I Am a Genetic Engineer, Now

[Eric Warwick]

Before you guys accuse me of heresy I want to explain what I did and how genetic engineering works. (I wrote this quickly, so for any confusion leave a comment. Also, there should be a lively but informed debate—give everyone the chance to read what they wrote as they read yours. Philosophical debates are fine.)  Genetic Engineering in this case was with an E.-Coli bacteria (a non-deadly strain—there are 12 strains), and a Jellyfish that lives in Puget Sound. The gene in the Jellyfish was a gene that codes for a protein—which turns the organism florescent green.

Here's how it works. In my class we learned what is aptly called the Central Dogma. The Central Dogma describes how all living things (viruses are considered non-living) use DNA to make proteins. DNA is made of nucleotides of negatively charged phosphate, deoxyribose sugar (6 carbon sugar), and a base pair. The Pairs are A, T, G, and C, and they line up A to T and G to C. We are all made of the same nucleotides—every living thing on the planet. The DNA is in a shape you know well, the double helix. This is cut by an enzyme called Helicase, and a protein called RNA polymerase makes RNA. RNA is DNA, but uses ribose (instead of deoxyribose) and uracil (instead of Thymine, or T). This allows it to get passed the Nucleus of a cell in Eukaryotic cell (or a cell which has a protective membrane over the Chromosomes/DNA). This floats into the cytoplasm and attaches to a Ribosome—which reads the RNA code. Then electric forces cause blobs of protein with Amino Acids on top to make the Amino Acids come together in the order the RNA describes. The ribosome reads the sequence and starts making proteins with an AUG reading. It ends with one of the 4 stop sequences. This then creates a protein.

In Genetic Engineering what you do is take foreign DNA and from another organism using a restriction enzyme. A restriction enzyme is a form of biological warfare for bacteria, because it chops up DNA, creating staggered ends. For example Bam H1 does this to this one type of DNA GGATC.

CCTA|G

Scientists use this knowledge to chop up DNA in other animals (non-living) to put in other organisms. For a single celled organism, like E.-Coli, they have what is called Plasmids, or, circular pieces of DNA that can be exchanged with others of the same species. If there is high pH the Bacterium with a resistance gene will copy the plasmid and exchange with other bacterium of its own species so the colony can survive. (Another reason not to use so much hand sanitizer.)Scientists use this by taking a plasmid out of the E.-Coli and putting the staggered ends of the foreign gene together giving it that gene. The production of, say, human insulin needs a promoter, so the promoter is added. Human insulin is then sucked up with a pipette and separated in a centrifuge. The production of human insulin from GMO E.-Coli has saved, literally, millions of lives.

Ok, so I used a gene called GFP (Green Florescent Protein) from a Jellyfish. This was already provided in the form of a Plasmid, which has to be put into the E.-Coli. This works by knowing the charge on a DNA molecule (negative). This is because phosphate (PO₄^-) is one of the bases for DNA. The charge on a cell membrane is also negative, thanks to the phospholipid bi-layers that make it up. So, for a DNA particle to get through a pore in the membrane you'll need to keep the bi-layers away from the pore, so that it is bigger. Also, you'll need the DNA to have a shield, so it is not repelled. What I used is a chemical called Calcium Chloride or CaCl2. This is ionic, or has two charges 2 negative, 2 positive that will coat the phospholipid bi-layers with it and the DNA, so the charges are neutralized. First the cell, however, is put into an ice bath to slow it down. Then the solution/E.-Coli is put in a hot bath (42 degrees Celsius), and back in ice to create a sort of weather system, difference of pressure, in the E.-Coli cell, so that the DNA shoots right in, and the membrane is closed up.

The bacterium now has the DNA. With the addition of arabinose (a sugar) it will share with other bacteria and will start to glow. We saw glowing today, and it was really cool!

Now here’s the part which gets me onto the controversial side. As you all, probably, know a new company has come out with genetically modified salmon. Although I’m no biologist (please chime in here if you are) I know from what I’ve learned in my class this much: the genes are isolated from mainly chinook salmon, and are put in atlantic salmon (so it grows faster and can be raised effectively) and the gene was isolated so that an enzyme (which is made in transcription and translation—see above) that regulates when growth starts up is always produced. I’m not exactly clear on how they do this, but I have an idea and I’m willing to learn. One obvious problem with a salmon that produces more food is, well, it could get out into wild fish stocks and severely mess up the ecology. Although this would be a great hit to wild fish stocks, I think evolution will take care of them eventually, perhaps in a decade (chime in if you know exactly what you are talking about—I’m unclear on the exact time it would take). This is because it would be bad to grow when there’s no food around. But, isn’t there a sustainable, on land, system where salmon can’t get out? Yes, and it produces veggies, too. I’m talking about this wonderful technology called aquaponics. I think that a “controlled” greenhouse environment is perfect for fast growing salmon. This not only helps people in the commercial business, but also the backyard aquaponic gardener.

You may now discuss this crazy idea.

[Vlad Jovanovic]

Good luck selling those "pro's" on a forum like this one...

85% of "regular" americans polled said they would not purchase or eat GE salmon (which is probably why you cannot force a company to disclose or label whether or not their product is GE or contains GMO's in the united states. You know...since that would interfere with their god-given right to profit. Who gives a flying fuck about the consumers right to choose.

Hmm...the pros of GM foods...I'll have to think about that one...for like the next 800 years. Maybe someone else could chime in. (Unless you're talking about GM foods in a altruistic Star-Trek scenario type world and not this real one)... 

[Eric Warwick]

Yes, Vlad, it would defeat the purpose, but I'm sure it would just grow faster. This means it could get to backyard harvest size (I think--haven't taken salmon biology since 5th grade), 1kg, before the heat of a warm maratime climate makes it uneconmical for the grower. However, I think we should pivot the conversation to something else. Say, a new tilapia, or the pros and cons of GE foods.

[Vlad Jovanovic]

Yes Eric, I'm familiar with that operation. I'm not sure if you are aware but, the Coho salmon that gentleman grows, is a landlocked Salmon (freshwater now) that is much smaller in size than their sea faring cousins. AquaBounty salmon is not (to my knowledge). And the WHOLE point of the GE-ing was to get BIG salmon fast...So what would be the point of growing AP GE salmon smolt?

So again, unless they can engineer the fish to be able to obtain full grow out size in a freshwater environment, whats the point? Why not then grow the smaller Coho or Sockeye salmon and avoid the whole GE thing (since your not really getting the benefits of bigger fish, faster, from it anyways).

If they can however create a freshwater only salmon that grows super big super fast, you might have a contender for AP...

[Eric Warwick]

Vlad, this guy is growing aquaponic salmon and wasabi (http://www.slowfoodvancouver.com/index.php/AgassizTour/category/swi... source: discussion on salmon in ap). Though I'm sure he wouldn't want to be associeted with GMO's--his techniques could aid in getting quick growing salmon in aquaponics!

[Vlad Jovanovic]

Yes, triploid means sterile, by definition...Problem is that the process is not ever 100% effective so there will always be a certain percentage of fish that are not truly sterile...

Yes, I agree...salmon aquaculture is bad enough, but do you honestly believe that this (in an industrial agricultural setting) will turn out to be any "better"? 

But OK, lets keep it in the realm of AP...Oh wait, can we even?  Unless we grow salt water plants...Maybe they can do some further genetic tinkering to get them to achieve full GE'd (or even natural) grow out size in fresh water. Unless that can happen, I don't see much of a big future for 'em in AP

[Eric Warwick]

 "triploid females so even if they did get out they would be sterile" Triploid means sterile by definition. If you have an X (female chromosome) and a Y (male chromosome) then you are a male; two X's and you are a female; two X's and a Y, then you are a sterile male. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klinefelter%27s_syndrome) Now, I'm fundementally opposed to any aquaculture that has a incredibly adverse affect on the environment, so cage based aquaculture is out of the question. However, this technology called aquaponics, or at least, RAS can help solve these problems. As to the evolution thing, I think it is an undesired trait, but I'm not a biologist. As to the whole venture being profit driven, well, I don't like talking about that. Salmon aquaculture is bad enough as it is--and that is 100% profit driven. I think a better fish should be raised.

[Vlad Jovanovic]

"...I think evolution will take care of them eventually, perhaps in a decade"...

Eric, NO-ONE knows how much time it would take, nor if/when/in what way, it would be "taken care of"...just to give you an idea of how "shaky" (to put it lightly) some of the scientific risk assessments are in this salmon deal (that is...those risks that were actually even adressed...as many were just conveniently skipped over in the data AquaBounty released to the FDA)...

Here is a transcript (you can also listen to the interview) of an interview with one of the scientists on the FDA's board that went over what AquaBounty provided them with...http://www.npr.org/2011/12/09/143453487/debating-genetically-modifi...

We have just recently only begun to understand the complex intricacies of ecosystems as they exist in nature, let alone be able to gauge our potential impact on them with things like GE animals being released into the wild. I really don't think science has those abilities yet. To think otherwise seems foolhardy at very best.

(Though to be "fair" the company claims that they'll only be creating triploid females so even if they did get out they would be sterile...but then again Monsanto claimed that the potential for cross contamination was "highly unlikely, next to impossible")...

This whole venture is purely, 100% profit driven...No comment.