Member since: Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:27 PM
Number of posts: 2,117
Number of posts: 2,117
Nobody is genetically modifying the virus, they are using genes from the virus to modify the crops.
this shows that you either don't now how the process works or are deliberately pulling the wool over people's eyes for infernal purposes.
please explain how THIS, which is used to get the type VI, is not GE:
The gene can be isolated using restriction enzymes to cut DNA into fragments and gel electrophoresis to separate them out according to length. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) can also be used to amplify up a gene segment, which can then be isolated through gel electrophoresis. If the chosen gene or the donor organism's genome has been well studied it may be present in a genetic library. If the DNA sequence is known, but no copies of the gene are available, it can be artificially synthesized.
CaMV Type VI is a PROMOTER (just a RANDOM PART of the NATURAL CaMV virus) which is combined with YET ANOTHER organism and INJECTED INTO THE NUCLEI OF PLANT'S CELLS.
to say that this does not happen in nature is more than a bit of an understatement.
also please check the section in bold at the end of this post!
a short course-
CaMV is a promoter-
What is a 'promoter'?
A 'promoter' is a stretch of genetic material that acts as a switch for turning genes on. Every gene needs its own promoter. But the promoter is not a simple switch like that for an electric light, which has only two positions, either fully on or fully off. Instead, the gene promoter has many different parts or modules that act as sensors, to enable it to respond, in ways we do not yet fully understand, to signals from other genes and from the environment. These signals tell it when and where to switch on, by how much and for how long. And under certain circumstances, the promoter may be silenced, so that it is off all the time.
for things such as-
Molecular basis for the herbicide resistance of Roundup Ready crops
by T Funke - 2006 - Cited by 64 - Related articles
Aug 29, 2006 – Roundup Ready plants carry the gene coding for a glyphosate-insensitive form of this enzyme, obtained from Agrobacterium sp. strain CP4.
Bt-Corn: What It Is and How It Works | University of Kentucky ...
Jan 22, 2013 – In the case of Bt corn, the donor organism is a naturally occurring soil bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis, and the gene of interest produces a ...
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
LibertyLink is a Bayer owned brand of genes for use in agriculture providing tolerance to ignite herbicide and glufosinate (a.k.a. Liberty or Basta). The genes were developed by Bayer CropScience. LibertyLink is the only herbicide tolerant gene other than Roundup Ready on the market. Also, LibertyLink provides an herbicide resistance system that is still effective in the presence of glyphosate resistant weeds. The gene which gives resistance to glufosinate is a bar or pat gene which was first isolated from two species of Streptomyces bacteria. Glufosinate was included in a biocide ban proposed by the Swedish Chemicals Agency and approved by the European Parliament on January 13, 2009.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Streptomyces is the largest genus of Actinobacteria and the type genus of the family Streptomycetaceae. Over 500 species of Streptomyces bacteria have been described. As with the other Actinobacteria, streptomycetes are Gram-positive, and have genomes with high GC content. Found predominantly in soil and decaying vegetation, most streptomycetes produce spores, and are noted for their distinct "earthy" odor that results from production of a volatile metabolite, geosmin.
To search for strong promoters that confer constitutive expression of transgenes, we evaluated the
prornoters of an Arabidopsis tryptophan synthase protein ~ subunit gene (PTSB1) and a phytochrome B
gene (PPHYB) as alternatives to the 35S RNA promoter (P35S) of Caullflower mosaic virus.
Characteristics of the Soybean chrolotic mottle virus promoter (PNCR) were also studied for
The regulatory elements of CaMV have been used since the
1980s to express novel genes in plants;2 specifically, the 35S promoter
(P35S) and terminator are widely used in research and
plant biotechnology.3,4 The P35S is a strong constitutive promoter,
generating high levels of gene expression in dicotyledonous
plants. Of the 86 single transgenic plant events that have
been authorised in the United States, 54 contain one or more
copies of the CaMV P35S.5
Multiple variants of the Cauliflower mosaic virus 35S promoter (P35S) are used to drive the expression of transgenes in genetically modified plants, for both research purposes and commercial applications. The genetic organization of the densely packed genome of this virus results in sequence overlap between P35S and viral gene VI, encoding the multifunctional P6 protein. The present paper investigates whether introduction of P35S variants by genetic transformation is likely to result in the expression of functional domains of the P6 protein and in potential impacts in transgenic plants.
The CaMV promoter - a recipe for disaster?
THIS was the title of a scientific paper co-authored by myself and my colleagues, Angela Ryan from the Open University UK and Prof. Joe Cummins from the University of Western Ontario, Canada, and submitted to the journal Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease last October. The journal-s Editor, Prof. Tore Midtvedt, a distinguished medical microbial ecologist working in the Karolinska Institute of Sweden, promptly posted our paper on the journal's website before publication and put out a press release. Within two days, someone managed to solicit at least nine critiques, including one from Monsanto, which were posted on a website funded by the biotech industry and widely circulated on the Internet. The critiques varied in tone from the moderately polite to the ill-mannered.
Posted by farminator3000 | Sun Feb 10, 2013, 01:59 PM (1 replies)
"As a person that used to be involved in brokering deals like this, I can tell you that Monsanto wants to be front and center."
It has been estimated that upwards of seventy percent of processed foods in the US today - from soda to soup, crackers to condiments - contain genetically engineered ingredients.
What is of greater concern is that the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) that should be looking into GM labeling have kept quiet for most part. In an RTI response, filed by Greenpeace, the FSSAI under the Ministry of Health and family welfare, which is the nodal agency for labeling of GM food, had said that it is not looking after the labeling of GM food. In its response letter it was said that Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) under the Ministry of Environment and Forests, which is the nodal agency for any environmental release of GM crops, is responsible. And the GEAC in a RTI response at about the same period said the opposite, putting FSSAI as the agency in charge of labeling rules. (hmm....)
However, a large and growing body of scientific and other authoritative evidence shows that these claims are not true. On the contrary, evidence presented in this report indicates that GM crops:
Are laboratory-made, using technology that is totally different from natural breeding methods, and pose different risks from non-GM crops
Can be toxic, allergenic or less nutritious than their natural counterparts
Are not adequately regulated to ensure safety
Do not increase yield potential
Do not reduce pesticide use but increase it
Create serious problems for farmers, including herbicide-tolerant “superweeds”, compromised soil quality, and increased disease susceptibility in crops
Have mixed economic effects
Harm soil quality, disrupt ecosystems, and reduce biodiversity
Do not offer effective solutions to climate change
Are as energy-hungry as any other chemically-farmed crops
Cannot solve the problem of world hunger but distract from its real causes – poverty, lack of access to food and, increasingly, lack of access to land to grow it on.
“The decree is in the works. It introduces a complete ban on the MON810 strain of maize in Poland,” Sawicki told reporters, adding that pollen of this strain could have a harmful effect on bees.
Posted by farminator3000 | Thu Jan 10, 2013, 05:21 PM (0 replies)
Please show me a "murder rate" vs "gun possession" correlation plot. I'm interested to see it and open for what ever it shows.
the article is about the complexities of data. but just look at the top 5 and bottom 5.
there's obviously something there...
20 Deadliest Gun States
Jan 10, 2011 8:13 PM EST
You're five times more likely to die from a gun in Arizona than Hawaii. In the wake of the Giffords massacre, The Daily Beast ranks which states have the worst record of gun fatalities.
"...But advocates for gun laws argue that restrictions prevent suicides, gun trafficking and domestic violence. A study commissioned by Mayors Against Illegal Guns last year concluded that the states with the most lenient gun laws are responsible for the guns used in crimes across state lines at much higher rate than states with strict laws, concluding that "certain gun laws are an important component in reducing criminal access to firearms."..."
"Given the complexities involved in gun regulation and violence, The Daily Beast sought to determine which states are the most dangerous when it comes to firearms. Our methodology was simple: Rather than measure the number of guns, we measured the measure of gun deaths per capita in each state, using the most recent data available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That counted for 75 percent of the ranking. The other 25 percent was derived from the Legal Community Against Violence's state-by-state comparison of firearm laws, which ranks all 50 states by their relatively severity, incorporating everything from policies on mental-health background checks to whether loaded guns are allowed in bars."
Gun deaths per 100,000: 18.3
Permissive gun laws: 4th out of 50
Gun deaths per 100,000: 15
Permissive gun laws: 1st out of 50
Gun deaths per 100,000: 17.6
Permissive gun laws: 11th out of 50
Gun deaths per 100,000: 15.1
Permissive gun laws: 7th out of 50
Gun deaths per 100,000: 19.9
Permissive gun laws: 23rd out of 50
#46, New Jersey
Gun deaths per 100,000: 5.2
Permissive gun laws: 49th out of 50
Gun deaths per 100,000: 4.3
Permissive gun laws: 46th out of 50
#48, Rhode Island
Gun deaths per 100,000: 3.5
Permissive gun laws: 42nd out of 50
Gun deaths per 100,000: 3.6
Permissive gun laws: 48th out of 50
Gun deaths per 100,000: 2.8
Permissive gun laws: 47th out of 50
Posted by farminator3000 | Tue Jan 1, 2013, 01:33 PM (0 replies)
Go to Page: 1