Induced Specificity of Stem Cells in the Spine

Scar tissue presents a difficult roadblock for surgeons and patients alike. Scar tissue is connective tissue that forms as a result of trauma, often inhibiting the healing process and forming a weaker bond between two tissues compared to the pre-incision tissue. New procedures in medicine and in the operating room stress the minimization of incisions time spent under the knife in an effort to reduce the amount of recovery time and the amount of scar tissue.

Spinal cord injuries affect as many as 250,000 patients in the United States, 11,000 each year. The average lifetime cost, per patient, of a spinal cord injury is about $1,350,000. As of now, there is no effective treatment for severe spinal cord issues as a result of damaged myelinating oligodendrocytes on the spinal cord and the delocalization of ion channels on the axon membrane. While the applications of stem cell treatments can be affective, often these areas are inaccessible due to scar tissue.

According to Dr. Hui Ye, Ph.D. in Loyola University Chicago's Biology Department, reducing scar tissue is only half of the battle. Specifically in patients with spinal trauma, the death of myelinating oligodendrocytes is quick and irreversible, results in weak nervous signalling, and causes severe peripheral neuropathy. Ye believes that the introduction of stem cells into damaged tissue, the "blank slate" cells could regenerate damaged tissue (regenerate is used loosely, stem cells form new cells) and relocalized Potassium channels and re-myelinate axons in the spinal cord.

But, Ye encountered his first major roadblock: scar tissue. Stem cells cannot be expected to localize to specific areas on their own and cannot be forced through scar tissue, a physical collagen barrier. While he proposed the used of stem cell galvanotaxis - the use of electrical signals to motivate cells to migrate - to move stem cells to affected areas of the spinal cord post-surgery, I believe that the problem may lie in the scar tissue itself. Ye's stem cell galvanotaxis could definitely be used to transport cells to traumatized areas, but various methods exist of removing incision-related scar tissue in the body. Ye is trying to force stem cells through scar tissue with the use of galvanotaxis, but I believe his efforts would be better utilized at trying to reduce the amount of scar tissue before applying stem cells. 

Firstly, permanent, collagenated scar tissue does not occur immediately after healing. If stem cells were introduced into the damaged area immediately after surgery, doctors would not necessarily need to bypass scar tissue to apply stem cells to the affected areas, as it would not have formed yet.

Secondly, there are multiple, verified methods of removing scar tissue. For example, Ravi Bellamkonda, a biomedical researcher at the Georgia Institute of Technology Research and Emory University has identified a type of enzyme - harvested from bacteria - that breaks down collagen fibers in scar tissue, allowing for the access of affected areas. While treatments are still in the early stages and the enzyme breaks down very easily when exposed to heat, it is a promising start for alternative methods of dealing with scar tissue.

In summary, Ye's research is relevant concerning the specificity of stem cell localization. In addition, galvanotaxis can most likely be used to direct stem cells to affected areas. But, galvanotaxis must be paired with verified methods of treating scar tissue if it is to be effective; pursuing methods of forcing stem cells through scar tissue, as Ye is doing, seems counterintuitive and unrealistic.

http://topics.wisegeek.com/topics.htm?incision-scar-tissue#

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/11/02/spine-repair-idUSN0226708720091102

Prosthetics and animals

If there is damage or complete removal of a particular part of the body, Prosthetic have been put into use to try to restore some function. Early Egyptians are recorded using this idea of replacing limbs or appendages with artificial material. Over the years, science has evolved the artificial material from wood to metal and making it easier and more comfortable for patients to use them. Animals are being used in the beginning trials. “Because animals aren’t the intended beneficiaries of this work doesn’t mean that they won’t benefit along the way.”(Anthes, 142) In many cases animals have become the patients, and are the sole beneficiaries.  Emily Anthes author of Frankenstein’s Cat: Cuddling up to Biotech’s Brave new Beasts, talks about animals using Prosthetic for health, experimental, emotional distress, and vanity reasons.

                Animals for many years have been used to help humans better understand appliances and treatments before they are tested on human beings. However, over recent years animals have been using prosthetic procedures for their own benefit. Anthes writes about Winter, who is the tail less dolphin that needed a prosthetic tail to ensure that she would not further damage spine. Doctors took the challenge and succeeded by creating a water proof appliance that fit the dolphin perfectly. Other cases are seen in animals that lose their testicles and are replaced with silicon testicles. Owners have claimed that their animals have become depressed based on the loss of their “man hood”, and they hope that the implants will suffice. Some Veterinarians have started to specialize in plastic surgery for animals. “ Why shouldn't a dog be beautiful? Beauty is desirable. We all like talking to someone who looks good and smells nice. It’s the same with dogs“ stated a veterinarian from Brazil. (Anthes, 136)

                But the most interesting topic of the chapter was the future goal that researchers have for prosthetic. Instead of people having prosthetic that must manually perform an action, researches are experimenting  to connect the artificial material directly to the nervous system. Thus people will be able to use and control the artificial limb or appendage by their own nervous system. Animals are being used to help reach this goal. Particularly monkeys are being used, which are closely related to humans on the evolutionary tree. Not only external prosthetic but researches are hoping to use artificial material and tools to increase or support different parts of the brain.

In “Scientists Use Prosthetic Device to Restore and Improve Impaired Decision-Making Ability in Animals”, the details of future goals are explained. Brain injuries and diseases have affected many people and families; however, researches think they can implant a prosthetic in the brain to support the damaged area. Currently, the focus is on the decision making part of the brain, which is found in the frontal lobe. In monkey brains, they record the firing patterns of multiple neurons during a decision making task. When this particular part of the brain is damaged, the task cannot be performed properly. However, they play back the recorded neural activity, and the function is restored or improved.  Many are eager for these goals to be reached in human beings. Not only the patients but the US Department of Defense eagerly wait to present this technology to injured veterans.

Although the monkeys in this trial are not getting the sole benefit from this experiment, they are increasing the knowledge of so many researchers. However, “Prosthetic information flows back and forth across species lines, and it wouldn't be surprising to see scientist refining nerve integrated Prosthetic in injured animals.” (Anthes, 142)

Reference: 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120913203915.htm

Psychopaths are people too

Joseph P Newman, professor at University of Wisconsin,  is an expert on psychopathy and studying different perspectives to view psychopaths. He performed many studies with male criminals from penitentiaries and discovered most showed signs of being psychopaths. With the help of neuroscience, his team and him were able to see deficits of fear, reduced emotional responses, and poor decision making. Comparable to the standard brain, the psychopath brain seems to work through different processes.

                Through many studies, they reasoned that the amygdala, which is the center of emotion, has less activity. Thus fear of consequences and other emotions needed for compassion are diminished. There is also poor connectivity with the ventro medial pre-fontal cortex, anterior temporal lobe and amygdala. The ventro medial prefrontal cortex is known to function in decision making. When it is not connected to the amygdala and anterior temporal lobe, there is a decrease in fear of consequences and disregard for other people.  The white matter, which is fat, that connects the brain is lessened and creates a broken bridge. Emotion plays a large role in our decision making process. We will take in account our well-being and the well- being of other people. However, in psychopaths, because there is a decrease in the amygdala activity and connectivity to the ventro medial pre-fontal cortex this emotion is taken out of their decision process.

                Some researchers believe that this deficit of white matter starts in the under development in childhood. As white matter begins to develop in childhood, they believe that there is a problem in this process. Some think that this deficit can be spurred by abuse or no display of love. They also have theorized that there is a specific gene inherited.

                Although that this problem is hard to catch and find, this is neurological deficit that deserves attention just like any other illness. In the article “Suffering Souls”, it speaks about the positions and attitude that many funding agencies view psychopath research.  There is a disregard to psychopaths and especially those in the justice system. Many are working to target even more specific parts of the brain to create treatments to help people with this illness.  Yet, there is not a lot of funding for this mental illness because “psychopaths are seen as predators”. Psychopaths will perform 4 violent crimes by the age of 40. Thus, this issue is not just patient based but is also economically troublesome. “Crime is a trillion-dollar-a-year problem.” One way to help cut cost is to help find treatment to a disorder that contributes to this cost.

Reference:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/11/10/081110fa_fact_seabrook

Neuroscience is Effective in Court Room

The speakers, Dr. Daniel Gurr and Dr. Debroah Denno, focused on the reasons and benefits of neuroscience being used as objective evidence in the courtroom. Both speakers reasoned that neuroscience evidence is as effective and useful as ballistics, DNA analysis, and fingerprint identification. However, many people are against the use of neuroscience; mainly prosecutors argue that the “judges might be so over awed by the technology” that they will lessen the deserved punishment. Many in criminology ask “is this technology really ready for prime time, or is it being abused?”

                Dr. Daniel Gurr would disagree and say this science is comparable to other forms of forensic science. Behavior is a product of brain processes. “We are what are brains do” said Dr. Gurr. Since we have technology now to view and understand the brain much more, researches have seen that when different parts of your brain is damaged or impaired there is a change to particular behavior. Thus, when in a courtroom if a criminal has been identified to have an abnormal occurrence in the brain, he/she should not be judged on the same standards as someone with a normal functioning brain.

                In a recent case, Dr. Domenico Mattiello, an Italian pediatrician who practiced for 30 years, is under trial for pedophilia. Leniency is being asked by his lawyers because of a small tumor found in his brain. The defense lawyers argues that the pressure in the brain caused from the tumor is causing a behavioral change. But is the defense “My brain made me do it: enough to lessen charges?” Are these pictures or stories of distorted minds scientific evidence or subjective stories used to sway the minds of juries and judges?

                Dr. Debroah Denno would answer first with a yes. Our brain is what makes us who we are. Without parts of the brain, our personalities would be extremely distorted. These pictures from fMRI, PET, and MRI scans are just as trustworthy as DNA analysis. When prosecutors argue that neuroscience is only used to create sympathy for the criminal, one can argue that evidence of bloody clothing, displays of murder scenes, and distraught eye witnesses are only used to pull the heart strings of the jury and judge. In any court room this evidence is acceptable.  

                As times passes, Neuroscience will be more intertwined into the court room. “After all Neuroscience seeks to find out how the brain functions and affects behavior. The Law’s main concern is with regulating behavior.” Once Neuroscience has been established, I believe more people will respect it as another branch of science.

Reference:

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/08/29/neuroscience-in-court-is-brain-to-blame-for-committing-crimes/

Is Cloning a Mammoth in the Near Future Possible?

Ever since Dolly, a domestic sheep, was successfully cloned in 1996, the possibility of cloning animals has became a great interest to many people. As years have passed, several experiments have taken place to attempt to clone different animals. Some of these cloning experiments were successful, but even more failed.

A National Geographic Daily News article titled "Can Purported Mammoth Blood Revive Extinct Species" discusses the task of cloning with regards to mammoths. With finding an intact mammoth carcass, many people ask if cloning a mammoth is in the near future. Specifically, the unusual findings of the most recently found mammoth carcass has caused extra hype of the possibility of cloning. The mammoth carcass found recently in Russia has a distinctive fluid around it. The fluid is suspected to be mammoth blood, but confirmation of this has not been provided. Researchers and experts are hoping that intact cells will be found in the mysterious fluid, but they admit that this is not likely. Without an undamaged, functional cell available, cloning is not possible. The article continues to explain that the process of cloning is much more difficult than one tends to realize. A completed genetic profile is necessary before the cloning process can begin. Because the mammoth is approximately 10,000 years old, the DNA has inevitably disintegrated over time, which will prevent a complete genetic profile to be found. With only pieces of the genetic profile available, paleontologists would have to approximate what the mammoth's genome looks like. An approximation does not allow the cloning of a mammoth to be precise. If the genetic profile could be completed, researchers could attempt to have a female elephant carry a baby mammoth or try reverse-engineering. None of these options are completely viable. Cloning a species isn't always successful, and it isn't an easy task either. The article closes with a quote from a Brown University postdoctorate student studying paleontology, Jacqueline Gill, expressing her opinion that "It's irresponsible to put limited conservation dollars into bringing an Ice Age species into a warming world where dozens of elephants have been slaughtered just this year for their ivory."

Emily Anthes, the author of Frankenstein's Cat: cuddling up to biotech's brave new beasts, also discusses the idea of cloning in detail in the chapter titled "Nine Lives." She would undeniably agree with the author of this National Geographic article that cloning is more difficult than people think. Anthes discusses many examples of the points provided in the article previously mentioned. She explains with many examples that "for every well-earned accomplishment, there are disappointing setbacks" (Anthes, 73). She also points out that humans tend to wait until after catastrophe strikes before trying to fix the problems that exist in our world, including the endangerment and extinction of animals.  Although cloning could prevent animals from becoming endangered by the use of frozen zoos and there is "hope that cloning could indeed bring back other extinct species,"(Anthes, 80) Anthes strongly states that cloning is only part of the solution. Cloning will never be a complete solution to the problem. We as humans need to also put emphasis on learning from our own mistakes to avoid participating in activities that have caused several animals to go extinct. Cloning is pointless if the animals' natural habitat is destroyed. Anthes also questions if it would be a good thing to bring back extinct animals into a completely different world than they once lived in. Anthes places emphasis on the need to continue to research the impacts of cloning before using it as a solution to the endangerment and extinction problem of many animals.

Cloning is definitely a fascinating subject. Continued research will allow cloning experiments to eventually have a higher success rate. Although cloning can be a part of the solution to endangerment and extinction, it does not stand alone. Humans also need to take responsibility of their actions before it is too late.

References:

Anthes, Emily. Frankenstein's Cat Cuddling Up to Biotech's Brave New Beasts. New York: Scientific American/Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Switek, Brian. "Can Purported Mammoth Blood Revive Extinct Species?" National Geographic Daily News. 1 June 2013.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/06/130601-woolly-mammoth-blood-russia-science-extinct-species-deextinction/

Selectivity of Animal Rights

For decades, animal models have played a pivotal role in modern science and biotechnology, especially in the realm of medicine. By using techniques such as genetic manipulation, for example, researchers are able to use animal models to gain insight about development as well as various disease states which can then be translated such that it is applicable to human beings. Due to the wide use of animals in science, ethical guidelines have been developed regarding the proper handling and treatment of animals in the laboratory to ensure that the animals are not exploited and that their rights are not violated.

Violation of these regulations for proper animal care in the laboratory setting contributed to the closing of a primate research facility at Harvard Medical School earlier this year. Concerns about the facility arose in 2010 when investigators did not notice for a period of time that one of the research subjects had died—albeit from natural causes—and another was so severely dehydrated due to a malfunctioning water bottle in its cage that it needed to be euthanized. Such mistreatment of the animal subjects was one of the multiple factors that led to the closing of the facility but as the article states, the closing did not end research on primates entirely. However, it greatly reduced such research given the numerous studies that were being conducted at this facility. In addition, the article states that in 2011, the National Institutes of Health created a policy that withheld all new grants for behavioral or biomedical research on primates unless absolutely necessary for human health and there were no other viable options. Given the close evolutionary relationship between primates and human beings, this could potentially be detrimental to the advancement of medicine and technology as studying primates has and continues to provide us with boundless insight regarding human health including communicable and neurodegenerative disease states that is unparalleled by any other species.

The article also cites reduced government spending on biomedical research as a reason for why the facility closed. However, the implication in Emily Anthes’ book, Frankenstein’s Cat, is that this industry continues to flourish as animals are being mass produced for the sake of animal testing as well as for more trivial causes such as designer pets. Anthes mentioned conferences that are held to sell different rodent mutants displaying particular physical phenotypes or disease states for the sake of animal research. Fish are genetically manipulated such that they fluoresce under certain lights. Finally, dogs are bred to keep up with the latest trends and such that human beings can select for specific traits. Human manipulation of animals to fit our varying needs and preferences has become a business and animals, a commodity.

It is very interesting to note that an entire research facility shutdown due to mistreatment of some species yet our society continues to exploit other species for the sake of our own preference and entertainment. There are stricter regulations prohibiting the use of primate subjects unless completely necessary compared with the regulations in place for other animals such as fish and dogs. Research on primates can be extremely useful for human beings but they are better protected simply because of their close evolutionary relationship to human beings. Why are the rights of animals that are most closely related to human beings preserved to a greater extent than that of those species who are more distantly related? This raises a whole other dimension to ethical dilemmas surrounding the use of animals for testing, research and manipulation in general. There should be more universal guidelines that are applied to all animal species regarding their testing such that they are only used in research that can provide valuable information for human beings. Commercial use of animals may play a role in strengthening our economy but it should be limited if not completely eliminated if its sole purpose is not to improve the health of human beings.  

Works Cited

Anthes, E. (2013). Frankenstein's cat cuddling up to biotech's brave new beasts. (1st ed.). New York, NY: Scientific American.

Walsh, B. (2013, April 24). As harvard closes a primate research center, are lab chimps becoming a thing of the past. Time Magazine, Retrieved from http://science.time.com/2013/04/24/as-harvard-closes-a-primate-research-center-are-lab-chimps-becoming-a-thing-of-the-past/

Ethics Around Genetic Modification

                One way to go about solving ethical dilemmas is by calculating the costs and benefits of the act and/or the result.  According to Consequentialist ethical theories, the outcome of one’s actions determine the rightness of the act.  When forming a morality, one should choose the act that does the greatest good for the greatest number of people, at the very least.  Philosopher, Jeremy Bentham, claimed we should act to increase pleasure and decrease pain for everyone.  John Stuart Mill pushes the Consequentialist idea further by claiming that we must look to our past and allow our traditions, social norms, and rules guide us in determining right and wrong.  Taking all of this into consideration, let’s address the ideas surrounding genetic modification.  This conversation has been in the works ever since the technology boom.  How far can we go with biotechnology?  Better yet, we must ask ourselves how far should we go?   What are the benefits and the consequences of genetic modification?  Now, we will not answer all of these questions, but we will take a look at two distinguished opinions on the issue.

                A current issue is the problem of disease-carrying mosquitoes in the developing world.  Scientists are trying to combat this problem by using genetically modified mosquitos to subside malaria and dengue fever attacks.  One of the ideas on the table is to reduce the mosquito population by making it difficult to breed.  Since it is female mosquitos who feed on blood (in order to reproduce), scientists are trying to produce “flightless females.”  In her New York Times article, When Mutant Mosquitos Attack, Maggie Koerth-Baker addresses this as an innovative solution.  However, she says, “all solutions…come with risks.”  If the mosquito population is eradicated from Mexico City, what new organization will fill its niche there?  Also, how long will this last?  Baker focuses her article on the claim that “[s]olutions to problems at hand can create new, sometimes unforeseeable, challenges in the future.”  She understands that we cannot predict all outcomes, but urges scientists to be more thoughtful in their ethical decisions.  She recognizes that the relationship between science and technology has changed in the last century and that we have become a risk-taking civilization in terms of biotechnology.  It is not that we should not use genetic modification, but we must realize that solving problems leads leaves us with the possibility of creating new ones, ones that we will have to manage in the future.  So is genetic modification ethically commendable?  Baker would claim that we need to be more cautious with our use of biotechnology and value the future to understand the possible challenges we will be creating for ourselves.

                On the other hand, author of Frankenstein’s Cat, Emily Anthes, has a slightly different perspective on the issue.  Anthes encourages us to be cautious but feels that the benefits of using biotechnology for genetic modification outweigh the damages.  In her book, she discusses the issue of diarrhea.  Taking 2 million lives of children a year, diarrhea is a deadly condition.  Through the use of genetic modification, scientists have found an easy and cheap remedy.  They were able to develop a modified goat that contains lysozyme in its milk.  Lysozyme is an enzyme that helps fight bacteria which causes diarrhea.  This could potentially save millions of lives, however, we are still waiting on its approval from the FDA.  Anthes talks about how other trivial modifications have received FDA approval such as the GloFish, but it is the more important things that are taking a long time to get approved.  Anthes does not ignore some of the potential issues that could come with genetic modification, however.  She talks about cloning species that are on their way to extinction in order to preserve the species, but acknowledges that we “might be setting the animals up for a miserable existence on a planet that can no longer give them what they need.”  In Frankenstein’s Cat, she addresses some peculiar ideas along with some practical ones.  In the end, she comes down in favor of genetic modification as she sees its future in the sciences to be beneficial.

                There are no right and wrong answers, there are just different perspectives.  In order to come to some sort of consensus on such pending issues, we must have conversations that include multiple perspectives, sources, experts, experiences, ideologies, etc.  We may never come to a final conclusion on the issue, but having conversations on bioethics is imperative to further our understanding of issues in the world and the position of those involved in efforts to solve these problems.

Sources:

Anthes, Emily. Frankenstein's Cat: Cuddling up to Biotech's Brave New Beasts. London: Oneworld, 2013. Print.

Koerth-Baker, Maggie. "When Mutant Mosquitoes Attack." The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 19 Feb. 2013. Web.

"Mosquito Spraying Set to Begin in Katy." The Katy News. N.p., 2013. Web. 12 Oct. 2013.

Mystery of aging

Emily Anthes discuses in Frankenstein’s Cat, when scientist first learned how to edit the genome of animals they began to imagine all the ways they could use this power. Many scientist-envisioned the application of genetically engineered animals that would save humans lives. She welcomes us to this world of “pharming” in which simple genetic tweaks turn animals into living pharmaceutical factories (Anthes pg 40). Scientist had the idea that if they put a gene for a human antibody or enzymes in to an animal in the right place, under the control of the right molecular switch maybe it would be possible to engineer animals that produced healing human proteins in their milk.

Evidence now suggests that infants who breast-fed have healthier digestive systems. Lysozymes are the primary enzyme found within breast milk of all mammals, which is necessary for proper infant development. In order for the children that do not nurse or are to old for breast milk to receive a sufficient amount of the enzymes found in breast milk, scientists Murrary and Maga generated a whole line of transgenic goats by injecting the human lysozyme gene into fertilized goat eggs and implanting the resulting embryos in surrogate mothers. This will help extend the protective effects of breast milk to infants, which is vital to proper development. Murray and Maga have carefully analyzed the milk from the goat and are confident that the modified milk will do human body good(Athens).

Kiel University together with the University Medical Center Schleswing-Holstein carried out a study on solving the mystery on aging in humans. Researchers examined why the polyp Hydra is immortal and unexpectedly discovered a link to aging humans. As Anthes talks about in Frankenstein’s cat, the pharming industry is growing and biotech companies around the world are hard at research to discover the next medical breakthrough in genetic modification of animals. As scientists discover more about aging’s relation to genetics, more questions arise on the possibility of manipulating genes to slow aging or even prevent it.   

Hydra are tiny freshwaters polyps, they are potentially referred to as immortal as they do not show any signs of aging. Hydras have been the subject involved in many studies regarding aging processes because of their extensive stem cell reproduction process. As Anthes talked out in her book many scientist-envisioned applications that genetically engineered animals that would save humans lives by studying animal tissue such as that of the Hydra. This may deliver valuable insight into stem cell aging within humans. As people get older physiological change starts to occur, decreasing muscle, and causing one to feel weaker due to the heart muscle becoming weaker. As aging occurs people are unable to generate new cells because their stem cells lose the ability to flourish and then aging tissue cannot regenerate anymore. If scientists were able to discover a way to prevent stem cell depletion humans could turn back the clock of the decomposition of their muscles, therefore extending their health and possibly life.

It was recently discovered why human stem cells start to degenerate as humans age, the biochemical mechanism to this genetic phenomenon as is realated to FoxO, a gene that has been indicated to play a role in aging in humans. In order to determine what it was in the Hydra that made it immortal, scientist isolated Hydra’s stem cells and screened all their genes. FoxO was indicated as the gene that keeps Hydras immortal. After the discovery of FoxO gene and its relation to aging and immortally in hydra a scientific study was conducted in which the FoxO gene from the Hydra was injected into animals genetically modifying them to demonstrate the effect of the gene on stem cells thus determining the life span of animals.

Observing this effect of gene in animal can help scientist develop a better understanding of the roles this gene has on the maintenance of stem cells and functioning of immune system which can be beneficial towards humans one day. As Anthes describes in her book “the implications of such bioengineering projects are complicated and still unfolding. On the one hand, research being done with bioengineering could potentially help cure cancer or give blind people the gift of sight”(Athens 92). Such research and discoveries could give us an insight into more genetic modifications throughout pharming and give us the potential to possibly be immortal.

Anthes, Emily. Frankenstein's Cat: Cuddling Up to Biotech's Brave

      New Beasts. New York: Scientific American / Farrar, Straus, and

      Giroux, 2013. Print. 

Christian-Albrechts-Universitaet zu Kiel (2012, November 13). Solving the

mystery of aging: Longevity gene makes Hydra immortal and humans grow older. ScienceDaily. Retrieved October 11, 2013, from http://www.sciencedaily.com­ /releases/2012/11/121113091953.htm

                                                                                        

Scientists Saving Species: One Gene at a Time

A Florida panther. One of the animals that was aided by "facilitated adaptation," Michael Thomas's technique for combating the extinction crisis. Photo courtesy of nature.com.

With the changing climates and shrinking biodiversity worldwide, scientists have begun to seriously consider alternative, ethically debatable methods as means to save endangered species.

Currently, conservative estimates say that 15-40% of species alive today will be extinct by 2050 due to climate change and loss of habitat. In her book Frankenstein's Cat, Emily Anthes further breaks down this estimate. She writes that 25% of mammals, 33% of amphibians, and 12.5% of bird species are in danger of extinction. Compare this with the steadily and rapidly increasing population of humans, which is expected to be around 9 billion in 2050. The increase in human population will no doubt only worsen the extinction crisis and push more and more animals near or onto the endangered species list.

A panda. One of the animals which makes up part of
the 25% of mammals in danger of becoming extinct.
Photo courtesy of nbcnews.com.

In an article in the journal Nature, Michael Thomas and his co-authors explore the use of what they call "facilitated adaptation" (a method of rescuing a population by introducing it to adaptive alleles or gene variants, with the help of genetic engineering) to prevent the alarming predications of extinction from becoming reality. 

Facilitated adaptation can work in three different ways: (1) better-adapted populations of the same species can be crossed with threatened populations in introduce more desirable alleles into the threatened population, (2) genes form well-adapted populations could be inserted into the DNA of threatened populations of the same species, or (3) genes from well-adapted species could be incorporated into the genetic code of a different, endangered species.

According to Thomas, each approach comes with different risks and challenges to overcome. For example, in the case of transferring alleles that would code for things such as increased tolerance of warmer temperatures or resistance to diseases, potential risks are the introduction of new diseases to the threatened population and the possibility of harming the threatened populations by disrupting co-adapted genes (if one gene is injected and it changes the function of another gene in the threatened species, this could have a cascade effect in the species, and the result may not always be positive).

However, in some cases the possibilities for positive outcomes would outweigh the risks.

The Puma concolor coryi, an endangered species of Florida panther, is just one of the success stories that has risen from the use of facilitated adaptation. In this case, a better-adapted species (the Puma concolor stanleyana from Texas) was introduced into the Florida panther's environment. By introducing just eight cats from Texas, the population of Florida panthers rose 100%.

A rainbow trout. Scientists found a gene that yields
increased head tolerance, a contender for a gene
to be transferred to endangered fish populations.
Photo courtesy of beekman1802.com

The third option for facilitated adaptation (transferring genes from well-adapted species to different, endangered species), has been used in plant agriculture for years in order to improve crops' resistance to drought and extreme temperatures. For example, genes from rice plants have been used to make tomato plants more tolerant to cooler temperatures.

Scientists have since been able to identify genes in different animals that would be contenders for transfer to a number of endangered species. Earlier in 2013, researchers identified alleles in rainbow trout that are associated with heat tolerance. These favorable genes could be inserted into embryos of fish populations that are severely threatened by the rising water temperature brought about by global warming.

Anthes leads the discussion of saving endangered species away from facilitated adaptation, and towards an equally (if not more-so) controversial solution: cloning.

She introduces Betsy Dresser, the chairperson of ACRES research lab in New Orleans, where scientists (similar to Thomas and his co-authors) are working to solve the extinction crisis through the exploration of the option of cloning.

Anthes proclaims that while cloning is by no means advanced enough to overcome a number of complications that arise from it, the possibility of saving endangered or even already extinct species is a compelling enough rationale to attempt it.

One of the huge advantages of cloning is that it doesn't require invasive procedures. Even skin cells can be used to make a clone of an animal. That means that already threatened species would not have to undergo potentially risky surgeries to retrieve reproductive cells from females. It also means that old, inviable, or even dead animals could be utilized to save the species.

Both Anthes and Thomas agree, however, that their tactics alone will never be enough to completely halt the extinction crisis from occurring. Each of their propositions are merely a tool in the equation. Conservation of habits is another huge part of this equation. Without the preservation of animals' habitats, no amount of genetic engineering can prevent their extinction.


References:

Thomas, Michael A., Gary W. Roemer, Josh C. Donlan, Brett G. Dickson, Marjorie Matocq, and Jason Malaney. "Ecology: Gene Tweaking for Conservation."Nature 501.7468 (2013): n. pag. Nature.com. Nature Publishing Group, 25 Sept. 2013. Web. 11 Oct. 2013.

Anthes, Emily. Frankenstein's Cat: Cuddling up to Biotech's Brave New Beasts. New York: Scientific American/Farrar. Straus and Giroux. 2013. Print.

Saving Our Oranges

We all love our Vitamin C, but what if I told you that farmers were at one point struggling to grow healthy oranges. You wouldn't believe me right? I mean, how hard is it to grow an infamous fruit like an orange?

Well, you would be half correct, the growing part is fairly easy and just like any other common fruit. The part that farmers are struggling with is this orange-affecting disease they like to call “citrus greening”. Now I don’t know about you but surely don’t like my oranges when they are orange, not green. It sounds fairly simple but it actually became very hard to get rid of. The big orange industries like Tropicana tried everything including tons of pesticides but the problem wouldn't budge.

Now, the problem was huge and the solutions weren't working so what would you do in a situation like this? I mean, it’s not like we were running out of some rare and exotic berries, these are our oranges we’re talking about! So when all else failed, the only viable option seemed to be to change the DNA of the orange so it would become immune to this unwanted greening.

        There were a lot of standard controversies involved with this that come along with a topic as such and the Tropicana was concerned about their image of a “100 % natural” company. There were people against G.M.O and then there were people for it. Finally, after much debate, a scientific agreement was made that the only way they could save the oranges was to alter its DNA, no longer making it a target of the greening.

I think this article goes hand in hand with Anthes’s Frankenstein’s Cat because she also discusses genetic modification of animals and also debates about its advantages and disadvantages. She also speaks about all of its risk factors and all of the ethics behind it. She specifically quotes that “if there is peril here, there is also great promise,” meaning that after everything, she still ends up agreeing with it because that’s the way science is leading us to and that is the only way of advancing.

Anthes, Emily. Frankenstein's Cat: Cuddling Up to Biotech's Brave

      New Beasts. New York: Scientific American / Farrar, Straus, and

      Giroux, 2013. Print. 

Harmon, Amy. "A Race to Save the Orange by altering its DNA" The

      New York Times. The New York Times, 27 July 2013. Web. 10

      Oct. 2013.