Fluorescent puppy is world's first transgenic dog

newscientist ^ | 23 April 2009 | Ewen Callaway

[JoeProBono]

A cloned beagle named Ruppy – short for Ruby Puppy – is the world's first transgenic dog. She and four other beagles all produce a fluorescent protein that glows red under ultraviolet light. A team led by Byeong-Chun Lee of Seoul National University in South Korea created the dogs by cloning fibroblast cells that express a red fluorescent gene produced by sea anemones. Lee and stem cell researcher Woo Suk Hwang were part of a team that created the first cloned dog, SnuppyMovie Camera, in 2005. Much of Hwang's work on human cells turned out to be fraudulent, but Snuppy was not, an investigation later concluded. This new proof-of-principle experiment should open the door for transgenic dog models of human disease, says team member CheMyong Ko of the University of Kentucky in Lexington. "The next step for us is to generate a true disease model," he says.

[AUH2O Repub]

Big difference between NATURALLY OCCURING viruses and man-made manipulation of human genetics. UNNATURAL, IMMORAL AND ANTI-GOD. Man was made in God’s image! What makes you think you have the right to change that? Why are you even on this forum? White tower academics aren’t exactly the most conservative of folks, but fit right in with the Obama administration. I suppose you approve of his removing all rules from using babies to supply your precious stem cells also?

[exDemMom]

Sounds like you are one of those with too much education. So if it's ok to mess with the genetic make-up of animals and you think it will lead to treatment of disease in humans, do you believe in messing with the genetic make-up of humans also. Man was made in God's image, there will be Godly repercussions when we start trying to change that.

We do these manipulations with animals because we absolutely cannot do the same things to humans. What we learn from working with animals gives us very valuable insights into human physiology, that we use to develop the therapies that will be used 5,10,15 years down the road.

In no way do I support the creation of genetically modified humans, nor does anyone I know. How do you make that assumption from anything I've said? Are you one of those PETA fanatics who morally equates humans and animals?

[exDemMom]

If I were going to be introducing a retro-virus into a tumor as you described, I think I’d program it with some means of killing the tumor. For instance, I’d tell it to turn off an essential tumor gene. If I want to visualize tumor cells, I think I’d use something other than a retrovirus, like some sort of fluorescent dye that binds only to the tumor cells.

Science is such fascinating stuff. ;-)

[fieldmarshaldj]

Was that the item that was in the briefcase in “Pulp Fiction” ?

[Salamander]

Go to your room and don’t come out until you repent for posting that.

http://www.wspa-usa.org/index.cfm

[shibumi]

In memory of Oliver Reed -

“I will not recant!”

(By the way ..... I know *you* are well intentioned, but most of those international animal welfare groups are commie fronts. Note the “UN - We Believe” logo on their page. The same - or worse - with the HSUS.)

[mysterio]

Cute little pup. They have been doing this with mice for some time now.

[JoeProBono]

Yup.

[Rebel_Ace]

"...I think I’d program it with some means of killing the tumor..."

Actually, so would I. I was trying to think of a practical application of the specific "glow in the dark" gene that was mentioned in the puppy article. You know, to give a concrete example of a beneficial use of the specific "weird" effect being produced.

Since I am neither a biochemist or doctor, this was the first thing I could think of off the top of my head. I am certain that better minds than mine could do a better job.

"...Science is such fascinating stuff. ;-) "

Indeed it is.

[Rebel_Ace]

"...What makes you think you have the right to change that?..."

I wear glasses to correct for faulty vision. I am nearsighted, due to imperfections in my body's "blueprint" for building my eyes. My eyes are built using instructions that make them the wrong shape for proper focusing.

Some people I know have had laser surgery to correct these physiological defects. Are they "sinning"?

Some people I know are lucky enough to have spot on "perfect" vision. I suppose their eyes must be more "Godly" than mine. Hey, that sparks a thought: If I could figure out which genes were responsible for perfect sight, and get the "correct" instructions into my cellular structure, would my corrected eyes be more "Godly" if they then matched the "perfect" design of my more fortunate friends with good eyesight? I am not talking about X-Ray vision, or infra-red sight, just copying the "correct" instructions from a "more Godly" human being.

Would this be wrong and immoral to match the genetic structure of a properly functioning human being?

Would it be wrong and immoral to "fix" a defective pancreas, to get it to produce insulin properly, and cure a diabetic?

Would it be wrong and immoral to correct the structure of a defective heart, enabling a young child to grow up healthy and active?

You seem quite sure of your moral position, but I can tell you that if my son were to have a congenital heart defect that could be corrected with genetic treatment, I would sign the consent forms.

"...Why are you even on this forum?..."

I wish to keep abreast of current events as they relate to political matters, and to occasionally join in discussions of topics that interest me. Does this bother or offend you? Have I been rude, obscene or disrespectful to you? Have I posted things to you that were personal attacks, or called you names? If you expect everyone on this forum or any other to agree with you in lockstep, you will be disappointed, regardless of the topic.

"...White tower academics aren’t exactly the most conservative of folks..."

I've been called a lot of things, but a "white tower academic" is a new one for me. If you must know, I hold a Bachelor's of Science in Computer Science, earned way back in 1986. I did post grad work for about 2 years off and on, but never completed my Masters. I run a small software business, and have been self employed since 1992. I wake up each day and struggle with meeting payroll for myself and my staff. I have to deliver "real world" products to "real world" customers on time and within budget. I can assure you that my life is a far cry from some cloistered, ivory tower existence that you seem to imagine.

"...but fit right in with the Obama administration..."

I would not last 15 seconds in any capacity in the Obama (or probably any other) administration. I am stunned by your unsupported conclusions.

"...I suppose you approve of his removing all rules from using babies to supply your precious stem cells also?..."

No, I do not. The topic of this article:
(1) Was about experiments performed on TEST ANIMALS, not people.
(2) Was NOT about stem cells at all.

Again, I am stunned by your unsupported conclusions.

I am a person that believes in limited government, lower taxes and liberty for citizens. This does not mean I look at the advances of science as some sort of Frankenstein abomination. If this makes me some "flaming liberal" in your eyes, well, so be it.

[AUH2O Repub]

Comparing wearing glasses and laser surgery with genetic manipulation? Maybe “education” should be balanced with both common sense and reading the Bible.

[Sensei Ern]

Cool! Pandora’s Tool Box!

[Sensei Ern]

“We have to stop these people from trying to play God. “

I understand the concern. THey are messing with stuff that could cause disease that we have no cure for. But, they will do it somewhere. If we stop it, they will find a country that wants the possible advantages, without the restraint, and then we’ll have big problems.

They can’t play God. He does His creations out of nothing. These scientists are only altering God’s creation.

[tom paine 2]

LOL That’s probably why they chose dogs to experiment on. Isn’t there a shortage of dogs in Korea? I hear puppy is very good stir fried.