Genetic Engineering Technology of the 21st Century - Case Study Example

Biotechnology Introduction Biotechnology or biological technology is often referred to “to genetic engineering technology of the 21st century; however the term encompasses a wider range and history of procedures for modifying biological organisms according to the needs of humanity, going back to the initial modifications of native plants into improved food crops through artificial selection and hybridization.” i. Task 1 Genes code for a lot of proteins in our body. This concept of a gene responsible for the production of a specific protein was in 1909 by an English physician called Archibald Garrod. Although this was a major breakthrough in the field of genetics it was not noticed until the early 1940’s, when it was rediscovered by the American geneticists, George Beadle and Edward Tatum. They were responsible for the term “one gene, one protein” concept for which they were awarded the Nobel Prize in 1958. Now a lot of work has been done in the field of biotechnology and we now come to realize that a single can code for a lot of proteins. We know that in human beings, around 90,000 enzymes are produced; which means we should be also having that many genes according to what was believed earlier. But scientists who were responsible for the human genome project have come out with a figure of 30,000 to 35,000 genes responsible for protein-coding. This means that a single gene is capable of coding for two or more proteins. This was possible thorough a breakthrough in biotechnology called ‘alternative splicing’ of genes. Through this technology it is possible to edit the information stored in the genes of complex organism whereby it is possible for a single gene to code for two or more genes. This finding has made the work of Beadle and Tatum obsolete. The old paradigm ‘one gene, one protein’ no longer is valid. In biotechnology this is crucial because identical twins having the same gene sets differ in their phenotypes. This in the long run means that a minimum number of genes can be manipulated in knowing when, where and what types of proteins they manufacture. This will be the basis for us to regulate our own gene splicing to combat disease. Task 2 In the early phase of the Human Genome Project (HGP), scientists had estimated that there were around 30,000 to 35,000 genes. Initially scientists were under the impression that there could be around 153,000 genes. This was the age of ‘one gene-one protein’. In human beings close to 90,000 proteins are synthesized and people thought that we needed that many genes. But with recent discoveries we have realized that a single protein can manufacture more than two proteins. Now they have realistically estimated the number of genes in human beings to around 25,000. This reduction in the number of genes suggests that gene regulation is far more important than gene number. This means that each gene can be used in a variety of different ways depending on how it is regulated. When the results of the HGP were first announced people were really astonished at the meager amount of genes present in the body. As mentioned earlier people assumed that there could be more a million genes to code for the innumerable number of proteins that are being produced. It is a known fact that genes contain DNA and DNA makes RNA and RNA makes proteins do almost all the real work of biology. The real issue in today’s biotechnology is not the number of genes but the complexity in the gaps between them. The scientists are beginning to discover how to control and manipulate genes for achieving certain goals that are important in treating certain diseases and disorders. Recently it is being thought of regulating genes to control simple disorders like alcoholism to treating Parkinson’s disease. The important part of the HGP is not just to know the number of genes we have but to manipulate a single gene to do a number of jobs. Still we have to learn a lot. We know that DNA controls our genes but we haven’t fully understood the functions of DNA fully. To this end the HGP is very important to us and the number of genes we hold within ourselves. Task 3 “The genetic code is the set of rules by which information encoded in genetic material (DNA or RNA sequences) is translated into proteins (amino acid sequences) by living cells. Specifically, the code defines a mapping between tri-nucleotide sequences called codons and amino acids; every triplet of nucleotides in a nucleic acid sequence specifies a single amino acid.”ii Genrally speaking the genetic code, as given in the figure below is a set of amino acids specified by each codon sequence on mRNA. We now know that RNS=A is made up of four types of nucleotides (adenine, cytosine, guanine and urasil. This urasil is replaced by thymine in the DNA) there are 64 possible codons. In these three codons specify the termination of the polypeptide chain and are called ‘stop codons’. The remaining 61 codons hence specify 20 amino acids. This is the basic genetic code is unique to all organisms from bacteria to human beings. “Many of the 64 possible three-letter codons specify the same amino acid, providing alternative ways for genes to spell out most proteins. These synonymous codons tend to differ by just a single letter, usually the last, forming a pattern of blocks. Codons for amino acids with similar affinities for water also tend to differ by their last letter, and codons sharing the same first letter often code for amino acids that are products or precursors of one another. These features, as it turns out, are crucial to the survival of all organisms and may even help speed their evolution.” (Freeland & Hurst, 2004, page 89: The unseen genome: Beyond DNA, Scientific American, 2003) Epigenomics or epigenetic matter is also a set of traits that are inherited by organisms. Generally hereditary traits are passed on through DNA, but there are chemical codes written outside DNA that have dramatic effect on the health and appearance of organisms. This epigenetic matter is easier to manipulate than DNA and hence can be used in treating a lot of diseases. Like mutations, epigenetic mistakes do take place and could be the reason why we get cancer. Task 4 The term ‘nutragenetics’ is derived from an interesting article that appeared in Scientific American under the title ‘Diet Advice from DNA’. We have by now come to realize that the strides made in biotechnology have made us to manipulate our own genetic makeup. ‘Alternate splicing’ has made it possible to alter disease conditions in human beings and other organisms and similarly ‘epigenetic’ matter can also be altered to intervene in modifying cancerous cells. When this is all happening the field of genetics, experts have also realized that by looking at one’s genetic makeup tailor-made nutritional supplements can be given to anybody. In this age of commercializing anything and everything it is only a matter of years or months that with “an individual’s genetic information to figure out what that person should eat to promote stronger bones, shinier hair and other trappings of good health”. This could for curing a particular ailment or just a cosmetic makeup to tone or spruce somebody’s muscle or bones. This is possible only if we know which genes are responsible in bringing about what diseases or ailment. Considering the way the field of genetic engineering is progressing, it is becoming a reality that anybody can take certain nutrients that may or may not be available in the body. One can either supplement their nutrient uptake or replenish ‘missing’ nutrients in the body. The fact that genes are responsible for a person’s build is already known to us. This genotypic trait can be controlled by ‘nutrigenetists’ in modifying phenotypic traits also. For example, one can change obesity (genotypic trait) by modifying the diet of a person (phenotypic trait). As Laura Hercher, the author of “Diet advice from DNA” has mentioned how this emerging field of ‘nutrigenetic’ “provides a cautionary tale of how commerce often races ahead of science: the commercialization of gene detection technology has occurred before scientists have developed an adequate understanding of how particular genes contribute to health and disease”. It is the ‘company’ that would be more interested than the scientist to make brouhaha about ‘nutrigenetics’. Task 5 The author, James Fowler, of this article titled “The Genetics of Politics” has published an interesting correlation between genetics and voter turnout. In that article it is written that theorists “speculate on factors such as age, gender, race, marital status, education, income, home ownership, political knowledgeability and church attendance. But studies indicate that each one exerts only a small effect”. This is true. Nobody has till date been able to answer the question as to why some vote and some don’t. It is at this juncture the author has come out with a plausible explanation of voter turnout based on biological reasoning. He states that “many people never vote, no matter what. So I started to wonder if there was something very basic at the biological level”. He has based his analyzes on identical and fraternal twins. His finding should have included other people, obviously not twins, also. It is in this context I would like to reiterate what the behavioral neuroscientist of McGill University, Evan Balaban, opines that ‘relying on twin studies as the sole evidence of links between genetics and behavior (voter turnout) is a mistake”. This study has just shown the tip of the iceberg and more similar studies might throw more light on the correlation between genetics and voter turnout. Conclusion Over the past few weeks I have realized that the role of genetics or genetic engineering or biotechnology is going to transform our lives in the near future. The strides, the scientists, have made is indeed laudable considering the breakthroughs they have made. From the time of double helix to ‘nutrigenetics’ it has been a long road. Technologies like ‘splicing’ the genes are certainly commendable so that a lot of diseases and ailments can be made to disappear. Also certain state-of-the-art technologies like cloning are highly controversial. In the name of scientific license certain researches like cloning are inevitable, but scientists should also look into ethical and moral issues. On the whole, whatever was discussed in the past few weeks have been very enlightening, and this field of genetic engineering and biotechnology is fast becoming a discipline by itself; branching off from the classical biology. The future of our health and other issues hinges on the advancement made in this field. References Goujon, Philippe. From Biotechnology to Genomes: The meaning of the Double Helix. Hackensack: World Scientific Publishing, 2001. Read More