Genetics Question

[JulianKeller]

What is the easiest way to alter DNA?

 

What is the easiest way to alter DNA to reproduce an improvement to the species?

 

Is it possible to play god and change an existing creature into something else or add onto it to give it some sort of enhancement? By existing I mean already born and living.

 

Do humans or any other creature on the planet have the ability to automatically resequences its DNA to mimic the abilities of those around it? Like can a crawfish learn to camouflage itself by watching an octopus. That's a weird example, but it gets what I really want to know out into the open.

 

Just some weird questions

[Larv]

What is the easiest way to alter DNA?

That most likely easiest way would be a single-nucleotide polymorhism.

 

What is the easiest way to alter DNA to reproduce an improvement to the species?

Generally speaking, natural selection would be the easiest way. But scientists will challenge you on what constitutes "an improvement." The right set of alleles for surviving an environmental change would be my idea of "an improvement," but that would result from genetic variation within a population's gene pool.

 

Is it possible to play god and change an existing creature into something else or add onto it to give it some sort of enhancement? By existing I mean already born and living.

Yes, it is possible. Evolution algorithms are one way this is being done.

 

Do humans or any other creature on the planet have the ability to automatically resequences its DNA to mimic the abilities of those around it? Like can a crawfish learn to camouflage itself by watching an octopus. That's a weird example, but it gets what I really want to know out into the open.

No creature has the ability to "automatically resequence" its DNA. Camouflage—say, by a crawfish—is a trait that is already enabled by the crawfish's DNA. A crawfish could not learn any new camouflage skills by watching an octopus; indeed, it might be eaten by the octopus before it knew what happened.

 

Just some weird questions

They're not too weird. Actually, they're good questions.

[Moontanman]

Quote:

Is it possible to play god and change an existing creature into something else or add onto it to give it some sort of enhancement? By existing I mean already born and living.

 

Yes, it is possible. Evolution algorithms are one way this is being done.

 

Larv I read this several times but I couldn't see how your link describes changing a living organism into something else.... Can you clarify this?

[Larv]

Larv I read this several times but I couldn't see how your link describes changing a living organism into something else.... Can you clarify this?

Ah, you’re very astute, Moontan. A better answer would have referred him to genetically modified organisms, instead of evolutionary algorithms.

[Moontanman]

Ah, you’re very astute, Moontan. A better answer would have referred him to genetically modified organisms, instead of evolutionary algorithms.

 

Ok, that is much closer to the question that previous one was but I still don't see how these techniques could be used to change an already living organism into something else. If I read this correctly these techniques can be sued to modify reproductive cells and bring about changes in subsequent organisms but nothing about changing an already living organisms into something else.

[Michaelangelica]

What is the easiest way to alter DNA?

For us?

or

for nature?

[freeztar]

Ok, that is much closer to the question that previous one was but I still don't see how these techniques could be used to change an already living organism into something else. If I read this correctly these techniques can be sued to modify reproductive cells and bring about changes in subsequent organisms but nothing about changing an already living organisms into something else.

 

Is it possible to play god and change an existing creature into something else or add onto it to give it some sort of enhancement?

 

Moontanman is correct that there is not currently any practical way to alter an already existing organisms DNA to create new "additions". This theme is popularized in many graphic novels and sci-fi films. ("Spiderman" and "The Fly" come to mind)

 

I wouldn't discount the possibility, but it seems unlikely any time in the near future. It's much more likely that we will start cloning body parts and surgically adding those, perhaps with some wiring connected to nerves. Of course, that's already in the works. B)

[Larv]

Moontanman is correct that there is not currently any practical way to alter an already existing organisms DNA to create new "additions". This theme is popularized in many graphic novels and sci-fi films. ("Spiderman" and "The Fly" come to mind)

 

I wouldn't discount the possibility, but it seems unlikely any time in the near future. It's much more likely that we will start cloning body parts and surgically adding those, perhaps with some wiring connected to nerves. Of course, that's already in the works. B)

An extant organism can be genetically modified by way of horizontal gene transfer:

 

Horizontal gene transfer (HGT), also Lateral gene transfer (LGT), is any process in which an organism incorporates genetic material from another organism without being the offspring of that organism. By contrast, vertical transfer occurs when an organism receives genetic material from its ancestor, e.g. its parent or a species from which it evolved. Most thinking in genetics has focused upon vertical transfer, but there is a growing awareness that horizontal gene transfer is a highly significant phenomenon, and amongst single-celled organisms perhaps the dominant form of genetic transfer. Artificial horizontal gene transfer is a form of genetic engineering.

This is more commonly done by prokaryotic organisms, but eukaryotes have also been modified by HGT. In either case, once a horizontally transferred gene has been implanted into different species of organism it may or may not become reproductively active, at which point vertical transfer could occur.

[HydrogenBond]

Another way to do this, is to induce genes that are already there, but which are not being used. As a living example, the transition from childhood to sexual maturity causes a number of latent genes to become active at a given time. The baby will not grow a beard even if this is in the DNA. These genes become active on cue, later.

 

It is possible genes of the past and maybe even some for the future are already there, but don't have a genetic cue to become active. If we could trigger that cue, it would look like we just altered the DNA, without really altering the genetic content.

[Getting A Life]

"Do humans or any other creature on the planet have the ability to automatically resequences its DNA to mimic the abilities of those around it?"

 

Yes.

 

Elysia chlorotica. This sea slug grazes photosynthetic algae, it incorporates the plastid and some DNA and begins to photosynthesise itself. It does not use the whole chloroplast, it begins making proteins for photosynthesis within it's own body. It can go for lengths of time not needing other nutrition or needing significantly less.

 

Then there are Heterostigina and other Foraminifera protist genera that sequester chloroplasts that then function within them. Some even grow without the need to ingest other food.

 

Experiments have developed unique models with prevously unassociated chloroplasts and protists combined in the lab making photosynthetic (single celled) animals.

 

Imagine photosynthetic livestock. No more fertiliser pollution to grow grain/grass for them, massively increased production:cost ratios.

:)

[HydrogenBond]

When humans go from childhood to adulthood, there are certain genes in the DNA that are dormant until there is a trigger. A baby boy will rarely grow a beard, even if he has the genes in the DNA that allows this capability. These require a certain trigger before these genes become manifest.

 

Although this may be hard to prove, it seems logical that humans still contain genes from their evolutionary past and maybe even genes for the future (genetic drift) that lie dormant, simply because there is no trigger at this time or the trigger was lost to make room for other genetic capacity.

[freeztar]

Elysia chlorotica. This sea slug grazes photosynthetic algae, it incorporates the plastid and some DNA and begins to photosynthesise itself. It does not use the whole chloroplast, it begins making proteins for photosynthesis within it's own body. It can go for lengths of time not needing other nutrition or needing significantly less.

 

I checked out the wiki on this slug:

Elysia chlorotica - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

It does not mention DNA manipulation at the organism level (sans reproduction). It seems that larv hit the nail on the head with HGT.

 

Although Elysia chlorotica are unable to synthesize their own chloroplasts, the ability to maintain the chloroplasts acquired from Vaucheria litorea in a functional state indicates that Elysia chlorotica must possess photosynthesis-supporting genes within its own nuclear genome; most likely acquired through horizontal gene transfer.[4] Since chloroplast DNA alone encodes for just 10% of the proteins required for proper photosynthesis, scientists investigated the Elysia chlorotica genome for potential genes that could support chloroplast survival and photosynthesis. The researchers found a vital algal gene, psbO (a nuclear gene encoding for a manganese-stabilizing protein within the photosystem II complex[4]) in the sea slug's DNA, identical to the algal version. They concluded that the gene was likely to have been acquired through horizontal gene transfer, as it was already present in the eggs and sex cells of Elysia chlorotica.

 

So, it's not incorporated into the DNA as the slug feeds on Vaucheria litorea. The genes encoding the photosynthetic abilities in the slug (by incorporating chloroplasts) is already there, via HGT (at some distant point in the past). I could be misinterpreting it, but from the last sentence of the wiki quote, it seems that it was acquired some time in the past and is now a part of the slug genome that gets passed down through reproduction. It's a marvelous example of symbiosis!

 

The biggest questions now are, How and when did the HGT take place?

[Getting A Life]

The wiki doesn't mention the gene transfer no, but further studies are most revealing, wiki's in need of an update methinks...

 

Taken so many damn notes this year I'm having trouble with the filing/finding of....

 

Ahah! Mary Rumpho - lead scientist on E chlorotica study...

 

"Slug has incorporated key gene for photosynthesis from the algae into it's own DNA."

 

Then there's this tidbit from way back...

 

Sept 69 Science vol 165 no 3898 pp 1128-1131. DOI: 10.1126/science 165.3898.1128.

 

"Mouse fibroblasts in suspension culture incorporated isolated chloroplasts of spinach and african violets and isolated mitochondria of chicken liver. The organelles resided in the cytoplasm and were not contained by vacuoles and digestion vesicles. Green (cells with chloroplasts) cells divided like normal cells. Green cells were followed for 5 divisions at which time hybrid cells were greatly outnumbered by non-green progeny cells. Ingested chloroplasts maintained their structural integrity.

 

Pretty impressive for 1969. I was 2 years old then and working on fecal contamination of cotton substrates. :)

 

As chloroplasts and mitochondria come with their own DNA the incorporation of these organelles is a type of indirect gene transfer - one organism utilising at least the products of another organisms genes. But good old E chlorotica went one step further.