wild-type gene
pool
The wild-type gene pool is an endangered species!
This because there are the mechanisms of horizontal gene transfer and vertical
gene transfer of exons from genetic engineering. 60 - 75% of our food already comes
from genetic manipulation crops. The monocultures of these GM crops are a
source of antibiotic resistance genes, ready for horizontal gene transfer and
vertical gene transfer.
SATOCONOR.COM
J.G. van der Galiën ‘The Wild-Type Is An Endangered
Species!’ 3.4. (2004)
Communications to
the editor
SATOCONOR.COM Journal of Biotechnology
The Wild-Type Is An Endangered
Species!
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
For
comments: johan.van.der.galien@satoconor.com
Abstract:
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 of it 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 cells of other species. This
cross-species gene transfer was formerly part of the mechanisms of natural
evolution. But since the era of genetic manipulation (GM) this mechanism is
also used for spreading engineered 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. (It is estimated that 60-75% of our food already
has ingredients that come from GM crops.) 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, especially for Biotechnology, who always will want
to study how natural evolution tackled certain problems. Biotechnology should
be more a fundamental Science and less a commercial enterprise! Until it is so
refined that it can function with no environmental consequences.
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 the whole 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 can 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) Wild-type gene pool: The state of biodiversity in
natural evolution. This is endangered more as manipulated evolution progresses.
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, out
of necessity, 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 that are not of the same species. In which information
travels through the generations as the cell divides. Horizontal gene transfer
is a kind of interspecies 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 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 the uniformity in antibiotic markers found in GM crops, also spread through cross 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 can rearrange themselves occasionally in to new genes whereby the ‘Survival of the Fittest’ begins again.6 The mosaic genes are expressed as so called, not surprisingly, mosaic proteins. It seems to be so that the different modules of the mosaic proteins comes from exons shuffled among the genes that make up the genome in prokaryotes (they have no introns). And that in eukaryotes the mosaic exons are embedded and shuffled around in intron regions. I make this up from Reference 4 from which I quote: “….The segmental nature of these (my addition: mosaic) proteins indicates that the different modules have had different origins during the evolution of the genome. Many modules correspond to one exon (expressed sequence in a gene). It appears that mosaic proteins are the result of the duplication of exons and their shuffling between different genes. This is more likely to occur successfully in eukaryotic cells, because of the occurrence of introns (intervening, ie unexpressed sequences), in which cleavage and splicing can occur. Mosaic proteins are particularly abundant in vertebrates. In prokaryotes, gene fusion must be precise in order to preserve the reading frame of the nucleic acid. In some bacteria the enzymes involved in trp (my addition: amino acid tryptophan = trp) synthesis are all encoded in different genes, whereas E. coli has two bifunctional polypeptides, each the result of the fusion of two genes….”4 One can say popular that 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 gene. 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. Syvanen is regarded as the expert in the world when it comes down to cross-species gene transfer. But he does not see the dangers of transferring manipulated genes through this mechanism. I quote from Reference 24: “…If these speculations were true, it would make more sense to defend the transgenic crop industry (my addition: underline) by arguing that gene transfer is a natural phenomena than by arguing that it does not occur….” He continues, “…As is well-documented throughout this book, we can infer numerous cases cross-species gene transfers from the whole genome sequencing studies. However, this does not necessarily mean that the frequency of transfer is high enough for gene transfer on the farm may to occur….” Of course cross-species transfer is a phenomenon reserved for natural evolution it has no place in manipulated evolution! J But how can organisms tell the difference? L Do you see the contradiction in these quotes: Cross-species transfer can be observed in Nature but it does not happen in Nature! But hopefully there is severe opposition, to these weird ideas of Syvanen, from Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, to be found on the internet.8 I will tell all about her work later on.
But now back again to horizontal gene transfer:
There are more facts to be found on the internet, between 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. 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. 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 domain is called Eubacteria like in reference 11. So that’s where the
words archeal genomes and eubacteria come from.
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. This
is experimental evidence for genuine cross-species gene transfers!
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 and then into the chromosomes.
4) Vector (for example Agrobacter
tumefaciens): 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 then 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 you: 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: There are 109/6
substrings of 6 base pair length in the genome, and there are 46
combinations possible of these substrings from the four nucleotides (bases) A,
C, G and T. This brings us to 109/(6*46) = 40690 possible
sites on the chromosomes in which the foreign DNA can be inserted. So there is
a plethora of 40690 side effects to be expected! 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 some of the callus
cells. 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.31 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.) There have been considerable 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.) An “optimal” gene transfer frequency of 6.2 * 10-2 was found in a laboratory
experiment with transgenic potato to a bacterial pathogen.15 (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".
Lets say for the sake of argument that only one cell gets infected’ for
“natural conditions” then the number of ‘Total Amount Of Cells Subjected’ for
“natural conditions” 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. And yet only one cell gets infected! This
would also require at least 10,000 * 80 =
Vectors like Agrobacter tumefaciens are
very difficult to get rid of. This illustrated by the fact that after treatment
with an armoury of antibiotics in combination with subculturing over a period
of 13 month the Agrobacter tumefaciens was still present.8
This is of course THE method to create a super multiple antibiotic resistant
micro organism through selection stress. And planting such super Agrobacter
containing crops on a large scale is of course THE method of spreading multiple
antibiotic resistant genes world wide.
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.
To summarize this and other health risks of
horizontal gene transfer within manipulated evolution:15
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 in the flora and fauna.
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.
All this means loss of human lives, loss of
specimens of other organisms and this will finally result in loss of
biodiversity accelerated by eutrophication.
One reason for the development of cancer in the
cells of recipient of horizontal gene transfer could well be the CaMV 35S
promotor (a DNA sequence from viruses). 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 it.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 spreads from the roots of the plant to other parts, get
genetically infected by recombinant viruses or bacteria like Agrobacter
tumefaciens. For animal and insect sperm and ova cells infection could also
come from eating GM crops. The animals could 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 yet to
be discovered, 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 in their biotope (eutrophication).
Leading to loss of biodiversity because the overgrown plants will become
extinct. An analogous mechanism as described by me for carbon dioxide
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 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 gum like 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. You
see: Biotechnology can also work in favour of the wild-type gene pool.
What is GREENPEACE
stand point in all of this? Well genetic engineering is a hot topic for them. I
downloaded 4 of their reports on this subject.27-30 Although I did
not see the terms cross-species and horizontal gene transfer or the works of
Dr. Mae-Wan Ho on antibiotic resistance spreading mentioned, they do treat a
subject called GM contamination. This comes of course very, very close! They
follow painstaking the governmental and scientific endeavours in this field:
Outcrossing of GM crops with wild species is regarded
by 250 scientists as increasingly common GM contamination.
An example is GM canola contaminated non-GM canola
nearby and there was also interbred with a weed (a wild-type relative of canola).
Such kind of processes could lead to super weeds.28 GREENPEACE also warns for the effect of insect
resistance GM crops on non-target beneficial organisms.29
To conclude this article some thoughts to summarize:
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 in 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. And eutrophication can happen, after
horizontal and vertical gene transfers, in every
I hope I made clear that I am not anti-Biotechnology.
As a mater a fact I hope to get work in Systems Biology. This science tries to
make emulations of organisms in a computer. Systems 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. Our last
rainforests are a treasure chamber full of not exploited pharmaceuticals and
other chemicals and materials to be used for the benefit of Mankind. We must
prevent the spreading of manipulated genes through horizontal and vertical
transfer in our rainforests! Remember: This is also in the best interests of
Biotechnology who always will want to study how natural evolution tackled
certain problems.
GREENPEACE is right
in calling nowadays Genetic Engineering a crude technology. Like living on a
Flat Earth. We should wait with large-scale applications of Biotechnology until
the craft has refined and takes ALL environmental implications in to
consideration.
Now the Box, Pandora’s Box, has been opened let the
Biotechnology establishment see, for the love of Zeus, how to get all the
plaques back in the Case!!!!!! In this article I gave them at least some
measures to begin with.
-o0o-
Notes & References:
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 it 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: Tramper J. ‘Moderne biotechnologie: Een doos van pandora?’ Introduction
in Dutch:
http://www.nvon.nl/nvox/nvox2002/inhd0902.htm#445
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) Hartman H. ‘Speculation on viruses, cells and evolution’ Evol.
Theor. 3 159-163 (1977)
3) Syvanen M. ‘Cross-species gene transfer: implications for a new
theory of evolution’ J. Theor. Biol. 112 233-243 (1985)
4) Anonymous ‘Mosaic proteins’
http://www.med.unibs.it/~marchesi/pps97/course/section10/mosaic.html
5) Syvanen M. ‘Cross-species gene transfer: a major factor in
evolution?’ Trends In Genetics 1-4 (1986) also on:
http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/vme/hgt/TrendsInGeneticspp1-4yr1986.PDF
6) Daneholt B. ‘The Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine
http://www.nobel.se/medicine/laureates/1993/presentation-speech.html
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.
Syvanen M. ‘Horizontal gene transfer: Evidence and possible
consequences’ Annu. Rev. Genet. 28 237-261 (1994) also on:
http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/vme/hgt/AnnuRevGenVol28pp237-261yr1994.PDF
8) Mae-Wan Ho ‘Averting sense for nonsense in horizontal gene transfer’
http://www.gmsciencedebate.org.uk/topics/forum/pdf/0067d.pdf
9) Bakker A., Maloy S. ‘Horizontal gene transfer’
http://www.life.uiuc.edu/micro/316/topics/genetic-exchange/exchange/exchange.html
10) Stryer L. ‘Biochemistry’ W.H. Freeman and Company (1975)
11)
http://opbs.okstate.edu/~melcher/MG/MGW3/MG334.html
12) Anonymous ‘Domain archea’
http://trishul.sci.gu.edu.au/courses/ss13bmm/Archaea.pdf
13) Schlegel H.G. ‘General microbiology’ Cambridge University Press
(1986)
14) Not used.
15) 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. Mae-Wan Ho
‘Report on horizontal gene transfer – Department of Public Prosecution versus
Gavin Harte and others, New Ross, Ireland’ (1999)
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/ireaff99.php
16) Mae-Wan Ho ‘Recent evidence confirms risks of horizontal gene transfer’
(2002)
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/FSAopenmeeting.php
17) Mae-Wan Ho ‘A time & place for gene transfer’ Lecture for the
Independent Science Panel (2003-5-10)
http://www.indsp.org/MaeWanHo.php
18) Anonymous ‘Food irradiation information’
http://www.pure-food.com/food.htm
19) Zacharias M. ‘Food radiation: Who’s killing who?’
http://www.naturalrearing.com/ARTICLES/MarinaZacharias/FOODRADIATION.html
20) Anonymous ‘Food irradiation frequently answered questions (FAQ!)
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/foodirradiation.htm#whatis
21) Anonymous ‘Debate and policies on labeling GM foods’
http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/kabernd/seminar/2004/GMevents/NH/NH.html
22) Anonymous ‘Synthetic genes: A unique collection of chemically
synthesized genes with no GpGs’
http://www.invivogen.com/CpG/CpG_genelist.htm
23) Not used.
24) Syvanen M., Kado C.I. ‘Horizontal Gene Transfer’ 2e
Edition Academic Press
25) De Koning G.J.M., Van Bilsen H.M.M., Lemstra P.J., Hazenberg W., Witholt
B., Preusting H., Van der Galiën J.G., Schirmer A., Jendrossek D. 'A
biodegradable rubber by crosslinking polyhydroxyalkanoate) from Pseudomonas
oleovorans' POLYMER 35(10) 2090-2097 (1994)
26) Van der Galiën J.G. ‘Rise or fall of flora’s realm’ Scientia
Araneae Totius Orbis 1.3. (2002)
http://www.satoconor.com/biotopia/biotopia.html
27) Stabinsky D., Rosset P. ‘GMOs and hunger – the false link’
GreenPeace (2003)
http://www.greenpeace.org/international_en/reports/more-reports?archived=&campaign_id=&start=3
28) Anonymous ‘Precaution before profits’ GreenPeace (2003)
http://www.greenpeace.org/international_en/reports/more-reports?archived=&campaign_id=&start=3
29) Anonymous ‘Environmental dangers of insect resistant Bt crops’
GreenPeace (2002)
http://www.greenpeace.org/international_en/reports/more-reports?archived=&campaign_id=&start=3
30) Anonymous ‘Genetic engineering: living on a flat earth’ GreenPeace
http://www.greenpeace.org/international_en/reports/more-reports?archived=&campaign_id=&start=3
31) Vines R. ‘Plant biotechnology’ Virginia Cooperative Extension
(2002)
http://www.ext.vt.edu/pubs/biotech/443-002/443-002.html