Australia legalises cloning

[Skye]

A private members bill legalising the creation of human embryos by somatic cell transfer passed through Parliament yesterday, and will come into effect in six months. Embryos must be terminated within fourteen days. The bill overturns a previous ban on cloning.

 

Interesting, the leader of the government and the opposition both opposed the bill, with senior ministers from both parties in disagreement.

 

A link: http://www.news.com.au/mercury/story/0,22884,20885391-921,00.html

[Gypsy Cake]

Interesting. How does the termination period compare to other nations such as the UK and US?

 

How does it affect you? Do you deal directly with cloning?

[Mr.Chockuls]

too bad, cloning is bad.

[iNow]

too bad, cloning is bad.

 

How?

[foodchain]

"Liberal senator Kay Patterson's private member's Bill will allow researchers to clone embryos using donor eggs and cells without sperm and extract their stem cells for medical research."

 

Its from the link to the story.

 

I would just like to highlight the donor aspect simply because there is not much detail giving to it from the story alone. What do they mean by donor? The story was somewhat paraphrased with the concept about this act going about to add those with say genetic diseases for instance in Australia. I don’t think random donor study would suffice enough for this or am I wrong? It just would seem that current genetic research into the basis of disease using cloning would still suffer from descriptions of genotype/phenotype in say a population, or family, not exclusively of course as in static.

 

Also I think it would be somewhat a retardation to only allow for this act to work towards disease alone to be clear. I do however believe on reasonable physical bounds against genetic application in the real world based on overall ability to understand issues on an environmental level. I also did not see any mention of this in the story provided by the link.

[zule]

I would just like to highlight the donor aspect simply because there is not much detail giving to it from the story alone. What do they mean by donor? The story was somewhat paraphrased with the concept about this act going about to add those with say genetic diseases for instance in Australia. I don’t think random donor study would suffice enough for this or am I wrong? It just would seem that current genetic research into the basis of disease using cloning would still suffer from descriptions of genotype/phenotype in say a population, or family, not exclusively of course as in static.

Firstly, as this work is directed towards the fight against several genetic diseases, it’s probable that it will be a lot of donors with these diseases, because this study favours them.

 

On the other hand, stem cells can be genetically modified. Besides, you can use several techniques to avoid the expression of certain proteins and in this way emulating a genetic disease. One example would be interference-RNA.

 

 

 

 

Also I think it would be somewhat a retardation to only allow for this act to work towards disease alone to be clear. I do however believe on reasonable physical bounds against genetic application in the real world based on overall ability to understand issues on an environmental level. I also did not see any mention of this in the story provided by the link.

 

I don't get the meaning of this paragraph. Could you explain it in an easier way?

[foodchain]

Firstly, as this work is directed towards the fight against several genetic diseases, it’s probable that it will be a lot of donors with these diseases, because this study favours them.

 

On the other hand, stem cells can be genetically modified. Besides, you can use several techniques to avoid the expression of certain proteins and in this way emulating a genetic disease. One example would be interference-RNA.

 

From my current understanding of genetic illness genotype variation currently exists beyond the realm of perfect matching with various phenotypes that do or can exist? I know RNA is also genetic basically on the same level of DNA almost and also it can pass heritable information as DNA would. I don’t however grasp interference-RNA as you are using it, could you elaborate? Is this some kind of specific property of a specific RNA as constant?

 

I don't get the meaning of this paragraph. Could you explain it in an easier way?

 

The environment is the totality or sum of variables that makes up an individuals surroundings at any time. So as for any issue genetics will have an environmental impact, what exactly would that be in this case?

[zule]

From my current understanding of genetic illness genotype variation currently exists beyond the realm of perfect matching with various phenotypes that do or can exist? I know RNA is also genetic basically on the same level of DNA almost and also it can pass heritable information as DNA would. I don’t however grasp interference-RNA as you are using it, could you elaborate? Is this some kind of specific property of a specific RNA as constant?

I don’t understand perfectly your post, but I’m going to answer what I understand.

 

There are genetic diseases that are caused by the production of an anomalous protein. If we introduce into a stem cell the gene (DNA) that produces the anomalous protein, we can imitate that disease.

 

RNA can’t pass heritable information, only DNA is inherited.

 

DNA is transcribed into RNA and, in this way, RNA can be translated into proteins. If we use an interference-RNA, this one will interfere with its correspondent RNA, avoiding its translation into a protein. So if we use the interference-RNA which corresponds with the protein which lack or shortage produces the disease, we will be imitating that disease.

 

The environment is the totality or sum of variables that makes up an individuals surroundings at any time. So as for any issue genetics will have an environmental impact, what exactly would that be in this case?

I don’t see how working with stem cells to cure diseases can affect very much to the environment.

[foodchain]

I don’t understand perfectly your post, but I’m going to answer what I understand.

 

There are genetic diseases that are caused by the production of an anomalous protein. If we introduce into a stem cell the gene (DNA) that produces the anomalous protein, we can imitate that disease.

 

RNA can’t pass heritable information, only DNA is inherited.

 

DNA is transcribed into RNA and, in this way, RNA can be translated into proteins. If we use an interference-RNA, this one will interfere with its correspondent RNA, avoiding its translation into a protein. So if we use the interference-RNA which corresponds with the protein which lack or shortage produces the disease, we will be imitating that disease.

 

That’s incorrect on the RNA aspect. While rare its not impossible for an RNA itself to change and inherit also that way. There are various epigentic factors at play dealing with inheritance overall studied mostly by evo-devo. I like the idea of how much importance they give to a phenotype.

 

As for the use of the RNA aspect my question was just that. Basically giving the complexity of a genotype/phenotype or organism how would using RNA such as I guess siRNA to correctly gauge how to treat existing genetic ailments of existing organisms not actually cloned.

 

 

I don’t see how working with stem cells to cure diseases can affect very much to the environment.

 

Well simply put if you end a genetic basis for death in that one alone how many more people will be alive in the world? I mean if someone could genetically get rid of cancer for instance? The relevance comes into play as you are actually changing the genetic reality of the environment overall as it would relate to say a species or population. Going from ecology we know that organisms interact with both abiotic and biotic variables. So ultimately what you are doing in influencing the environment. I mean if we change genetic code, what will the impact be on say bacteria like the interaction such has with antibiotics.

[zule]

That’s incorrect on the RNA aspect. While rare its not impossible for an RNA itself to change and inherit also that way.

 

The whole World will be very grateful if you can provide any link that shows how animal RNA mutations can be inherited from one generation to another

 

With regard to the remainder of the post, sorry, I can’t understand . I give up.

[foodchain]

The whole World will be very grateful if you can provide any link that shows how animal RNA mutations can be inherited from one generation to another

 

With regard to the remainder of the post, sorry, I can’t understand . I give up.

 

Just look up paramutation for instance.

 

From the wiki link on it.

 

"Paramutation, in epigenetics, is an interaction between two alleles of a single locus, resulting in a heritable change of one allele that is induced by the other allele. Paramutation violates Mendel’s first law, which states that in the process of the formation of the gametes (egg or sperm) the allelic pairs separate, one going to each gamete, and that each gene remains completely uninfluenced by the other. In paramutation an allele in one generation heritably affects the other allele in future generations, even if the allele causing the change is itself not transmitted. What may be transmitted in such a case are RNAs such as piRNAs, siRNAs, miRNAs or other regulatory RNAs. These are packaged in egg or sperm and cause paramutation upon transmission to the next generation. This means that RNA is a molecule of inheritance, just like DNA."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramutation

[zule]

This link doesn’t talk about a mutant RNA. Millions or RNA mutations are produced constantly, but aren’t inherited.

 

In this case, the mutant gene (DNA) produces a big amount of RNA (not-mutated RNA). So it is easy that part of this RNA survives enough time to interfere with the normal gene and avoid in this way that this last one be expressed as it should (although the mutant gene is not yet there).

 

But the newborn mice aren’t inheriting RNA mutations. The RNA that is in the egg or the spermatozoid hasn’t being mutated. It simply was produced in so many amounts that would have enough time to produce a paramutation in the normal gene before being degraded.

 

This paramutaion in the DNA could be inheritable to following generations, but the initial RNA is going to be degraded, is not mutated and is not inheritable.

Nobody can say that this paper suggest that RNA mutations could be inherited.

[foodchain]

This link doesn’t talk about a mutant RNA. Millions or RNA mutations are produced constantly, but aren’t inherited.

 

In this case, the mutant gene (DNA) produces a big amount of RNA (not-mutated RNA). So it is easy that part of this RNA survives enough time to interfere with the normal gene and avoid in this way that this last one be expressed as it should (although the mutant gene is not yet there).

 

But the newborn mice aren’t inheriting RNA mutations. The RNA that is in the egg or the spermatozoid hasn’t being mutated. It simply was produced in so many amounts that would have enough time to produce a paramutation in the normal gene before being degraded.

 

This paramutaion in the DNA could be inheritable to following generations, but the initial RNA is going to be degraded, is not mutated and is not inheritable.

Nobody can say that this paper suggest that RNA mutations could be inherited.

 

You are grasping evolution in to far a deterministic tone. If quantum mechanics should teach us something its stick to the physical observables. RNA as in paramutation would become an individual layer of inheritable material in an evolutionary stance overall, just like individual genes. So would the course of this genetic material stay in line with genes, obviously if not it would die out(or vice versa?) which I am guessing in an evolutionary sense paramutation probably has existed for just about ever. Yet as you would have it RNA is not that but DNA in some weird way or it simply just does not qualify that RNA can on its own be inheritable material and cause change, and I would surely suggest experience some form of variance would it not?

 

Yes, as far as mutation is concerned microbial life could blaze away on it at such a speed compared to overhead and remain bacteria, so does that mean what really, how do you even compute radiative values in that?

 

Epigenetic inheritance is a separate term because its physically different. You are dealing with different variables of inheritable material now, yet on this basis you find that it deals with RNA. A recent paper, I am sorry I think discusses the reality of this at more detail in which an RNA tied to pigmentation mutated and also inherited in lab animals, I think mouse or rat, surely rodent. I will have to try and find it but that could be sometime if at all. Various epigenetic studies are of interest to me actually.

 

Lastly RNA of various types can interact in gene regulation. Gene regulation is the mechanism in which genes are selectively controlled by various factors, one being an individual cell. So the impact of an RNA in gene regulation would require understanding, more so if this were not a very local or one time effect, oddity, etc... Plus remolding of histone has its own evolutionary impact, again as this would having the ability of RNA to become inheritable genetic material, which is all epigenetic right? You do know its not gene to automobile like a blueprint, real life organisms are not that simple.