Transgenic primate poised to be new lab rat
Nature 27 May, has papers and editorial on the first transgenic primate that has passed on its transgene to the next generation (a transgene is the new or foreign gene inserted into the genome). (See abstract of Nature News article at GNTIS )
Achieving this opens the door to a better human disease model – better than the existing mouse anyway.
The primate in question is a marmoset, one that is genetically a long way from humans compared to macaques, the primate of choice at the moment for understanding human disease. The problem is that nobody has managed to get a transgenic macaque to pass on its genes, which is the important thing if you are trying to understand human disease, the genes involved and how they influence the disease and its progression through the generations, and to test drugs and other treatments on.
So the success with the marmoset has got a few people excited. There is concern that the marmoset’s brain is too primitive in primate terms to be much better than a mouse when investigating neuronal diseases or diseases such as Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s, but this has yet to be determined.
What I think may be the biggest hurdle is the ethical issue of genetically modifying a primate to have a human disease and purposely breeding these for research.
I am sure there will be a few people, and especially animal rights groups, seething once they digest the story. But we have managed to create transgenic human-disease models in mice. We have seemingly accepted this, however, if my very anecdotal evidence gathered from a few years of public engagement activities is anything to go by then we will be less inclined to accept such genetic tinkering with primates, even one such as the marmoset – which are small, cute and lacking many of the anthropomorphic characteristics of the higher primates.
And should the marmoset not prove particularly useful as a human disease model, we are already trying to repeat the outcome with macaques, so transgenic primates that are genetically closer to us won’t be too far away.
Why do we (if indeed we do) have an aversion to doing this sort of thing with higher primates – or any primate? And I am chasing something deeper than, “because they are like humans”.
Genetically, we are 80% the same as a mouse, or 66% the same as a fruit fly. Why don’t we get as upset when we create transgenic disease models from these species, generally speaking that is, as there are some people that are against this?
If there is a huge backlash against this, will that backlash remain, if the creation of such a transgenic primate can suddenly give us new insight into the understanding and treatment of human disease?
Me and my family are healthy, so I can easily sit back and say it is wrong simply based on what the bioethicist, Leon Kass coined, ‘the wisdom of repugnance’. Or as I prefer, the ‘Yuk factor’. This is where I feel something is wrong, but don’t know why. I know where he is coming from, but I don’t agree it is always a good ethical guide.
But I honestly can’t say, if my opinion would change should I or a family member was suddenly diagnosed with something, in which research using transgenic primates might reveal a successful treatment – even cure?
If we accept the marmoset in the same way we accept the mouse, will be accept the macaque? If we accept the macaque, would we accept the chimpanzee, our closet primate relative? How much and what are we prepared to sacrifice in our attempts to treat serious human disease? Just my rambling thoughts really on this, but it is a conversation that crops up on a regular basis to which I find myself struggling to establish a personal position on.
Jason Major
Manager, GNTIS
Reference:
Leon Kass: The New Republic, Vol 216, p.17
Proof, you are 80% related to a mouse
PLoS: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1000112
Science Daily: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090526202722.htm
Transgenic marmoset poised to become new lab rat
Extract from Nature 27 May: Japanese researchers have created the first transgenic primate, a marmoset, which has passed on its transgene to offspring. This has created the possibility of using these primates as human disease models.
See Nature 459, 515–516; 2009, and Nature 459, 523–527; 2009).
The researchers at the Central Institute for Experimental Animals in Kawasaki injected viral vectors with green fluorescent protein (GFP) into 91 marmoset embryos, then transferred the 80 healthy transgenic embryos to surrogate mothers. Five offspring were born, all of which expressed the glowing transgene in some features at some point during development. Most exciting, says Sasaki, was the birth in April of a male produced by conventional in vitro fertilization using one of the offspring’s sperm. Since then, two more glowing second-generation marmosets have been born.
Biomedical reseachers have long wanted primate models that can inherit and express introduced genes, as mice can. But passing transgenes to the next generation — the key to making a useful research model — had never been done.
The transgenic marmosets could move more quickly into disease modelling. Her first target is Parkinson’s disease, but she is considering amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and Huntington’s.
The question being raised is will marmosets a good enough model to assess human disease?
Transgenic primates such as these are also likely to face challenges from bioethicists and animal-rights groups over creating a colony of animals born with a disease.
DNA origami creates drug delivery vehicles
DNA origami creates drug delivery vehicles
Golden rice an effective source of vitamin A
Golden rice an effective source of vitamin A
Eureka Alert 13 May 2009
Synthetic biology gets ethical
Synthetic-biology is an emerging science that has the potential to bring forth public wrath in a fashion similar to GM crops or the links being made between nanotechnology and asbestos – see previous blog post on this.
Synthetic biology is essentially designing and building useful stuff from biological components, for example for biofuels or pharmaceuticals. This link is an example of how secondary students are getting involved in syn-bio research at Uni Melb’s Bio21 Institute
A research centre dedicated to syn-bio opening this week at Imperial College London wants to pre-empt public concerns by bringing in the social scientists at the start – a rare thing in any scientific endeavour or project. Normally the public engagement/communication is an afterthought: brought in when it all goes wrong or when its time to generate some nice PR fluff, though that is possibly being a bit harsh and I may be a touch cynical.
The Centre for Synthetic Biology and Innovation is the first publicly-funded UK centre dedicated to synthetic biology. Nature has a good report on it with links to more details about the science.
In regard to the public engagement and related social science Andrew Maynard said it well in one of the comments in the Nature story:
“This a serious attempt to place social issues and public outreach at the centre of synthetic biology research…It builds on a growing awareness that new technologies depend on more than just good science – social and policy concerns can break potentially beneficial advances if not addressed seriously from the start.”
I would agree, but we have yet to see what sort of public engagement is planned for this centre and whether that will ultimately have any influence on the direction of the research or related public policy, if indeed this is their aim. My question for Australian readers is how many of you would actually actively participate in any engagement process in this area of research? What level of engagement would you want, for example guided tours of the facilities, attendance at forums discussing the research, or its potential social implications and which direction it should take…? What would you expect from such engagement re: outcomes?
As someone trying to actively engage the public in emerging technologies the question is always, how do I do it (why am I doing it), what does the public expect and how does this translate to actually getting the public to engage? Do they even want to engage?
Jason Major
Manager, GNTIS
Scientists identify gene in breast cancer pathway
Scientists identify gene in breast cancer pathway
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-05/aeco-sig051209.php
The "Nano song"
It is the Muppets doing nano. OK, you aren’t going to come away with an in-depth understanding of nanotechnology but it is a cool and clever You Tube video that has got some seriously good ratings and massive viewings after it won a competition run by the American Chemical Society (ACS) to produce videos explaining “What is nano”. The producers of this winning video are graduate students at the University of California Berkeley.
For teachers of the upper primary and Years 7-9, this is a neat and entertaining way to introduce nanotechnology into the classroom.
Nanotech for clean water
SciDev Net has launched a series of articles and opinion pieces asking why and how nanotech can improve access to safe water and help meet development goals
It looks at the science, social, political, regulatory and ethical issues of doing the science and then transferring it to the communities.
For example, in South Africa scientists at the University of Johannesburg are developing a nanosponges to help solve a continent’s water contamination problems. The nano-sponge resembles a honeycomb containing pores just 1-2 nanometre across. The pores trap organic and inorganic pollutants from water as it passes through the sponge.
There are also some interesting thoughts on how, in rural communities in South Africa, applications of good science failed because scientists and governments didn’t communicate and engage the local communities effectively. Such situations are not exclusive, I think, to developing nations.
The Science and Development Network – is a not-for-profit organisation dedicated to providing reliable and authoritative information about science and technology for the developing world.
Jason Major
Gold nanoparticles target tumours
Gold nanoparticles target tumours