CharonY

Actually why should it not be considered alive? Of course at the current state it cannot replicate. The same goes for caterpillars. Or certain differentiated cells that do not replicate anymore. Well the properties of life are not as dual as one might think (as in life vs dead).

I used to have many dogs, mostly strays, but also 5 chihuahuas. But when I became a phd student and later on postdoc, there was not enough time, I had to leave them to my parents. Also I had three guinea pigs, two chinchillas and three rabbits.

Well, at the moment I got my lab for me alone. But I guess I may have some grad students to teach, soon.

Ah, OK. Reading some of the endorsements I was under the impression that it included original experiments. My bad.

Well it does not need to be fertilized to be classified as living cell. Ovaries are cells, so they are living.

Ow and is anything of its findings published in journal?

Wait a tick, are you really one of the authors?

Aside from that this is a very good thread, though. Nice post, PhDP.

First, what ecoli said, you are likely not allowed to do that. Secondly, a lab needed to create transgenic animals is extremely expensive. Third, there is no gene for lipochrome, simply because it is a lipid. You need to add the genes required for synthesis as well as relocation. Quite often such complex heterologous expressions do not work well even in simple organism, much less in higher eukaryotes. I do not know lipochrome synthesis pathways, but in a bird that does not normally produce it, I can easily imagine that it may mess up the lipid metabolism. If this intended as a though experiment, I would recommend reading up on lipochrome synthesis in birds.

The single largest danger regarding liquid nitrogen is probably suffocation. In one institute, shortly before I began my first postdoc there, a student worked in a cold room with a large canister of liquid nitrogen. Apparently somehow he tipped it over (I have no idea whether it was on purpose for playing or due to some kind of accident, but the canister are not that easy to tip over. Long story short, he was found dead next morning. So if you play with larger quantities of it, ensure that there is sufficient ventilation. Students that I instructed later all believed that he froze to death an freaked out when I poured some over my hands. One (female) student actually started to scream and cry. Good times.

Yeah, peptides always have amino groups so the name is kinda weird. I checked some articles in which amino peptides were mentioned. It appears that they are mostly found in nutrition or medical journals, but what from what I have seen they still simply referred to normal peptides.

Weird the link is correct, however I do not see any correlation to the sentence above. Anyway the key enzyme of nitrogen fixation is indeed the nitrogenase complex. If you are interested in the evolution, it is a slightly tricky thing as it is not as conserved as one might think. I recommend this paper: Raymond et al 2004 The Natural History of Nitrogen Fixation http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/21/3/541

That lack of distinct species concept makes it so hard to trace horizontal gene transfer. If you can assume a core genome of a species then one can trace what might be acquired horizontally. However if the whole genome is not really defined it makes phylogenetic analyses rather tricky. For instance, if an individual of a bacterial species acquire a megaplasmid, increasing the whole genome by, say, a third. How would one classify it in relation to other members of the species, without it? If we simply disregard that there are from the same species, whole genome analysis could place it quite differently. However if we assume that there is a certain core, belonging to a given species (which 16s analyses simply assume) then it would be classified quite differently.

I think we can argue about it all day. I think his work as whole is simply irrelevant (regardless from a pro or a anti GM view) simply because it was not demonstrated that the results were false. Only that his controls were not suited to sustain the claim. In normal cases the referees would ask for additional experiments, which could have been conducted, if he was not fired. His experiment was also never replicated and the data regarding how the potato was created, vanished. Also as far as I remember it was never argued that the process itself was harmful (would not make any sense) but simply that the expression of a lectin (not toxin) in the potato might cause serious side effects in rats. He did advocate more controls of GM-food, though (or so I think). In any case I do not think that his work has something to do with this argument at all (except that more data is needed).

I assume it is the same as peptide.

Your body heat evaporates liquid nitrogen quite fast so, if you dip it quickly your finger does not actually touch the cold nitrogen. Of course it cools down a bit, but you need to hold it in the liquid nitrogen for a while if you want it to freeze.

Yes, that too. Although I think you mean Domain instead of Kingdom? Of course transfers (not only of plasmids) is more often within a domain. What I also meant is the fact that especially in prokaryotes it is problematic to trace evolutionary units also because there is no real species definition (besides arbitrary parameters). Genetic changes and thus evolution within a clonal strain can be (more or less) easily monitored under lab conditions, but trying to try the same in nature is extremely problematic.

OK first, his comments were aired 1998 a year after your assumed rise in GM-food resistance (where did you got 1997 anyhow?). Second if he was fired due to them then the institute did something wrong. If every scientist deducing something from preliminary data and then found being incorrect later on, would be fired, well then getting a job in this field would be much easier . But more importantly, his published work was incomplete (again, published after he was fired), because he was sacked before he could conduct more experiments (e.g. much needed better control). His overall conception was not totally flawed (at least according to what I remember, I read it when it was published the last time). And what is also interesting is that the documentation for the GM potatoes used in the study somehow vanished (actually I did not research that, but a colleague who wanted to make a metabolome analysis with this potatoes). Also I found this bit here from the New Scientist http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16121740.300-anatomy-of-a-food-scare.html Sure, Pusztais work is being used by GM-food opponents, however their most powerful weapons (employed since the beginning) is general (irrational) fear. The average opponent probably does not know anything about the work at all. While I am generally not a fan of conspiracy theories, the fact that he was fired so fast, combined with a number of allegations floating around almost immediately after the interview made me rather suspicious at that time. Again, more research is needed and, in my opinion, it must be independent from industrial money (I have read contracts associated which that kind of money, sometimes they have institute-wide rules without the scientists actual knowing it). Trouble is, in many countries it is hardly possible.

*Sigh* You are not reading, are you. I just made clear that the Employers did not or rather could not sack him for the reasons you put forth. You are just assuming. In fact you are using Pusztai´s research (without reading it) the same ways as Greenpeace. Only with the reverse intentions. Just to clarify the official response from Rowett was that he resigned. He was not fired because of misconduct as you implied. Greenpeace is using him, sure. At the same time pro-GMs slander him as if that would be an argument by itself.

No I am sure that it was not the reason put forth. Again, he was fired before the publication was submitted. Moreover, no institute would fire someone about a published data that does not meet scientific standards. This is the job of the referees. Also, I have no idea why you take 1997 as an arbitrary timeline to assume that protests started here. I still personally remember the rather massive demonstrations for the planned bacterial experiments back in around 1996 (including Greenpeace members, btw). It was far more than crackpots, many of them farmers from the region. While Pusztais publication was since then often put forth as an argument against GM food, it is silly to argue that this one was starting point of it. Especially as you got the time line wrong. Let us put it together, shall we? In 1998 the interview I mentioned (and I think the real reason why he was sacked) was aired. A couple of months later he was bound to an gagging order and essentially sacked (his contract was not to be renewed). An investigation within the Rowett institute (where he worked) was conducted but could not find any clues of fraud (something he was, also accused of). Pretty incidentally the Rowett institute received over 100000 british pounds as donations from Monsanto (I looked that up now. I am pretty surprised that I guessed right). So guess when the article was published? October the following year (1999). In other words it is equally silly to say that GM concerns were based on a single incomplete article as to say that GM food is a danger because of that. Just to clarify, a significant part of geneticist are also skeptic regarding safety of GM food. One of the main problems is that there is still not much data about GM food and its possible effects on personal as well as environmental health. But of course each manipulation are bound to have different effects, so in theory each crop has to be tested in lab as well in the field. Very expensive and often not that conclusive. Environmental effects are long-term studies (hardly anyone pays for them) and rats are not that a good substitute for effects on humans. Personally I think that most minor manipulations are harmless (or at least not more harmful that what has been done with more traditional techniques anyway) and are likely not to spread too much as their selective advantages would be neglectable. However I am more skeptic about certain pesticide resistant crops, for instance. In any case I do think that environmental effects would be always stronger than immediate health effects on humans. Also I missed that one: You are aware that free interbreeding actually increases diversity, right? (with the exception of extremely detrimental alleles that can only be sustained by continued inbreeding).

Technically just living in a different habitat does not constitute evolution, however the mitochondria have undergone significant genomic changes (basically reducing almost all of its genome, partially including eukaryotic genes). And this is of course, evolution. But of course, evolution in bacteria is even more complicated to trace than in higher eukaryotes.

It has been some time but In my memory things unfolded slightly differently. First, there has always been an opposition to GM, even quite a while before the publication. I recall a number of protests regarding the release of GFP labelled, crippled bacteria, for instance. Secondly, he was not fired because of the publication. The publication was finalized after he had to abandon his research and this is arguably also the reason of some of the methodological flaws in it. I assume the Lancet still published it to spark a discussion around it. I think he was fired because in an interview he said that his initial results indicated a possible problem with GM food (in this case it was potatoes, I think). Shortly after he was fired. Whether it was because he leaked information without clearing it with the institute (many are very restrictive in this regard) or whether it was due to the pressure of certain companies (I think that at least Monsanto might have funded research there), I do not know,

I think you mean factors instead of gene? But yes, it depends on what a kind of disease you are thinking of. There is no way that the genetic basis vanishes. But that again reminds me how tricky it is to speak of a genetic disease. Of course sometimes the phenotype are so obvious and deleterious that it is easy to think of them as a disease, but for instance genes that contribute to obesity? These might actually be beneficial under certain, nutrient limited circumstances. In the latter case obesity can of course be diminished by having a certain diet.

No, there is a link for authors and referees there. You just have to be on the journal page not the home page.

Uhm, no it is a common misconception but biosafety cabinets are mainly designed to protect YOU. The laminar and directional flow are mainly designed to prevent aerosols escape the cabinet (Biosafety one cabinet are as clean as that of level two, but they protect you less). There are clean benches with horizontal blowers that are better protecting your samples from contamination, but they do not fulfill the requirement of biosafety two benches. There are systems that integrate both, but again, biosafety 2 is meant to protect the user. Moreover biosafety 2 standards are not only restricted to a cabinet, but also requires the fulfillment of certain safety features within the lab. Again, to protect you. That is why for instance plant cell lines do not require biosafety two, even if are as sensitive to contamination. Also you dangerously underestimating the dangers of human cell lines. There are viruses that has been extracted from well established cell lines like HeLa. While actual infection in laboratories is extremely rare, an uninstructed person might easily infect himself. So even if the question was not related to safety procedures I think it is important to tell uninformed people about potential dangers.