Jurassic Park experiment a success after 500 million-year bacteria bought back to life

Originally posted by MichiganSwampBuck
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

Why do I say super E. coli?

Here is a couple quotes form the article.

"The new 'chimeric' bacteria has mutated rapidly - and some have become stronger and healthier than today's germs."

also

"Not only did the fitness levels increase to nearly modern-day levels, but also some of the altered lineages actually became healthier than their modern counterpart."

The full article is here www.dailymail.co.uk... html

edit on 25-11-2012 by MichiganSwampBuck because: added quote and link to original article

E. Coli lives in your gut and most strains are harmless. In fact, they are beneficial. What are the criteria for "healthier". Show me one piece of evidence that shows this bacteria is a health risk to people?

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


"E. Coli lives in your gut and most strains are harmless. In fact, they are beneficial. What are the criteria for "healthier". Show me one piece of evidence that shows this bacteria is a health risk to people? "

More than likely what they have is a combination of genes of an ancient bacteria and a similar modern one. This is why the article calls it a "chimera".

They are growing it to see how it evolves and adapts, that seems to indicate they have no real idea of how it might evolve. Therefore there is no telling what these bacteria may turn into, good germ, bad germ or no real difference from a modern natural bacteria.

So, is there any evidence that this modified E. coli could become dangerous to humans or damaging to the ecosystem?

No, I can offer no evidence, only conjecture. I'm sure there are probabilities one way or the other, I just doubt the scientists considered any.

reply to post by MichiganSwampBuck

More than likely what they have is a combination of genes of an ancient bacteria and a similar modern one. This is why the article calls it a "chimera".

What they have is a single "ancient" gene. What Kacar did was to substitute the ancient sequence for the gene which produces EF-Tu for the modern version of the gene.

A single gene out of 4,377. A gene which plays a role in the creation of of proteins, assuring that they form correctly.


A really interesting study in evolution, to see if the gene eventually ends up being the same as the modern version.

www.gatech.edu...

Originally posted by MichiganSwampBuck
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

"E. Coli lives in your gut and most strains are harmless. In fact, they are beneficial. What are the criteria for "healthier". Show me one piece of evidence that shows this bacteria is a health risk to people? "

More than likely what they have is a combination of genes of an ancient bacteria and a similar modern one. This is why the article calls it a "chimera".

They are growing it to see how it evolves and adapts, that seems to indicate they have no real idea of how it might evolve. Therefore there is no telling what these bacteria may turn into, good germ, bad germ or no real difference from a modern natural bacteria.

So, is there any evidence that this modified E. coli could become dangerous to humans or damaging to the ecosystem?

No, I can offer no evidence, only conjecture. I'm sure there are probabilities one way or the other, I just doubt the scientists considered any.

Or they used a strain of E. Coli that is harmless to create the chimera. You offer nothing but conjecture, and then offer further conjecture that the scientists did not consider any possibilities. Should they be careful? Yes. Is there any evidence of any risk? No. You just need to sound off on the doom.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by MichiganSwampBuck

 

More than likely what they have is a combination of genes of an ancient bacteria and a similar modern one. This is why the article calls it a "chimera".

What they have is a single "ancient" gene. What Kacar did was to substitute the ancient sequence for the gene which produces EF-Tu for the modern version of the gene.

A single gene out of 4,377. A gene which plays a role in the creation of of proteins, assuring that they form correctly.


A really interesting study in evolution, to see if the gene eventually ends up being the same as the modern version.

www.gatech.edu...

Interesting. That answers quite a bit.

Originally posted by Druscilla

This is ignorant alarmist Chicken Little-ism.

As if none of this is done without safety protocols.

I agree with you that safety protocols would obviously have been used, but then again lets not pretend that a safety protocol isn't only as effective as the people enforcing it.

Humans are fallible. Humans are forgetful. Humans are even unstable.

Biomedical scientist stole deadly germs from laboratory to kill herself

A biomedical scientist with a promising career took potentially-deadly germs from a hospital lab in a plan to kill herself. Jennifer Bainbridge said she acted from the depths of despair after months of illness and depression.

Fearing she could lose her job at North Tyneside General Hospital, in North Shields, Jennifer, 28, says she was suicidal. Seeking an end to her misery, she removed bacteria found in MRSA and E-coli germs from the hospital's microbiology department. DailyMailonline

$500,000 in stolen pathology equipment may have hazardous materials

Whoever stole some discarded equipment from outside a pathology lab may have gotten more than he or she bargained for. Orlando police say the equipment, worth about $500,000, is contaminated with a substance that could eat away at human skin. Orlandosentinel

Mishandling of Germs on Rise at US Labs

WASHINGTON — American laboratories handling the world's deadliest germs and toxins have experienced more than 100 accidents and missing shipments since 2003, and the number is increasing as more labs do the work. HuffPost

Army Lab Lost Deadly Germs in '90s, Audit Says

Specimens of anthrax, the Ebola virus and other pathogens were listed as missing after an audit of the Army's biological warfare research center in the early 1990s, according to a published report. LA Times

Outbreak scenarios aren't really that farfetched or "chicken little" when nothing is really 100% secured and you're dealing with the unknown.

There are much worse things in labs than this wonderful reviving of something lost and once extinct.

How do we know just "how worse" ancient bacteria could be if we don't have any references to its full capabilities?

The article is full of statements about what the scientists "hope to find out", not what they "already know".

- Lee

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by MichiganSwampBuck
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

"E. Coli lives in your gut and most strains are harmless. In fact, they are beneficial. What are the criteria for "healthier". Show me one piece of evidence that shows this bacteria is a health risk to people? "

More than likely what they have is a combination of genes of an ancient bacteria and a similar modern one. This is why the article calls it a "chimera".

They are growing it to see how it evolves and adapts, that seems to indicate they have no real idea of how it might evolve. Therefore there is no telling what these bacteria may turn into, good germ, bad germ or no real difference from a modern natural bacteria.

So, is there any evidence that this modified E. coli could become dangerous to humans or damaging to the ecosystem?

No, I can offer no evidence, only conjecture. I'm sure there are probabilities one way or the other, I just doubt the scientists considered any.

Or they used a strain of E. Coli that is harmless to create the chimera. You offer nothing but conjecture, and then offer further conjecture that the scientists did not consider any possibilities. Should they be careful? Yes. Is there any evidence of any risk? No. You just need to sound off on the doom.

So I have a gloomy outlook and a distrust of genetic tinkering, so what? You can be the optimist if you like. I do see your point OccamsRazor04, but I can't help but wonder why you have such a firm faith and belief in the safety of such pursuits?

Also, I never stated that I had any evidence and that this was merely conjecture, my own opinion. I could throw that back your way and ask that you provide the evidence that this study is risk free. I doubt you could provide more than your own conjecture, but who knows? You might surprise me.

Originally posted by Sin11001
Great, we're all going to die.

Yes but first put on those lab gloves and coat

Makes me think about a specialist that once examined me and then DIDN'T wash his hands. It was only my arm pit but uhhhhhhhhhh

Originally posted by QueenofWeird

Originally posted by Sin11001
Great, we're all going to die.

Yes but first put on those lab gloves and coat

Makes me think about a specialist that once examined me and then DIDN'T wash his hands. It was only my arm pit but uhhhhhhhhhh

Well, maybe he was practicing germ resistance training, which can be a good thing......until you run into the wrong germ!

I believe this is a bad idea. They have no clue how it's going to behave. I swear, if it's not one thing, it's another. Sink holes, chem trails, earthquakes, hurricanes, volcanoes, tsunamis, droughts, fiscal cliff, GMOs, EMPs, CMEs, nuclear warfare and now bionic primordial bacteria. I think I am giving up and getting a life.......This is just ridiculous.