GM fish glows in the bowl

The Mad Monk · June 28, 2003, 13:02

Quote:

GM fish glows in the bowl

By Dr David Whitehouse
BBC News Online science editor

A Taiwanese company has created a genetically modified (GM) ornamental fish that glows in the dark.

But will they catch on?
The Taikong Corporation took DNA from a jellyfish and inserted it into a zebra fish to make it shine a yellow-green colour.

GM animals are frequently used in labs and flocks of GM sheep make valuable proteins in their milk, but the "Night Pearl" zebra fish is the first gene-altered pet to go on sale to the public.

For some, the animal will be a fascinating novelty; for others, it will raise fears of a trend for bio-engineered "Frankenstein pets".

The Taikong Corporation reports strong interest in its creation from the UK, where the aquatic industry is worth millions.

Safe and sterile

Taikong insists the GM fish, designated TK-1, is safe, sterile and that its additional fluorescent gene is harmless.

The fish was unveiled in 2001, but it took another year and a half to develop a technique to render the animal sterile. It cannot cross-breed with natural fish.

TK-1 was developed using the work of HJ Tsai of the National Taiwan University.

Initially, Taikong plans to sell 30,000 glowing fish at US $17 each and then increase production to more than 100,000 in three months. But not everyone is enthusiastic.

Aquatic industry specialists are worried TK-1 may be the first of many GM pet fish destined for Britain. In particular, some tropical fish are being bio-engineered to tolerate cold and could colonise UK waters if they escaped, disturbing the present ecosystem.

According to Derek Lambert, of Today's Fishkeeper magazine, GM piranhas could survive in our waterways and pose a major problem. He is urging traders to boycott the TK-1.

Keith Davenport, of the Aquatic Ornamental Trade Association (AOTA), commented that interfering with the genome was unnecessary and said people did not want animals to become fashion accessories.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3026104.stm

Personally, I find the fish distinctly unappealing, but I have no objections to GM pets per se

I also think that rendering them sterile is pointless except from a commercial point of veiw, as there's no way in hell they could survive in the wild being the great glowing green "eat me" signs they are.

It looks from the photo that their eyes are glowing, to -- I wonder if they're effectively blind?

laurentius · June 28, 2003, 13:15

I think it's disgusting.

Solly · June 28, 2003, 13:18

Do they still glow when you eat them?

SuperSneak · June 28, 2003, 13:18

I think this kind of stuff is dangerous. It's only going to take one "supposedly sterile" creature to contaminate other species lines. Even if animals get loose in the wild (not these fish, per se) they can create massive problems as non-native species.
I just don't think it is a good idea, personally. I'd like to see animal research focused on saving current species, not creating new ones.
But if somebody can make me a purple monkey, I'm on board.

However, General Motors makes a pretty crap car---don't know if I want to buy any of their fish.

chequita guevara · June 28, 2003, 13:57

I don't think a glowing fish will make it too long in the wild.

Boris Godunov · June 28, 2003, 13:59

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I don't think a glowing fish will make it too long in the wild.

Glow-in-the dark fish already exist in the wild, actually.

These particular ones wouldn't, obviously, because they are sterile. Not being able to reproduce won't get them very far along the evolutionary tree!

chequita guevara · June 28, 2003, 14:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Glow-in-the dark fish already exist in the wild, actually.

At much lower depths than zebra fish normally live.

Imran Siddiqui · June 28, 2003, 14:00

Mmmm... glowing fish... yum...

Az · June 28, 2003, 14:24

I don't like having fish in bowls. I would consider buying one, if I'd like them. I don't think it's disgusting, btw.

MichaeltheGreat · June 28, 2003, 14:26

The eye glow is most likely a photographic artifact, similar to redeye in humans.

There are numerous shallow-water fish that for all intents and purposes "glow" - many tetra species are quite noticeable under lighting conditions of average moonlight. A fish like this wouldn't really be at a disadvantage, because schooling fish are marked to recognize each other (and thus school), not for camoflage.

The idea is that by sticking close together, they get better observation and reaction against predators, although they're individually vulnerable.

I wouldn't have them in my aquariums, but that's because I'm into naturally occuring fish, and simulating natural environments and ecosystems. I don't have any object to these fish or other harmless GM per se - breeds of dogs and cats are simply old-fashioned GM.

Az · June 28, 2003, 14:36

Michael, why won't the eyes have the same "colour" addition as the skin?

Btw, what you told just gave me an idea: why not make some of those fertile, breed a shitload of them and release them?

MichaeltheGreat · June 28, 2003, 15:00

The types of cells and cell structure in retinas is radically different than that in scales.

In normal fish, DNA for coloration only expresses itself in the scale cells. Bioluminescense is just a specialized type of coloration. Bioluminescent jellyfish don't have all their cells bioluminscent, and the better known odd pelagic bioluminescent fish have only specialized areas of their bodies that express the bioluminescent coloration.

DRoseDARs · June 28, 2003, 15:09

Point of clarification:

GM = Genetically Modified

Not General Motors in this context.

Az · June 28, 2003, 15:14

don't they have pigmentation in their eyes, like humans do?

laurentius · June 28, 2003, 15:27

I don't think we should start messing with nature like that. It's way too complex for us, that's why it's digusting

Az · June 28, 2003, 15:29

"How can you play God like that?!"

MichaeltheGreat · June 28, 2003, 15:30

Fish eye structure is different. We're more concerned with seeing at different light levels, they're more concerned with field of view and the peculiarities of sight under water.

I don't know of any fish that has the sort of dilating pupil/iris structure like most land mammals.

laurentius · June 28, 2003, 15:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel

"How can you play God like that?!"

Well think about it. Do we really know better? Than, say nature? I don't think so. I'm not against it for religious reasons you know.

Az · June 28, 2003, 15:38

That's a good point... but this seems to be colour.

Az · June 28, 2003, 15:42

Quote:

Originally posted by laurentius

Well think about it. Do we really know better? Than, say nature? I don't think so. I'm not against it for religious reasons you know.

a) This is completely aesthetic.
b) GM crops are ok, too. their products are not toxic, or something. If they are, I want to see proof, and even such proof would only hold to a specific product.

Lonestar · June 28, 2003, 15:45

I'm waiting for the miniture Tiger.

Az · June 28, 2003, 15:47

I'd like to have a Cheeta as a pet. **** nature.

MichaeltheGreat · June 28, 2003, 15:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
That's a good point... but this seems to be colour.

The first one is an octopus, and they're just anatomically weird.

The second one is just a continuation of the scaling pigment on the tissue covering the eye (like human eyelids)

The third one looks like it's the coloration of the internal membrane (sort of similar to what cats have, but humans don't.)

Colored membranes over the eye are common, but the eye itself is generally just translucent fixed pupil.

Az · June 28, 2003, 16:06

Maybe that's what we see glowing in the picture? In both cases, the area under the translucent tissue is larger than the eye itself.

laurentius · June 28, 2003, 16:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel

a) This is completely aesthetic.
b) GM crops are ok, too. their products are not toxic, or something. If they are, I want to see proof, and even such proof would only hold to a specific product.

a) so it's for our pleasure. I don't think animals are for our pleasure.
b) crops may be safe but do you like that eg. one company has 100% monopole for GM beans ala Monsanto

Anyway, God or Nature whatever you prefer has given us a possibility to use our brains. We have the ability to do good and also do bad awering it. This is doing bad for me, we can do this but we really don't have to. Anyway it may seem now that GM is ok, but frankly i think we aren't smart enough to understand all consequences of our little experiments

MichaeltheGreat · June 28, 2003, 16:18

I wonder if there's a better picture. I still think it might be reflection through the intraocular fluid (I've got fish that do red, orange, blue and no reflection).

Az · June 28, 2003, 16:22

Here you go, Michael.

I am enclined more to agree with you.

Az · June 28, 2003, 16:24

OTOH, that moving fish has it's eyes glow, too. Would it happen to be because of the camera, too?

Imran Siddiqui · June 28, 2003, 16:24

Quote:

a) so it's for our pleasure. I don't think animals are for our pleasure.

So you are a vegetarian?

Quote:

God or Nature whatever you prefer has given us a possibility to use our brains. We have the ability to do good and also do bad awering it.

So you've never taken an aspirin or penicilin? Or gotten a doctor to fix you? Isn't that 'playing God'?

Az · June 28, 2003, 16:27

Quote:

Originally posted by laurentius
a) so it's for our pleasure. I don't think animals are for our pleasure.

They're there for no purpose. We want to enjoy them. We enjoy them.

Quote:

b) crops may be safe but do you like that eg. one company has 100% monopole for GM beans ala Monsanto

That's a wholly different debate. besides, It's not that beans can be genetically modified in only one way. Also, Are there GM patents already?

Quote:

Anyway, God or Nature whatever you prefer has given us a possibility to use our brains. We have the ability to do good and also do bad awering it. This is doing bad for me, we can do this but we really don't have to. Anyway it may seem now that GM is ok, but frankly i think we aren't smart enough to understand all consequences of our little experiments

Research is full of these. That's the whole point of Research. do you suggest that we stop all research?