The Wild-Type Gene Pool is in Jeopardy!
Dec
31
Written by:
Saturday, December 31, 2011 8:30 AM
The Wild-Type Gene Pool is in Jeopardy!
Prometheus (means: thinking first, acting later) warned Epimetheus (means: acting first, thinking later) not to open the Pandora’s Box of Biotechnology1
By Johan G. van der Galiën (M.Sc. in Chemistry)
EARTH SONG (partially)
What about nature's worth
It's our planet's womb
(What about us)
What about animals
(What about it)
We've turned kingdoms to dust
(What about us)
What about elephants
(What about us)
Have we lost their trust
(What about us)
What about crying whales
(What about us)
We're ravaging the seas
(What about us)
What about forest trails
Burnt despite our pleas
(What about us)
Lyrics song by Michael Jackson
Summary:
This article is a short review of information about horizontal gene transfer, also called cross-species gene transfer, found on the internet and a discussion of the effect on the wild-type gene pool. It is known for about 20 years now that bacteria and viruses have the capability of inserting foreign DNA in other species cells. This cross-species gene transfer was formerly part of the mechanisms of natural evolution. But since the era of genetic engineering this mechanism is also used for spreading manipulated genes. Sometimes transgenic organisms escape from laboratories or from Biotechnological industries, but most of time they are let loose in the wild, like genetically manipulated crops or ranches with transgenic animals. They also make use of cross species gene transfer. This will result in pollution of the wild-type gene pool, leading to a change or loss of or last biodiversity. A hypothesis is launched that also the genomes of cells of the reproductive system of plants and animals can get genetically infected, like pollen, sperm and ova cells, just as is demonstrated for other parts of organisms, leading also to vertical gene transfer of foreign DNA, finally resulting in altering the genetics of all members of a species. This could also lead to losing parts of the wild-type gene pool. Because I am not anti-Biotechnology per se and also because, according to Greek Mythology, the Hope For A Better World remained in the box of Pandora after it was opened, I plea in this article for healthy Biotechnological, Scientific and Commercial endeavours with restrictions:
1) All biowaste from Biotechnological industries and laboratories should be incinerated or irradiated.
2) All transgenic plants should only be kept in greenhouses under quarantine conditions.
3) All transgenic life stock should be kept in a stable under quarantine conditions.
4) All biowaste from transgenic plant or animal farms should be incinerated or irradiated.
5) No products derived by means of genetic manipulation should be used anywhere in the food chain. As an alternative GM foods could be irradiated. But this is a bit controversial because of the radiolytic products formed.
6) Non-food products like medicines and polymers from genetic manipulation should certainly be irradiated to kill all active genetic germs.
These measures should be in effect until the time that Biotechnology has evolved so far that all the genomes that make up the wild-type gene pool have been collected and mapped in computer databases, and that mankind is capable of reconstructing wildlife from genomic databases. These measures are also in the best interests of Science who always will want to study how natural evolution tackled certain problems. Biotechnology should be more a fundamental Science and less a commercial enterprise!
Since the era of Biotechnology evolution has come to a new level. You could also say that evolution has created a species that can control the course of evolution by manipulating genes in the laboratory. This could also lead to the end of the Darwinistic “Survival of the Fittest” because a perfect fit of every organism could be artificially made for each environment. Is this the by natures laws intended end goal of evolution? I think not! The natural “Survival of the Fittest” mechanism will always outsmart scientists, because there is no laboratory as big as our planet. Although Biotechnologists are already interfering with natural evolution, on a large scale but it will even grow in the future if Biotechnology can go on unlimited, as I will make clear in this article. This accelerated and manipulated evolution can backfire on mankind! I therefore want to make two definitions used throughout the text of this article:
1) Natural evolution: The process of the evolution before the era of Biotechnology.
2) Manipulated evolution: The process of the accelerated evolution in the era of Biotechnology. By introducing genetically manipulated organisms in the environment evolution takes on a new course diminishing the wild-type gene pool.
3) GM: Genetically Manipulated like in GM crops.
Blog:
Natural evolution was and manipulated evolution is, for now, by ‘The Survival Of The Fittest’. But with manipulated evolution some of the fittest are designed by mankind, and can have such an extreme evolutionary advantage that the wild-type gene pool is totally altered. To understand this one must know two mechanisms, which also both types of evolution have, namely horizontal and vertical gene transfer. Vertical gene transfer is within a species. In other words the sexual reproduction of a species like plants, insects, mammals and other animals. This process is well documented since the beginning of history; it was then that humans realized that there was a need for mating to get offspring, which they most likely observed first with farming domestic animals. So I will not go into that in depth here. The other mechanism, horizontal gene transfer, is only discussed recently through publications of Hartman2 (1977) and Syvanen3 (1985).
Horizontal gene transfer is considered to be a crucial mechanism for the acquirement of genetic flexibility in many species. During evolution, the ability of species to adapt to new environments most often results from the acquisition of new genes through horizontal gene transfer rather than by numerous point mutations (a change of one base pair by a different base pair) of DNA code. Horizontal gene transfer is defined to be the movement of genetic material between cells with are not of the same species. In which information travels through the generations as the cell divides. Horizontal gene transfer is a kind of sexual process that requires a mechanism for the mobilization of chromosomal DNA among cells.9
1) Transformation: The absorption of naked DNA, which another cell has secreted, is a common mode of horizontal gene transfer that can mediate the exchange of any part of a chromosome. Most of the time these DNA strands are small.
2) Conjugation: The transfer of (incorporated) DNA mediated by conjugal plasmids or conjugal transposons. Requires cell-to-cell contact but can occur between only distantly related cells and even between prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells. Can transfer long fragments of DNA.
3) Transduction: The transfer of (incorporated and encapsulated) DNA by (retro)viruses requires that the donor and recipient share cell surface receptors for virus binding. Genetic information is taken up from one cell and transported to another cell of a different species by a virus (secondary horizontal gene transfer). The length of DNA transferred is limited by the size of the virus head. Take for example T2 phage its genome is 185,000 base pairs and that of a potential target bacteria cell E. coli it is 3,400,000 base pairs.9,10
There is much experimental evidence for cross species transfers between prokaryotes. Environments with extreme selection pressure like from antibiotic use by man give rise to bacteria populations that show much evidence of cross-species gene transfer.5 (The author of reference 5 does not talk about the possibility that the similarities in antibiotic resistance genes can come from antibiotic markers in GM crops also through cross (kingdom) species gene transfer. I will though further on in this article.) Evidence also comes from the mosaic structure of genes from bacteria. Mosaic patterns in the sequence of genes means that the genes are divided in many segments dispersed among the DNA strings of the genome. This is evolutionary favourable because the segments rearrange themselves occasionally in to new genes whereby the ‘Survival of the Fittest’ begins again.6 The mosaic patterns are a kind of kaleidoscope which gives a different (gene) structure with each turn. This mechanism accelerates evolution and it is more efficient then the slow process of DNA point mutations. It came in to play at a later stage of the evolution time scale. These mosaic patterns can be analysed and from the sequence data one can conclude that horizontal gene transfer must be involved in creating the mosaic. As Syvanen writes in reference 7: “…In general, a comparison of any two homologous DNA regions that display an abrupt change in similarity raises the possibility of a mosaic structure, and hence a horizontal transfer…”. A summary of some evidence of horizontal gene transfer in prokaryotes is given in Note 7.
But there are more facts to be found on the internet about horizontal transfer in prokaryotes and between prokaryotes and eukaryotes:11
1) The plant symbiont Bradyrhizobium japonicum has two glutamine synthetase genes, one is the same as those found in other bacteria, for the other the amino acid sequence is about 50% identical to comparable enzymes from higher plants.
2) When protein sequences encoded by archaeal genomes are used to search protein sequence databases for similar sequences, some sequences have their best match with sequences from eubacteria. The opposite is also true. To understand this reasoning you must know that there are three distinct lineages sprung from the first reproductive cell or cells (this is still a matter of much debate called the single cell versus multiple cells hypothesis). These Last Common Ancestor(s) are called progenotes13 and they mutated in to three species which evolved to the three domains in which all life forms can be categorised namely: Eukarya (eukaryotes: plant, fungi, animal etc. kingdoms), Archeae (special kind of prokaryotes) and Bacteria (normal prokaryotes).12 By some authors13 the Bacteria domains is called Eubacteria like in reference 11. So that’s where the words archeal genomes and eubacteria come from. There are even a few cases where one sequence segment of a protein with an origin in one kingdom is attached to a segment with an origin in another kingdom.
3) Kanamycin, streptomycin and tetracycline (antibiotics) resistance genes found in gram negative and gram positive bacteria are essentially identical in nucleotide sequence.
4) Experiments in a laboratory has shown that the plasmid, RSF1010, can successfully be conjugated from E.coli to cyanobacteria, actinomycetes, Agrobacterium and other bacteria. Thus is experimental evidence for genuine cross-species gene transfer!
Reference 11 is an interesting article but can be (mis?)interpreted as if the anonymous writer does not see any harm in unlimited Biotechnology! He or she writes: “…The wide transfer of genes that must have occurred naturally weakens the argument that human intervention through genetic engineering is placing genes where they have never been before…” This also a wrong statement because Biotechnologist are already capable of designing a totally new gene unknown to nature, synthesize it and let it come to expression in a recombinant organism.22
And now some facts about cross-kingdom gene transfer. To begin with the worst: The spreading of antibiotic resistance from transgenic crops to pathogenic bacteria. How do antibiotic resistance genes wind up in recombinant plants? Well in the bioengineering of transgenic plants callus (a kind of embryonic plant material with no structure on a Petri disc with an bed of agar and nutrients) is subjected to foreign DNA. This can be done in the following ways:
1) Genetic gun: Very tine bullets of gold are coated with the foreign DNA. And they are shot with a gun on the callus. Some of the bullets wind up in the nucleus of the cells and can transform the genome of the plant cell.
2) Transformation: Perhaps by this mechanism which I mentioned earlier. The foreign DNA must then pass two barriers: The cell membrane and getting inside the nucleus. But perhaps there are biochemical mechanisms that support the transport. I think that this would have a very low frequency of success.
3) Transduction: Is certainly an option for plants. Then the DNA injected by the virus through the cell membrane only has to find its way inside the nucleus.
4) Agrobacter: By means of a genetically modified Agrobacter tumefaciens. These bacteria have the capability of transferring DNA from their genes to higher plant chromosomes. So you first genetically modify Agrobacter with either transformation or transduction and then let them loose on the callus. I believe Agrobacter uses the mechanism of conjugation I talked about earlier.
Because these processes are not 100% efficient one must filter out the cells that have incorporated the foreign genes in their chromosomes. (I remind that this introduction of foreign genes is a totally random process. The insertion of foreign genes into the host genome is not under the control of the genetic engineer. It is entirely random, and gives rise to correspondingly random, unintended effect, including biochemical synthesis of toxins and allergens in food plants, and the developing of cancer in mammalian cells.15 The restriction enzymes which are involved recognizes and can open all substrings of certain 4 to 8 base pairs. The number of base pairs in all the chromosomes of a plant is about 109. Then there are, if you take the mean substring length of 6 base pairs, about 109/(6*66) = 3572 possible sites on the chromosomes in which the foreign DNA can be inserted. Repairs of the opened chromosomes is done by the host own DNA ligase molecules, which constantly goes back and forth along the DNA backbone like a train.) For this come the antibiotic genes in to play which are also introduced with the set of foreign genes. They are the marker after genetically manipulating the callus and letting it grow for a while (incubate). Antibiotic solutions like from penicillin, kanamycin, streptomycin and tetracycline are poured on the Petri dishes. The colonies that survive and also grow have incorporated the foreign gene in their genome. They can then easily be isolated and made in to real plants with plant structure inducing hormones.
This all sounds very harmonious and (bio) Utopian but there is a caveat. Because what can happen on the many monoculture fields in the word full of transgenic crops with antibiotic resistance? (As I said in the abstract it is estimated that 60-75% of our food has ingredients that come from GM crops.21 These GM crops mainly comes from 7 million farmers in 18 countries on 70 million hectare of transgenic monoculture crops.14) There have been secondary horizontal transfers demonstrated, of antibiotic markers from GM plants into soil bacteria and fungi, in laboratory experiments. (Secondary means there is also a third party organism involved who functions as an intermediate host for the to be transferred genes.) The following results where obtained: There was definitely transfer of marker genes to the soil bacterium Acinetobacter which were done using DNA extracts from leafs of 5 transgenic plants: Solanum tuberosum (potato), Nicotiana tabacum (tobacco), Beta vulgaris (sugar beet), Brassica napus and Lycopersicon esculentum. Additionally an “optimal” gene transfer frequency of 6.2 * 10-2 was found in a laboratory experiment with transgenic potato to a bacterial pathogen. (I believe that the frequency of gene transfer can be defined as number of cells infected / total amount of cells subjected.) The scientist who found this “optimal” transfer in the laboratory estimated a frequency of 2.0 * 10-17 under "natural conditions". (Maybe the difference comes through a wrong determination of the ‘Total Amount Of Cells Subjected’. Lets say for the sake of argument that only one cell gets infected’ both for “optimal” and “natural conditions” then the number of ‘Total Amount Of Cells Subjected’ is about 1017. This equals to 10,000 human bodies. Where do you find a situation under “normal conditions” where the diffusion is that fast that the amount of cells are equivalent of 10,000 human bodies and are subjected simultaneously to transgenic DNA. This would also require at least 10,000 * 80 = 800,000 Kilogram of plant cells where the transgenic DNA is coming from. How in the name of God did they conduct these experiments where the 2.0 * 10-17 is coming from?) There are of course an enormous amount of possible natural conditions. So their estimation is only a very gross indication. One thing that one also should bear in mind is that a low frequency of gene transfer on the time scale of (manipulated) evolution can still transfer a wild-type genome of a species completely.15
There is also circumstantial evidence that there already is large-scale horizontal gene transfer going on in our world. The correlation between an accelerated resurgence of drug and antibiotic resistance diseases and the emergence over the past 20 years of the development of genetic engineering Biotechnology on commercial scales.15 A group of scientists including Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, one of the pioneers of informing the public about the dangers of Biotechnology and author of the book ‘GENETIC ENGINEERING: Dream or Nightmare’, has demanded an independent public enquiry. In a report15 Ho et al discuss that there is overwhelming evidence that horizontal gene transfer (and subsequent recombination) has been responsible for creating new viral and bacterial pathogens and spreading drug and antibiotic resistance genes. These horizontal gene transfer events have occurred the last 20 years.
The health risks of horizontal gene transfer within manipulated evolution include:
1) Antibiotic resistance genes from transgenic crops spreading to pathogenic bacteria.
2) Disease-associated genes spreading and recombining to create new viruses and bacteria that cause diseases.
3) When transgenic DNA is consumed by animals and humans, it can insert into their cells, triggering cancer. This might also lead to loss of fauna and loss of human lives.
One reason for the development of cancer in the cells of recipient of horizontal gene transfer could well be the CaMV 35S promotor. The CaMV 35S promoter was widely used in GM crops because it is a very potent promoter derived from viruses and originally intended to replicate the virus particles in the infected host cell. Therefore it forces a recombinant cell, with the CaMV 35S promotor somewhere in its genome, to over-produce the product of any gene placed downstream of it. The locus of CaMV 35S is a recombination hotspot. Originally such kind of virus genes were introduced in GM crops to make them resistant to viral induced diseases, but there is evidence that the hotspots give rise to recombination with natural viruses leading to sometimes super-infectious viruses.17 The effect of CaMV 35S and other viral genes consumption is recently investigated by feeding experiments with rats, performed by Dr. Arpad Puztai group in the Rowett Institute. It suggests that transgenic potatoes are toxic to rats, and that most of the toxicity is due to horizontal gene transfer. This same kind of transgenic potatoes was earlier shown to harm ladybirds fed on aphids that have eaten the transgenic potatoes.15 Ewen and Pusztai conclude that the diseases caused in young rats fed GM potatoes could be due to horizontal gene transfer by uptake in the mammal cell through transformation of the transgenic construct, which definitely contained the CaMV 35S promoter.17 Viral DNA is now known to be more infectious, prone to horizontal gene transfer by transformation, than the intact virus, where the DNA is encapsulated by a protein coat. Viral DNA is in almost all GM crops plants mainly in the form of viral promoters. What I said earlier about the CaMV 35S promoter being super-potent and effective is also true for the other viral promoters. When integrated into mammalian cells they may lead to reactivate dormant viruses or cause cancer.15 Viral and plasmid DNA fed to mice can resist digestion in the gut to such an extent that large fragments passed into the bloodstream and into white blood cells, spleen and liver cells. In some instances, the viral DNA had recombined with mouse DNA and E. coli DNA, in other words it is taken up in their genomes. With pregnant mice, large fragments of the transgenic DNA from the GM crops they where fed on are found in the nucleus of cells of the foetus and the newborn.15
There are also experiments done with human volunteers by the Food Standards Agency (FSA), indicating that transgenic DNA from GM soy flour, eaten in a single hamburger and milk shake meal, was found transferred to the bacteria in the gut contents from the colostomy bags of human volunteers. The scope of the investigation was (intentionally?) restricted. There was no check for transgenic DNA in the blood and blood cells, despite scientific reports from as early as the 1990s that clearly indicate that transgenic DNA can pass the intestine and the placenta, and become incorporated into the blood cells, liver and spleen cells and even infect cells of the foetus and newborn.16
I launch hereby a new hypothesis: It might be possible according to the facts presented in this paper that the genomes of cells of the reproductive system of plants, insects and animals can get genetically infected, like pollen, sperm and ova cells, just as is demonstrated for other parts of organisms. The pollen cells could directly or indirectly, as the infection of for example the roots spreads through the plant, get genetically infected by recombinant viruses or bacteria like Agrobacter tumefaciens. For animal and insect sperm and ova cells infection could come from eating GM crops. The animals live in the wild (part of the Wild-type gene pool) near monocultures of GM crops or living in a farm. All of this leads to vertical gene transfer of foreign DNA, besides horizontal gene transfer, resulting over time in altering the genetics of all the members of the species, threatening the wild-type gene pool. There could also be a genome synchronisation mechanism involved in multicellular organisms, which causes all cells to become genetically infected. Spreading of the altered pollen cells genomes can go for example via insects visiting transgenic plants for pollen and nectar transferring the infected genomes to wild-type related plants. Which could gain an enormous advantage in manipulated evolution and overgrow other plant species (eutrophication). Leading to loss of biodiversity because the overgrown plants will become extinct. An analogous mechanism as described by me for carbondioxide over-fertilisation.26
Thinking about the threat to the wild-type gene pool I realized that there should be global measures taken by all governments to counteract this threat. The ones I could think of are: (But it could be that readers of this site have additional measures.)
1) All biowaste from Biotechnological industries and laboratories should be incinerated to kill all genetically engineered cells and destroy all active transgenic DNA.
2) All transgenic plants should be kept in greenhouses under quarantine conditions. No transgenic plants in the wild!
3) All transgenic life stock should be kept in a stable under quarantine conditions. No transgenic animals in the wild!
4) All biowaste from transgenic plant or animal farms should be incinerated or irradiated.
5) No products derived by means of genetic manipulation should be used anywhere in the food chain. This includes of course the estimated 60-75% of foods, already found in the supermarkets of the west, containing genetically modified cells and with it foreign DNA. As is proven these substances come in the bloodstream and can infect the genome of human cells causing cancer and other diseases. They also enhance vertical and horizontal gene transfer to the wild-type gene pool. As an alternative GM foods could be irradiated. There are lots of informative and/or critical sites about food irradiation18-20 so I will not go into the subject. I will only say that irradiation by several sources give rise to fissions of the chromosomes18 there by sterilising and killing all cells. So there is no more cell division in the material (it is sterilized). Because the DNA molecules are randomly broken up there is no danger of vertical and horizontal gene transfer from food and other products. But all of this is a bit controversial because of the radiolytic products formed and whom do some scientists consider as a health risk.18-20
6) Non-food GM products, like medicines and polymers, should, if they still contain transgenic cells after purification, certainly be irradiated. Though care should be taken because of the radiochemistry involved. For example it is known that unsaturated poly-3-hydroxy-alkenoates-co-alkanoates can crosslink in to real rubbers by treating the material with electron beam radiation. Thereby changing the chemical and mechanical properties completely.25 But these kind of reactions could be intended.
These measures should be in effect until the time that Biotechnology has evolved so far that all the genomes that make up the wild-type gene pool have been collected and mapped in computer databases, and that mankind is capable of reconstructing wildlife from genomic databases.
There is of course the fear that biohackers produce intentionally or unintentionally a so lethal DNA source code, which threatens the good functioning of the whole evolutionary program. Just like that it is possible in theory that terrorists produce a computer virus so effective that it paralyses the whole internet. A computer nerd and environmental freak, like me, worst fears!
Horizontal gene transfer is a danger to the wild-type gene pool as I hope I made clear in this article. The spreading of transgenetic information could involve genome synchronisation within all cells of a species and subsequent vertical gene transfer. As is demonstrated in the laboratory horizontal gene transfer from eating GM plants can cause diseases like cancer in rats. This could also happen to for example rodents who feed on GM crops in the wild. This can cause a decline of biodiversity. Biodiversity could also be lost in the Flora from horizontal gene transfer through the diseases it can cause. Which targets specific species. Take for example Agrobacter tumefaciens that causes crown gall disease. Then there is the danger of a recombinant plant, made directly in a laboratory or created through horizontal gene transfer from a GM plant to a wild-type plant, which has such a great evolutionary advantage that it overgrows others (eutrophication). This also will result in loss of biodiversity. Eutrophication can happen in every kingdom of Biology!
I hope I made clear that I am not anti-Biotechnology. As a mater a fact I hope to get work in System Biology. This science tries to make an emulation of a living cell in a computer. System Biology relies much on the fundamental knowledge Biotechnology provides. And the production of biochemical fundamental knowledge must of course continue. But I am against unlimited Biotechnology. Because I want to preserve the wild-type gene pool and wildlife as a source of recreation, inspiration and information for Mankind. Remember: This also in the best interests of Biotechnology who always will want to study how natural evolution tackled certain problems.
References and notes:
1) The sage of Prometheus (means: think first, act later), his brother Epimetheus (means: act first, think later) and the gift from Zeus; Pandora and her box, has several versions. One is that the False Hope together with all other plaques of Mankind was put in the box by Prometheus, a descendant of the Titans, in other words godlike. He warned his brother not to open the box of Pandora. But Epimetheus does open the box after Zeus sentenced his brother in chains. All plaques were let loose on Mankind including the False Hope, which prevents people from committing suicide in “hopeless” situations. From: R. Graves ‘Griekse Mythen’ in Dutch.
Another version goes as follows: The first woman send to earth by Zeus was the beautiful Pandora, together with a box of all the blessings and plaques the gods could think of. Pandora was warned not to open the box. But Pandora was equal beautiful as curious and when on earth she opened the box. All blessings and plaques escaped except the Hope. One can interpret the second version as if the Hope remained under the control by the gods. To give to those people who need it the most. From the lecture: J. Tramper ‘Moderne Biotechnologie: Een Doos Van Pandora?’ Introduction in Dutch:
I am inclined to the second version because this leaves the Hope as a blessing from the gods. And Hope sustains life. It is this Hope that I have for the wild-type gene pool and that Biotechnology is not a locomotive that cannot stop in time.
2) H. Hartman ‘Speculation on viruses, cells and evolution’ Evol. Theor. 3 159-163 (1977)
3) M. Syvanen ‘Cross-species gene transfer: implications for a new theory of evolution’ J. Theor. Biol. 112 233-243 (1985)
4) Not used anymore.
5) M. Syvanen ‘Cross-species gene transfer: a major factor in evolution?’ Trends In Genetics 1-4 (1986) also on:
7) Examples of these mosaic structures, most likely acquired by the transformation mechanism, include the celY gene in Erwinia chrysanthemi, fimbrae genes of Bacteroides nodosus, the CO dehydrogenase from carboxydotrophic bacteria, capsule genes from Haemophilus influenzae, the M12 serotype of streptococci, and an amidase from Brevibacterium. The photosynthetic reaction centre genes from Rhodocyclus gelatinosus are a group, which includes the most recent common ancestor (clade) with comparable genes from ß purple bacteria. The nitrogenase Fe protein from Archaebacteria and a superoxide dismutase in Halobacterium involve archaebacterium and may represent horizontal transfers across organisms with are evolutionary only far related (have a distant phylogeny).
Mosaic patterns indicative of horizontal transfer have also been found in antibiotic resistance genes of Neisseria and Streptococcus. The diseases causing bacteria S. pneumoniae, N. meningitidis, and N. gonorrhoeae were originally sensitive, but are now resistant. Radstrom et al have published a similar mosaic pattern in the dihydropteroate synthase gene found in sulfonamide-resistant N. meningitides.
M. Syvanen ‘Horizontal Gene Transfer: Evidence and Possible Consequences’ Annu. Rev. Genet. 28237-261 (1994)
8) Not used anymore.
9) A. Bakker, S. Maloy ‘Horizontal Gene Transfer’
10) L. Stryer ‘Biochemistry’ Editor: W.H. Freeman and Company (1975)
11) U. Melcher ‘Horizontal Gene Transfer’ (2001)
12) Anonymous ‘Domain Archea’
13) H.G. Schlegel ‘General Microbiology’ Editor: Cambridge University Press (1986)
14) Personal Communications J. Tramper.
15) Mae-Wan Ho ‘Report on horizontal gene transfer – Department of Public Prosecution versus Gavin Harte and others, New Ross, Ireland’ (1999)
16) Mae-Wan Ho ‘Recent Evidence Confirms Risks of Horizontal Gene Transfer’ (2002)
17) Mae-Wan Ho ‘A Time & Place for Gene Transfer’ Lecture for the Independent Science Panel (2003-5-10)
18) Anonymous ‘Food Irradiation Information’
19) M. Zacharias ‘Food Radiation: Who’s Killing Who?’
20) Anonymous ‘Food Irradiation Frequently Answered Questions (FAQ!)
21) Anonymous ‘Debate and Policies on Labeling GM Foods’
22) Anonymous ‘Synthetic Genes: A Unique Collection of Chemically Synthesized Genes with No GpGs’
23) Not used anymore.
24) Not used anymore.
25) G.J.M. De Koning , H.M.M.Van Bilsen, P.J. Lemstra, W. Hazenberg, B. Witholt, H. Preusting, J.G. Van der Galiën, A. Schirmer, D. Jendrossek 'A biodegradable rubber by crosslinking polyhydroxyalkanoate) from Pseudomonas oleovorans' POLYMER, 35(10) 2090-2097 (1994)
26) My own webpage: J.G. Van der Galiën ‘Rise or Fall of Flora’s Realm’
Satoconor © 2011
1 comment(s) so far...
Re: The Wild-Type Gene Pool is in Jeopardy!
That is so true As an author and business man, I can relate to how you said "There is of course the fear that biohackers produce intentionally or unintentionally a so lethal DNA source code, which threatens the good functioning of the whole evolutionary program".I hope more people discover your blog because you really know what you're talking about. Can't wait to read more from you!
By Daniel Milstein on
Friday, January 06, 2012 6:29 PM
|