South Korean scientists led by Kong Il-keun of Gyeongsang National University have cloned Turkish Angora cats that glow in the dark. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Not just for fun, though. Their logic is that since cats share some 250 genetic diseases with humans, the ability to clone cats with the modified fluorescence gene, could be used to create animal models for those genetic diseases. Cool! http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22916798-663,00.html
It doesn’t. The cloning of a new animal by nuclear transfer affords the opportunity to genetically modify the cloned animal in the process. The insertion of a gene encoding a fluorescent protein is merely a ‘proof-of-principle’ experiment that demonstrates that the process works, that the genetic modification manifests itself as expected and that the transgenic animals are viable. Once this has been established scientists can attempt to engineer other genetic modifications that create a disease state analogous to a human disease. These transgenic animals then become a model for new treatments and drugs. Having said all that, I am deeply distressed at the thought of experimentation on cats and dogs. It is widespread and common, unfortunately.
but there is a whole slew of animals they have done this too. Why keep doing it? :shrug: Yeah yeah , it can be done. Move on already. When are they gonna start doing it to humans?
That's what I wanna know.. Freakin human hypocrites.. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Because the reproductive biology of different animals is… different. The precise techniques for cloning by nuclear transfer need to be adjusted and tweaked for different animals. You need to perform a proof-of-principle experiment for every animal you intend to use as a transgenic model. Fluorescent reporter genes are nearly always used as they are very convenient for such experiments. What’s that supposed to mean? You can do better? Do such achievements bore you? :bugeye: Not any time soon because of the ethical and moral implications. But you knew that already……
Yes it does bore me. After doing stuff like this to mice, cats, pigs, fish, etc its time to either piss or get off the pot. Are they just gonna keep doing animals til they work their way up to elephants or are they gonna do something useful with it? Glow in the dark cats seems like show and tell not useful science. Why not make a hemophiliac cat non-hemophiliac? :shrug:
Completely agree. They should stop fucking around and do something useful. And I love that quote 'it's time to either piss or get off the pot'., Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
and that's what I mean. Is it for any good reason or is it just a pissing match to see who can make the biggest glowing animal? How many years til we have a glowing dog, all in the name of human health advancement of course. ?
Hercules already answered this. Before now, we weren't able to do this type of genetic modification with cats. Since we couldn't do this, we couldn't "fix" the genetic mutation that will cause hemophilia. Now that they can, however, we will be able to start working on potential treatments for genetic illnesses. Genetically modifying and cloning a mouse does not equal genetically modifying and cloning a cat. They are not the same achievement.
They haven't done anything useful with animal testing? Why do you think your lower intestine doesn't fall out your arse whenever you take a certain medicine? Why your face doesn't melt off when you put a certain brand of soap on it?
I'm not against animal testing. I just don't understand the big whoop-dee-do about glowing cats. They could have done something else, but it wasn't as flashy or headline grabbing as a glow in the dark cat. They already have a glow in the dark mouse and see through frogs. Those see through frogs, they supposedly made those so they can watch tumors grow without having dissect them. (penny wise, pound foolish I say)
... The glow-in-the-dark part is simply a signal to us that the genetic modification was successful. Nothing more, nothing less. Until this point, we haven't been able to successfully modify the genome of a cat and have the cloned organism mature. Now we have, so we can begin working on the genetic disease portion.
A ridiculous attitude that is indicative of a lack of understanding of scientific research. You think scientists intentionally waste time instead of “doing something useful”? Grow up. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And what makes you think that scientists want to use elephants as any sort of human disease model? You’re wrong. I explained why scientists make glowing animals. Clearly you didn’t read it or make any attempt to understand it so I’ll say it again. Please pay attention this time. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Since the cloning of Dolly the sheep in 1996 it has been possible to clone whole animals using somatic cells from an adult organism. Since Dolly, scientists have cloned: Other sheep Goats Cows/bulls/steers Horses Mice Rabbits Pigs Dogs Cats …and more However, reproductive and gestational biology differs between animals. This requires the precise processes involved in cloning to be tweaked and refined for each new species of animal. In effect, the process needs to be empirically determined for each new species. For example, after 10 years of effort, primates have proven impossible to clone until November of this year when a monkey was finally cloned, whereas other animals have proven to be much easier to clone. But why do scientists want to clone animals in the first place? Because by cloning an animal you are able to also introduce a genetic modification in the process. This opens up the possibility of creating a disease model (ie. an animal that exhibits a human-like disease that can be used as a model for researching new treatments and drugs). But trying to introduce a genetic modification during the cloning process is another whole ball game compared to cloning alone. To a large extent the genetic modification strategy needs to be empirically determined for each new species as well as the cloning strategy. Because it is very tricky to both clone and genetically modify an animal, scientists first attempt to clone/modify using fluorescent reporter genes. This is an important validation step for the genetic modification of that species. Just because scientists can make a glowing pig doesn’t mean they can make a glowing sheep. Just because scientists can make a glowing rabbit doesn’t mean they can make a glowing dog. Just because scientists can make a glowing mouse doesn’t mean they can make a glowing cat. Get it??? There needs to be validation for each new species. That’s exactly the sort of thing they will be trying to do! Now that the cloning and GM process for cats has been validated using fluorescent reporter genes, the next step is to introduce other genetic modifications in cats to create a disease models, such as hemophilia. Another ridiculous attitude that is indicative of a lack of understanding of scientific research. No, it’s not a case of being “beaten to it”. See explanation above. Just because someone made fluorescent mice does not mean that they can automatically make fluorescent cats. No, it isn’t just a “pissing match”. Making fluorescent animals serves an important and useful purpose as described above. Your ill-informed attempt at sarcasm aside, given that dogs are used as a human disease model I expect that sometime in the near future scientists will make glowing dogs. And yes, it will be a stepping-stone for human health advancement. See above. It’s not about being flashy or grabbing headlines. It's the media that makes it seem that way. The media makes it seem as thought it's an end-point and a end unto itself. It's not, it's an important part of learning how to genetically modify animals. Do you understand that now?
One example of a disease model where dogs are useful is cancer. http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v24/n9/full/nbt0906-1065b.html If you use a dog as an animal model for cancer a lifetime is a shorter period than if you use humans.
