FishProfiles.com Message Forums

i mean, nature just likes to throw in that albino here and there

And they are then promptly eaten or die of disease. The only reason we get them for fishkeeping purposes in any large number is because we breed that trait into subsequent generations. In effect, we are playing with their genes.

i think that if you want a certain type of fish you should breed them naturally and see what you get that way

Almost all fish in the hobby have undergone some sort of artificial selection, usually in the form of selective breeding. How is a GM danio any different from these? Frankly, I think the danio is better off than some of the more extreme types of selective breeding, like insane flowerhorns, blood parrots, or some of the bigger HM bettas.

The problem is they put a segment of the jellyfish gene responsible for the glow into a segment of ZD or ricefish dna. The 2 different species hybrid. The japanese ones were sterilized before they were put onto they pet trade. Yes I know it isn't that uncommon for interspecific and intergeneric hybrids, but nature has a safe-guard against this problem. Most hybrids are naturally infertile. Take for example mules a cross of two different species, horse and donkey. Almost all mules are infertile, it is extremely rare to find one that isn't. While they survive and thrive they can't pass on their genes. Same with ligers or zonkies. But the difference in their genes is less than 1% so they can occur naturally. Now we talk about jurassic park which made a very valid argument. As we may recall they took dinosaur DNA and filled in the gaps with frog DNA. They were supposed to be all female so they couldn't reproduce but suprise, we all know what happened next. Those small segments allowed the females to reproduce asexually. Now I know this is just a movie but the creators did put some scientific fact into it. Same as a more recent movie as in I Am Legend. Where they're using possibilities of DNA splicing to create somewhat exagerated events, but the undertone is still there. Do we really know and understand what we're creating? Like I said the show I saw was on the Discovery Channel and the show was most likely a few years old. At that time researchers had no idea what would happen. And mightn't still. Our understanding at what genes do is still limited, how do we know that a gene that controls flourescense or pigmentation doesn't also control or affect some other section of DNA inside our little pets. Something imperceptible. But an unknowing change nonetheless. We're talking about putting genes from invertebrates that have had those genes for 650 million years into vertebrates who've only come about in the last millenia. Once you market them they become exposed to all sorts of variables, too many for scientists to properly predict in a lab. It could take just one mutation to start a chain reaction. One is allowing jelly diseases to have a bridge to fish. One of the reasons why humans have AIDS, chimpanzees who share over 99% of our DNA exposed us to a strain that mutated to fill the gap. Viruses bridge gaps all the time.
Sorry it's so long, I really like the subject.

Owner of 20g with 7 diamond tetras, 1 mosquito eater,& 1 lyretail molly.

The GM ricefish that were made infertile were produced by Taiwanese, not Japanese. Anyway, there is the off-chance that they become fertile, actually; I don't know for sure, but my bet is that they used triploidy to make them infertile, which means that they can function but have the wrong number of chromosomes for them to naturally pair up correctly when they try to reproduce. This is used in grass carp, for example, but there is still the off-chance that they can have some cells that switch back to normal diploidy and thus become able to reproduce.

It's true that we don't fully understand all the pathways of certain genes... That's actually quite an interesting point. Some genes have some functions that are unrelated and produce multiple results. It seems to me that the danger would be limited, though. Even in the unlikely chance that mutations make a "super" fish, this would actually just make their application as an aquarium fish even better. It's not like this is for intentional release into the outdoors like GM plants that we may worry become weeds.

As a small note, a GFP (green fluorescent protein) has been recently found in amphioxus-like animals, so glowing proteins do exist in our own phylum, not just among the cnidarians.

--------------------------------------------
The aquarist is one who must learn the ways of the biologist, the chemist, and the veterinarian.

Our understanding at what genes do is still limited, how do we know that a gene that controls flourescense or pigmentation doesn't also control or affect some other section of DNA inside our little pets.

This is a good point. Until recently, it was assumed that one gene coded for one protein, but we now know this is not the case. All in all, though, I don't think it is much of a concern. We've inserted a gene for insulin production into bacteria, but we don't have any superviruses that mutated to respond to the human insulin gene and infect us.

We're talking about putting genes from invertebrates that have had those genes for 650 million years

There is no evidence that the fluorescent gene(s) have been around that long.

into vertebrates who've only come about in the last millenia.

Fish have been around for, arguably, 530 million years. Jawed fish have been around for 400 million years.

One is allowing jelly diseases to have a bridge to fish. One of the reasons why humans have AIDS, chimpanzees who share over 99% of our DNA exposed us to a strain that mutated to fill the gap. Viruses bridge gaps all the time.

One single gene is not what allows a virus to infect a cell or not. DNA is DNA. A virus doesn't know a fluorescence gene from an insulin gene from a gene that gives you a congenital condition where you have excessive flatulence. Viruses look for specific nucleotide sequences where they can insert their DNA, and it would never be as long as a whole gene, especially one so specific as fluorescent proteins in jellyfish. Most restriction enzymes only have a 10 nucleotide sequence or less when looking for a splicing site. Of course, only lysogenic viruses even insert their genetic material into the host's genome. Lytic viruses just hijack cellular machinery to make new viruses quickly.

The organism's immune system and cell receptor sites are much more important for a viral infection than the actual contents of the DNA. Think about human infections. All human cells (except gametes and RBCs) contain the same DNA, yet viruses tend to infect one part of it. You don't get a cold in your thigh muscle, or have the flu in your elbow. There is something special in the cells that allow the infection and it can't be DNA.

I'm going to post more later, but I have to run some errands. I'm liking this discussion. It's very interesting.

Edit: I told a lie. Whoops! Now corrected.

I'm just saying that a jellyfish that's had those genes for however long being put into (sorry I shoulda been clearer, whoops), not bony fishes as a whole, but ricefish or ZD's. I did not know that about viruses. Also how many genes actually code to produce that pigmentation? Just wondering.
My bad on thinking it was from Japan , forgive me it's been a while since I've seen it. Actually I can't really remember what the show was on, it was good though

Owner of 20g with 7 diamond tetras, 1 mosquito eater,& 1 lyretail molly.

. As we may recall they took dinosaur DNA and filled in the gaps with frog DNA. They were supposed to be all female so they couldn't reproduce but suprise, we all know what happened next. Those small segments allowed the females to reproduce asexually

Actually that was done on purpose to make a statement about genetic altering being bad. The whole "what if it escapes" scenario. If a scientist was actually dimwitted enough to try to bring the dinos back(you know it'll likely happen one day ) they'd most likely have used a bird or a reptile. Not a frog.

I dunno, they aren't my cup of tea(though the green ones Are kinda cute, hehe), but I don't have a problem with them. I look at it this way. If they were turned loose, they'd probably all be eaten before they could cause a problem in the eco-system. Plus, as was mentioned before, they aren't dyed after birth. The eggs had the protein injected into them and the fish never knew what happened. Dying or injecting is painful and most of the time deadly, not to mention wearing off and not breeding true(if the fish lives that long >_> ) This just makes a different animal.

Of course I am still opposed to most genetic altering. It just seems like(to my pessimistic mind) that one day we'll be going the route of Hitler or Brave New World or some other system like that where every PERSON is selected for some random trait(can't parents already pay huge amounts of money to decide if they have a boy or a girl?) that people think is "better" than the rest and will be genetically altered to the point of barely being human anymore.

[url=http://dragcave.ath.cx/viewdragon/bNFR][/url]

im not against them but i think that a fishes natural color is more beautiful that smo glo stuff..but thats just my opinion if you want em go for it

i like feesh

i think in the proper set up some glo fish would look beautiful... with some black subsrtate an dark backround and some dark plant to make them POP!

however genetic engineering is either gonna hurt the species or help them... but in this case if let out into the wild will allow them to be eaten up by predators rather quickly...

and indefinatly dinosaurs will be brought back at one piont in time due to the advancements in genetic engineering, but hopefully after jurassic park they have a better idea of how to keep the animals sterile...!!!...

\\\\\\\"an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of the cure\\\\\\\"

As far as being eaten up rather quickly, in laboratory tests with largmouth bass(assuming being released in their native waters) they aren't preyed upon any more than the natural zebra danio. This might be the same for the zebra danio predators, I'm not sure.

Nature also has a way of warning predators as well. There's a common conception that bright colors is poisonous. Certain frogs would be an example, gives predators a red flag not to mess with them. This very well might not be the case with the GM zebra danios, testing a wide variety of fish/animals to their predation on them would be needed.

As far as dinosaurs go, I would think it would be hard to find DNA suitable to use and be able to splice with something with relatively close DNA. There was a science channel episode about a well preserved frozen mammoth a while ago and they touched the subject of crossing it with elephant's. They would then try to selectively breed out the elephant part. It would be interesting if they did manage something like or similiar, but I'm not sure where that path will lead next.

What does that mean, Bob? "Till the cows come home." Where have the cows been?

Well, I have enjoyed and respect all of your views and thoughts and opinions on this! I have 5 of the electric green, 3 of the starfire red, and 3 sunburst orange. I like the red and green ones a lot! They are all great eaters and very active, and fun to watch!

how many genes actually code to produce that pigmentation

Just one, there are several options ,the most commonly used is GFP (green fluorescent protein), one cDNA expressed under the control of a ubiquitiously (in most cells) expressed promoter/enhancer will do. Alternatively, you van unse something that will only express the protein in the skin. Another, also commonly used option is YFP (yellow fluorescent protein). the animasl expressing those genes are fine and their are usually lo detrimental side effects reported (mostly done in mice). No, the mice don't glow if viewed under normal light ...

Hope this helps