Reefering1
2500 Club Member
Sure, but how many? You got 9 now, some are pretty big...
Genetically Engineer Tangs to be small?
- Thread starter AetherealKnight
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Knucker
Active Member
Not really sci-fi. We have been breeding plants and animals into casts for thousands of years. The most well known are Dogs. All dogs came from the same ancestor but we bred them for different reasons causing different breeds of dogs. Other examples are cows, chickens, pigs, grains, lettuce, carrots, and many many more.
OP
OP
AetherealKnight
Active Member
Uhh I.. don’t have 9 tangs? I think you’re mistaking me for another person.
Last edited:
Genetic engineering and selective breeding are two entirely different thing that is for sure.
It is my opinion that genetic engineer for size, with otherwise everything else the same in impossible, at this time or for the foreseeable future, since size is control by a variety of factors, not one, or even a few genes.
I am talking about a lot of us thinking about regulate selective breeding, or even genetic engineering because the ethics of it. This is foolish and impossible. We already have difficulty to regulate genetic engineering for human as is. We can have all the regulation we want, some of the other countries could not care less about our (the US) ethics.
I have had a red sea reefer 350 g1 3 years no issues. Anything above a 150 would make me want a eruo or rimmed tank. I didn't know i was nervous of seams until I saw post but if you sell the most even if 99% dont have issues still see the bad.
crazyfishmom
2500 Club Member
Well… many things are a myth but if you’ll notice I said that his Y chromosomal lineage is carried by 0.5% of men. That is not a myth. It’s a very different statement than what I think was interpreted which is the notion that he is the great great great grandfather however many greats of the human population.
OP
OP
AetherealKnight
Active Member
Hmm I tried playing around with glass cage aquarium cost calculator (a custom aquarium builder). But I couldn’t really get a price that was similar to Red Sea. It was slightly cheaper than Cade. I’ll have to keep looking around but I guess that’s the fun part about it, the planning and stuff
Last edited:
That's just clinical development. Going backwards, if one considers all of the preclinical animal studies (non-human primates? $$$$), discovery phase and basic science, the cost becomes unquantifiable. Investigational new drugs don't come from nothing.People not in the business often have no idea how many and varied types of studies are needed to get a new drug approved. They look at nutraceuticals (herbs and such) at the drug store and assume drugs are similar.
The total cost to develop a new single new drug runs from hundreds of millions of dollars to several billion. Often the human trials involve thousands of patients. The costs are high to do the best effort to ensure safety and efficacy.
For comparison, the total cost of EVERY marine organism sold into the hobby worldwide in a year was estimated at $2.2 billion, which is less than the cost to develop some single drugs.
Marine Aquarium Trade worth $2.15bn, Study Shows | Reef Builders | The Reef and Saltwater Aquarium Blog
New research has generated the first global estimate of the number of fish and invertebrates within the Marine Aquarium Trade (MAT), as a way to incentivize industry sustainability and coral reef…reefbuilders.com
Edit: I suppose I've lost the point of this thread...
Last edited:
Chrisv.
2500 Club Member
Adding one gene to a zebra danio is WAY different from engineering a smaller tang. Selective breeding perhaps.
Agree. There is no way to genetic engineer small tangs. Not possible.
Something new every day! Thanks!
You probably would have said the same about glowing fish 30 years ago. It's just not likely right now. In recent years we've achieved computing power for predicting structures of unknown proteins at relatively high confidence and now they're advancing that technology to predicting interactions between unknown proteins. At some point, we will be able to predict entire pathways of protein interactions. Then the combinations that result in specific phenotypes (like small). Then you know which genes you have to modify to make a 3 inch tang that doesn't have the eyeballs of a 10 inch tang. Possible.. in the not too distant future.
I would not have said that Glow-fish was impossible 50 years ago while I was in high school when I learned insert one gene from one species to another have been around in the bacterial for ever. That is one of the mechanism bacterial gain certain function like registrant to antibiotics
Insert one gene to a living human is the basis for gene therapy.
However, there isn’t one gene or even a group of genes that control size. There are genes that if disable will disrupt specific growth in certain way which result in deformities.
Perhaps one can block growth hormone or partially block but growth hormone control a lot more than size. It also only stimulate some growth but not uniform growth.
Insert one gene to a living human is the basis for gene therapy.
However, there isn’t one gene or even a group of genes that control size. There are genes that if disable will disrupt specific growth in certain way which result in deformities.
Perhaps one can block growth hormone or partially block but growth hormone control a lot more than size. It also only stimulate some growth but not uniform growth.
livinlifeinBKK
5000 Club Member
Im sure with enough time and funding it would be possible. Personally, I think there are enough people already questioning the ethics of various parts of the hobby as it is...I actually do feel that genetically modifying an organism to supply any hobby is a poor reason to do so. If someone wants to spend many years selectively breeding fish to be smaller, fine. Even if all the necessary time and money would make it a worthwhile endeavor, I'd still not support genetic modification of fish personally.
Reefering1
2500 Club Member
Aliens bro, the missing link
We don’t know if the progeny is infertile, mostly infertile or some infertile.
We cross species to bring characteristic to a population in animals all the time.
The red factors in Canary was the result of crossing Red Siskin to canary. Most of the progenies are infertile but a few of the males were fertile. These male were used to breed with more female canaries and eventually we have the red coloration imported to canary.
This is just one example of cross species DNA importation.
All really depends on how close the species are.
We cross species to bring characteristic to a population in animals all the time.
The red factors in Canary was the result of crossing Red Siskin to canary. Most of the progenies are infertile but a few of the males were fertile. These male were used to breed with more female canaries and eventually we have the red coloration imported to canary.
This is just one example of cross species DNA importation.
All really depends on how close the species are.
Spare time
10K Club member
Who says none of their offspring were fertile?
crazyfishmom
2500 Club Member
At least some of the offspring seem to have been fertile. Skeletal remains have been found showing features that appear to combine features of both modern humans and Neanderthals. DNA testing suggests hybridization between the two “species” did happen. Species is a blurry definition in this sense since at least some of the offspring were fertile. There are many instances of inter species breeding and generating offspring and if closely related enough leading to fertile offspring.
Similar threads
-
- Poll
