue if you said reducing diseases was extremely important, but other things are also important.

      OTOH, the question in my mind was "What does this section of DNA do besides allowing the virus access?". It's true that it's possible it has no valid function, but this is unlikely. Much DNA that's been called "junk" has turned out to have important functionality when more closely examined. Of course, some hasn't. Some was never functional, like the gene that eventually turned into one yielding our third cone variety. That was from a accidental duplication of one of the pre-existing cone specifying genes. And some was only useful in an ancestor, like the genes for eyes in fish that have long lived inside caves.

      Thinking about it, modern pigs have a very different lifestyle than do their wild ancestors, so there's probably lots of unused DNA in their genomes...but it would be interesting to know what the function of the deleted section was.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    14. Re:This should be all we focus on as a species by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is very easy to remove any unwanted genes.

      As Ol Julius Malema would say: "One criminal. One Bullet."

    15. Re:This should be all we focus on as a species by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could presumably make people more likely to survive gunshot wounds or car accidents, both through changing their biology ahead of time and with improved treatments, though for those things there are other more effective remedies.

      For accidents, with fairly good autonomous driving, we'll probably drop car accidents to the level of aviation accidents, which is practically none at all. The big effect will come when all cars are autonomous, which at that point the self-driving technology will be good enough to handle most crazy and distracted human behavior on the road while in fact all the cars are well-behaved self driving cars. Very few accidents at that point.

      For gun shot wounds, much less of that if you can ensure access to birth control, a good upbringing for all children and a culture of dignity over honor. That last bit is harder, but should be possible if we get our shit together.

    16. Re:This should be all we focus on as a species by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am sure we can!

  3. Swishdatters Rejoice! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Future generations are saved!

  4. How do you like your pork? by Arzaboa · · Score: 1

    I like my pork without respiratory diseases.

    A loinly disease.

    --
    Pun's-errific -- Jack Hoffman

    1. Re:How do you like your pork? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is great news, but the price will now rise without precedent.

  5. GMO spider chickens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .. have eight drumsticks and no wings, so sounds good to me... with barbecue sauce.

    Heil Hitlary!

  6. useless gene sequence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too bad its the same gene sequence that made it non-toxic to humans...maybe? maybe not?

  7. But will the pigs get cancers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There have been reports of cells been CRISPR-ed are more likely to get cancers.
      https://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/54794/title/CRISPR-Efficiency-Tied-to-Cancer-Causing-Process/

    Will the pigs get cancers?

    1. Re:But will the pigs get cancers? by Logger · · Score: 1

      Not before I eat them.

    2. Re:But will the pigs get cancers? by Alwin+Henseler · · Score: 1

      Will the pigs get cancers?

      Not before I eat them.

      And if that genetic modification changes something in those pigs' meat that promotes cancer in you (regardless of effect on the pig's health), would you care? If research team says that's not the case, could you trust them? Could those scientists even be sure themselves, that they've 'covered all bases' ?

      Lots of questions. Probably a lot more I didn't think of. And possibly even more answers that will be MIA. There's just 1 thing I am sure about: (some) scientists will probably be more confident in making claims, than I'd be confident in believing those claims. Regardless of how much I trust or respect the scientists involved.

      Disclaimer: been a vegetarian for close to 40y now, so I wouldn't care much either way. Unless it makes the pig's -short- life happier. In that case: great, go for it! :-)

    3. Re:But will the pigs get cancers? by mikael · · Score: 1

      It might just be a little bit safer replacing that gene sequence that was removed with something non-coding for anything.

      In DOS game days, you silence a noisy game that didn't have a volume control by replacing the sequence E6 60 with 90 90, which replaced out 90h,AX with NOP, NOP. If you were to just delete those two bytes the whole game would just crash. There's always the risk that something else might use that sequence E6 60 like a jump address.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    4. Re:But will the pigs get cancers? by mikael · · Score: 4, Informative

      This article describes the purpose of CD163:

      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

      It is a receptor for hemoglobin, and is involved in hemoglobin clearance after intracerebral hemorrhage. It is elevated for anyone with myelo-monocytic leukaemia and infection.

      http://jvi.asm.org/content/91/...

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    5. Re: But will the pigs get cancers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Thousands of mutations naturally occur in every pig. Adding one is not likely to affect us. And pig lifespan isnâ(TM)t an issue.

    6. Re: But will the pigs get cancers? by Logger · · Score: 1

      This, totally this. One would be rightfully scared if someone where suggesting that they modify your DNA using CRISPR. That literally means rewriting the code that makes you, you.

      But the fears of GMO foods harming consumers are simply hysteria, no different than the uninformed panic of Y2Kers. By what mechanism could these modified organisms could harm you? There isn't one.

      Our bodies are very adept at ripping apart the cells we eat into their constituent elements. So long as the organism isn't producing a protein we can't disassemble or pass through, it won't harm us. And because these modified organisms actually receive any amount of safety testing, means you are far more likely to encounter a harmful natural mutation, than you are a harmful GMO.

      That said, GMOs do present a real threat, just not to us directly. Just using old fashion breeding techniques we have become very successful growing large monocultures. Vast fields of very closely related plants and animals. That had already put us at risk. Now GMOs promise to deliver dramatically greater yields. If a single corn trait provides superior yields across the board, it will be deployed everywhere. The result being an increased risk of a corn pest or diseases that targets that trait and causes massive crop failures.

      For the safety of our food supply, our food sources need to have broad genetic diversity. That actually can include GMOs, but they have to be deployed carefully to prevent monocultures.

  8. Fuck this abomination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No to GMO, GMO is bad, evil and poisonous. Feed the slashdot population on these "pigs" and send them into the Sun on DC-8 spaceships.

    Fuck Bayer, fuck the humankind.

    Nuke them from orbit.

    1. Re:Fuck this abomination by HiThere · · Score: 1

      It's inappropriate to nuke Bayer from orbit. Some of their facilities are near beautiful buildings.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  9. Disease resistant pigs? by cold+fjord · · Score: 0

    So they've created disease resistant pigs? Meh. Let me know when they fly.

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  10. Genetically Engineered Immortal Pigs? by Zalbik · · Score: 1

    I for one welcome our new pork-based overlords.

  11. Too bad the EU forbids GMO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps they can just choke and die.

    1. Re:Too bad the EU forbids GMO by optikos · · Score: 1

      Oh the irony that Europe outlawed the GMO fix to their huge porcine problem! Perhaps this event will teach Europe to be much more judicious in their opposition to precisely which kinds of GMO and why. For example, GMO to permit glyphosate on crops is bad not because of the GMO modification per se, but because of consuming glyphosate residue in food.

    2. Re:Too bad the EU forbids GMO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is best ?

      To die honorably, or to live in dishonor ?

  12. kamers pigman by Pitt64 · · Score: 3, Funny

    uh. huh

  13. New mechanism for natural selection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Genetic engineering

  14. Endemic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a disease that is endemic across the globe

    Water is limited to the universe. Silica is restricted to the small area of the whole planet's crust.

    With this coupon you could save up to $n % or more!

  15. Meat Medicine by mentil · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Pigs are biologically similar enough to humans that we ought to genetically engineer them to be immune to various ailments that also affect humans -- particularly the ailments that make them less likely to make it to the dinner plate. This'll lower the cost of meat production, and simultaneously lead to medical advances for humans.

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    1. Re:Meat Medicine by scottragen · · Score: 2

      I read somewhere that pigs are often where the avian flu makes its jump from birds to pigs and subsequently humans. If there's a pre-disposition in their DNA to get infected with the bird flu, it'd be good for everyone to fix it.

    2. Re:Meat Medicine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pigs are biologically similar enough to humans that we ought to genetically engineer them to be immune to various ailments that also affect humans -- particularly the ailments that make them less likely to make it to the dinner plate.

      Quite. I think this logic was documented in How to serve your fellow man.

  16. So what's that section of DNA do? by Solandri · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm reminded of efforts to stamp out sickle cell anemia. Then it was discovered that carriers of the gene for sickle cell anemia were highly resistant to malaria. Are they sure the snippet of DNA they're deleting doesn't confer some benefit which (on an evolutionary level) outweighs the disadvantage of vulnerability to this disease?

    1. Re:So what's that section of DNA do? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      More likely in the wild state they don't tend to catch the virus, because they don't live as close to other pigs that are infected.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    2. Re:So what's that section of DNA do? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I'm reminded of efforts to stamp out sickle cell anemia.

      I'm not, because there weren't any.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  17. Oryx by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    and Crake

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  18. Re: But bogey men! Scared Ameripussies!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Youre such a brave people. Bigly free. Keep on fearing. It looks marvellous on you darling.

  19. Re: You better stop eating food then. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All of the food you eat, ALL of it, is the result of genetic modification over thousands of years by human beings. There is no animal, wheat, rice, canola, tuber, or fruit that you can buy today that is not the result of humans genetically modifying nature. You would not be able to eat bread in today if not because of a radical invention in crossbreeding russian and canadian strains of wheat in the early 1950s (otherwise we would have run out of capacity to grow enough wheat to support our populations by 1970). If you dont want to eat GMOs you better stop eating altogether ya mong.

    We get it. You hate people of color and want to see them all starve to death when the oceans die and the current strains of rice no longer provide any nutrition because of co2 poisoning.

  20. Korean Super Pig. Already been done... (OKJA) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OKJA Trailer
    https://youtu.be/qZpXlD6ihWM

  21. This is huge if it ever reaches the market. by crmarvin42 · · Score: 4, Informative

    This disease is HUGE in swine production. Producers have Faustian bargain to make.

    Option 1: stay PRRS Free

    Animals are healthier, perform better, and require less medical intervention. Great! However, biosecurity measures are prodigious, can be super expensive, and if they fail it will cost you a lot of animals and money.

    A small University run operation I worked on sold ~500 nursery piglets every 2 weeks. When they broke with PRRS the number of viable pigs was cut in half in the first group. Bottomed our at 5 pigs surviving to weaning before it started to recover. All told we lost some where in the order of 2,000 piglets over about 2 months. We also lost about 10% of the sows over the same period. Mostly the younger ones.

    Option 2. Manage a PRRS positive herd.

    Animals are always a little sick, a little less productive, and require a little more TLC, but you mostly avoid the dramatic >90% losses of an accure outbreak. Flair ups top out closer to 25-50%.

    Genetically immune pigs would save literally millions of pigsâ(TM) lives, improve their welfare at the same time, and improve the environmental impact of swine production by reducing waste (feed, medications, etc spent on pigs that die due to the disease). Will we forgo all of those advantages because GMO makes some people scared? I sure as hell hope not, but wonâ(TM)t be holding my breath.

    --
    Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
    1. Re:This is huge if it ever reaches the market. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if the virus mutates and moves to another receptor?

    2. Re:This is huge if it ever reaches the market. by pubwvj · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You are correct. But the problem is it means replacing our pigs. This solves just one problem (PRRS) but there are many other issues. I've spent decades breeding our nine genetic lines of hogs on our farm to thrive in our climate, be able to eat pasture as the main component of their diet (80%DMI), for good temperament and 33 other criteria.

      So I can now throw out decades of work for a single solution (PRRS) resistance? Not going to happen. Their PRRS resistant pigs will die in our climate (USDA Zone 3) so it is pointless to replace our genetics with their genetics.

      What we need is the ability to edit our existing pig genetic lines to fix the PRRS susceptibility, as well as other things. Then it becomes interesting.

    3. Re:This is huge if it ever reaches the market. by crmarvin42 · · Score: 2

      You don't have to throw out your progress. Just select sires and sows who are immune. Yes, that'll require some trade offs, but breeding selection has always required tradeoffs. Im sure you have not been able to select advantageously on all 33+ criteria simultaneously on each pairing.

      It also appears as though you are operating under the assumption that what these researchers have achieved cannot be achieved in the breeds you draw from. If each of the primary breeders deliberately starts introducing (via molecular techniques or crossing) PRRS resistance into their herds, you will, eventually, be able to get it along with whatever else you are selecting on. Modern DNA manipulation is getting easier not harder. At lest from a technical perspective. The regulatory stuff is getting harder, but it looks like CRSPR is going to help a little on that front, and since this particular event is about removing/breaking a gene, it is practically tailor made for CRSPR.

      Pigs naturally multiply, and depending on the dominance/recessive nature of the inheritance for this gene, all we'd need to do is replace the primary breeders stock. This would then flow down into the multiplier herds, and finally out into the commercial herds. Sure it'll take time, but we may not even need to have 100 percent coverage. It would probably be like vaccination, with herd immunity protecting those animals that are not themselves intrinsically immune. Also, as a farm in transition is infected with PRRS, those most likely to survive will be those who are intrinsically immune, thus accelerating the transition on that farm. Either due to opening spots to buy new PRRS immune sows, or to save breeding stock preferentially from the immune sows that survive unscathed.

      --
      Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
    4. Re:This is huge if it ever reaches the market. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if the gene modifications turn the pigs into flesh-eating giant rat zombies? Are we going to wind up with a Duke Nukem scenario here?

    5. Re:This is huge if it ever reaches the market. by pubwvj · · Score: 1

      "You don't have to throw out your progress. Just select sires and sows who are immune. Yes, that'll require some trade offs, but breeding selection has always required tradeoffs."

      Based on your response I think you don't understand how genetic selection works and how GMOs work. This article was about doing genetic engineering to solve PRRS, a disease of pigs. That solves the PRRS in the single genetic line that the scientists work with. To move those genetics into other lines will take decades of work. Furthermore, it requires doing genetic testing or exposure to PRRS which is highly undesirable.

      What would be useful is if they offered a method of editing farms existing genetic lines to remove the PRRS susceptibility so that we could then apply that to our entire herds of breeders. Unfortunately, this is not such a solution.

      Based on your entire response I get the feeling that you have a small understanding of genetics and that you're extremely overconfident in your understanding rather than actually understanding pigs and genetics. I've been doing this for decades. You're like the man pushing a pencil and thinking that he's farming.

    6. Re: This is huge if it ever reaches the market. by crmarvin42 · · Score: 2

      The industry has embarked on massive changes in the emetics of pigs before. The average pig today measures back fat in milimeters at slaughter. A century ago we measured it in inches and routinely got around a foot of back fat. That change was driven primarily by genetic selection. I didnâ(TM)t say it would be fast, only that it was not so slow as to be unworkable.

      As for the dig at the end about my experience. PhD in animal science from Purdue university and 10+ years in the field since then. Now, my graduate degrees are in nutrition, not genetics, so I would never claim to be an expert in that specifically, but I have more than a passing familiarity with the topic.

      The generic manipulation event can be repeated in different lines of pigs. This is the promise of crispr, that we can tailor genetic manipulations on an individual basis.

      This first attempt proves what is possible. To make a pig that is innately immune to PRRSv without killing it. There are additional steps to be sure, but they are not insurmountable, and the benefits are sufficient that many will try.

      --
      Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
    7. Re: This is huge if it ever reaches the market. by pubwvj · · Score: 1

      "The industry has embarked on massive changes in the emetics of pigs before. The average pig today measures back fat in milimeters at slaughter."

      mm is the measure but that is simply a definition of the units, you're failing to specify the quantity so it isn't meaningful.

      That said I will agree with you that the commodity market pigs are too lean. This problem started back in the 1970's as pork became "The Other White Meat" and too lean losing flavor as it lost fat. That was a mistake by the industry that they chose to feature rather than fix.

      "A century ago we measured it in inches and routinely got around a foot of back fat."

      Again, your statement is not meaningful. The metric is not the measure.

      But, besides these details, I know a lot about this. I raise thousands of pigs on pasture. Pig genetics is a deep interest of mine both as part of my profession as a farmer, as a butcher and simply because I'm interested in the field of genetics. I chose to raise pigs largely because their genetics are so plastic, they reproduce so quickly, in such large litters and my "mistakes" taste like bacon. :)

      So you're not telling me anything I don't know but rather reinforcing my impression that you're an armchair quarterback pushing a pencil, or keyboard as it were, rather than working from real real work. Your PhuD doesn't impress me and my years of field work exceeds yours by a large multiple and my list of papers written likely exceeds yours as well.

      Try not preaching so much, especially to someone you don't know.

    8. Re: This is huge if it ever reaches the market. by crmarvin42 · · Score: 1

      Ok, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that your experience would not make it necessary to spell out that by millimeters I mean “less than 10 mm” and by feet I meant “6 to 12 inches”. Sorry, next time I will assume you are ignorant, and spell it all out as I would have for any other person on /.

      I also wasn’t attempting to lecture, by which I mean “tell you something you don’t already know”, but to draw your attention to a major trend in swine breeding that I felt represented a compelling parallel. The massive change in swine genetics by selecting for leanness is an impressive, industry wide, multi generation undertaking of the sort we’d need to make this work. You appeared to have dismissed PRRS immunity as too hard, and I simply offered an example of something of similar difficulty that has already been accomplished in the same industry. Don’t find it compelling? That’s fine, though I’d be curious to know what not. That is generally the point of a conversation.

      I’ve also mentioned several times the potential for CRISPR to make it possible for you to potentially “vaccinate” (not the right term, but I’m not sure we have a specific term for something like this) live animals, conferring immunity to every animal in your barn at once, and potentially their offspring as well. Would something like this change your “nothing to see here” view? I assumed you were familiar with the CRISPR topic as in relates to genetics, but if not I suggest you look into it.

      As for my education vs your experience. There is no comparison. They are different, and are largely orthogonal to each other. I only trotted out my credentials because you questioned my familiarity with the topic. Not to intimidate you. The industry succeeds in tasks like the aforementioned transition to lean genetics because we have people with different expertise workin towards the same goals together. Not sure why what I said made you all butt hurt, but I was looking to converse, not trolling you.

      --
      Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
    9. Re:This is huge if it ever reaches the market. by crmarvin42 · · Score: 1

      Then we go back to square one, but until/unless that happens, those animals that are immune will be better off. Nothing lasts forever, and we should stop expecting it to.

      For other diseases we've used mass euthanasia with some sort of a loss support program to eradicate highly virulent diseases like Hoof and Mouth disease, with the goal of having an entire nation be considered "Free" of the disease. If a farm then eventually pops up positive, we do it all over again. We've not used this approach with PRRSv because it is too wide spread. The cost in destroyed animals is too high. However, if we were to generate a largely immune herd, an isolated outbreak of a mutated PRRSv may be amenable to this kind of "Scorched earth" containment strategy assuming it is quickly identified.

      --
      Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
    10. Re: This is huge if it ever reaches the market. by pubwvj · · Score: 1

      Yet you continue to make assumptions about me, implying that I'm uneducated, when you have no knowledge about me. You're trolling.

      My point was this isn't useful as a genetic line.
      It is useful as a genetic tool if applied to existing lines.
      Based on your most recent response you at least acknowledge this although you continue to be insulting.

    11. Re: This is huge if it ever reaches the market. by crmarvin42 · · Score: 1
      Ok, I did precisely the opposite in that I assumed:
      A. you knew about the change in backfat thickness over the last couple of decades, and the amount work that represented
      B. you were aware that CRSPR would make it possible to do this kind of manipulation on living animals, in your barn, without having to change sire selection You turned the topic to experience and qualifications with this line

      Based on your response I think you don't understand how genetic selection works and how GMOs work

      At this point I chose to highlight that I am not ignorant of the subjects, but that I am no expert either. You then promptly took offense and doubled down with this line

      Based on your entire response I get the feeling that you have a small understanding of genetics and that you're extremely overconfident in your understanding rather than actually understanding pigs and genetics. I've been doing this for decades. You're like the man pushing a pencil and thinking that he's farming.

      . If this conversation digressed into personal insults, it was you who started that slide. While I have not been perfectly polite, I have not attempted to insulted you, only to disagree with you. I only characterized your reaction as "Butt hurt" because you took irrational offense. I did also agreed to assume you are not aware of topics such as CRSPR and the mega trend in swine breeding toward lean genetics, but that was only after you decided to get incredibly pedantic and deliberately (if you are not genuinely ignorant) or accidently (if you are genuinely ignorant) miss the points I was trying to make. At the risk of further aggravating you I suggest you go back and really read both of our first couple of rounds of responses and reflect on why it is you are in a public forum looking for insults where there are none intended.

      And in case you offended by the word "ignorant" I'd like to clarify that I am using ignorant in the technical sense, as to be unaware or unfamiliar, and not in the sense that I am call you or anyone else stupid. I am ignorant of a great many things, as are we all, but I did not assume ignorance on your part until you made it clear you were for whatever reason missing my point.

      --
      Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
  22. Ob by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    In Soviet Russia, immortal porcine overlards welcome you!!!!

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  23. Non-GMO Solution by crow · · Score: 2

    Now that they've identified that the elimination of that particular gene will produce immunity, they need to develop a quick way to test for it. Then test all the pigs they can find who aren't obviously infected. What are the odds of some pigs already having this trait? If they can find it as a mutation, then they can bypass all the GMO restrictions.

    1. Re:Non-GMO Solution by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up as insightful!

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    2. Re:Non-GMO Solution by swillden · · Score: 1

      Now that they've identified that the elimination of that particular gene will produce immunity, they need to develop a quick way to test for it. Then test all the pigs they can find who aren't obviously infected. What are the odds of some pigs already having this trait? If they can find it as a mutation, then they can bypass all the GMO restrictions.

      Which, of course, just highlights how utterly ridiculous the GMO restrictions are.

      Really, which is better, a targeted, narrowly-focused engineered "mutation" or one that arose from pure random chance, along with who knows how many other utterly random changes? It's like the choice between having your appendectomy performed using a scalpel or a shotgun -- and believing that the shotgun approach is safer/better!

      What it boils down to is that the vast majority of humanity does not understand evolution. As a "natural" process, they believe that there is some evolution fairy that ensures that mutations are beneficial and somehow "well-designed". But this is completely wrong. Evolution works by throwing mud at the wall and seeing what sticks. It can and does happen that a species evolves to extinction, because selection pressures cause domination by genes which are more successful in the short term at replicating themselves but are ultimately destructive to the species.

      The only true advantage to non-GMO foods is that mutation is rare enough and slow enough that we can reasonably assume that non-GMO species have a track record of seeming reasonably safe. But we should keep in mind that all of our common food species have been heavily optimized via interbreeding, often with the addition of mutagenic chemicals or radiation to accelerate the rate of change in the breeding process. None of our major food species are the same today as they were a couple of centuries ago, and most of them are fairly different than they were even 50 years ago. So this one, thin, advantage of non-GMO species is also quite shallow.

      As to the question of this particular change, unless it's an extremely simple one your notional screening test would find zero animals in the best case, because complex mutations take a very, very long time to develop into a fully effective form. In practice, we already know even without doing the test that there are no pigs that acquired this mutation randomly. How? Think about it. If some pig had a heritable resistance to the disease, pig farmers would have noticed that a particular line of pigs never got sick... and they'd have immediately bred for that trait, since it's so valuable.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  24. Omg by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    Frankenpigs!

  25. "It's working! Neville, it's working"... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your software is just fine - well written, functional... I'm going to continue using the Host File Engine by mmell February 17, 2017

    (APK's work), I've flat out said it's good by BronsCon February 11 2016

    his hosts program is actually pretty good by xenotransplant August 10 2015

    his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources by alexgieg September 25 2015

    I like your host file system by Karmashock September 09 2015

    I do use APK's host file on all my systems at home by OrangeTide December 01 2017

    I personally use a HOSTS file blocker produced from a genius called APK by 110010001000 October 27 2017

    * See subject: Best part's the Linux 64-bit model's faster & more efficient (does 2x the work in 1/2 the time)

    APK

    P.S.=> "take something designed by nature and reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it"... apk

  26. multiple PRRS vaccines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TFA states that "...there is no effective cure or vaccine..." which is wrong. There are multiple PRRS vaccines on the market and it's been that way for 20 years.

  27. Missing pun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How could everyone have missed the opportunity to call this what it is... Cured Ham :)

  28. great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    now the piece of shit factory farmers can continue torturing pigs in cramped shit holes but won't lose any product/money because of this one little drawback.

  29. Pigs infected with PRRS are safe to eat... not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really? Cite?

    We use pigs for experimentation all the time because they are good biological proxies for human beings.

    Contrary to The Guardian's "research" there are papers that say otherwise, such as: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

    Streptococcus suis, an opportunistic pathogen of swine, is an emerging zoonotic pathogen among humans. In Vietnam, S. suis is the leading cause of human acute bacterial meningitis. Infection in humans is associated with direct exposure to infected pigs or infected raw or undercooked pork products.