
Scientists Learn How Genes Can Jump Between Species - mudil
http://www.wsj.com/articles/scientists-discover-how-genes-jump-between-species-1442512800
======
Amorymeltzer
Here's the actual study -
[http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/jou...](http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1005470)
\- it's in PLOS Genetics so it's open access for all.

The basic gist is that some parasitic wasps also transfer a virus to their
caterpillar hosts. That virus has now been shown to insert and transfer some
wasps genes to some non-host caterpillars.

The introduction mentions wolbachia -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolbachia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolbachia)
\- which is an awesome bacterial parasite; it has also transferred genes to
hosts. Researchers thought the bacteriophage in Wolbachia helped take part in
horizontal gene transfer (HGT), which this study backs up nicely.

~~~
jhedwards
My grandfather found a parthenogenetic spider and wanted to investigate the
possibility that Wolbachia was somehow responsible. Don't think he made much
progress though, it was near the end of his life. Here's the article about the
spider:
[http://www.americanarachnology.org/joa_free/joa_v31_n2/arac-...](http://www.americanarachnology.org/joa_free/joa_v31_n2/arac-031-02-0274.pdf)

------
madaxe_again
And between members of a species - virii when reproducing using host cells can
end up with transcription errors just as normal dna transcription does - and
the host's genes end up part of the virus, which then infects others - this is
how virii mutate and jump species.

Within 20 years gaian thinking probably won't seem so silly - we are part of a
macro organism.

~~~
Artistry121
Do you have any reading/watching recommendations for understanding this
hypothesis more?

~~~
jerf
Perhaps a more scientific take on it would be to look up the term "co-
evolution".

Which is also my counter-criticism of the idea that this idea destroys the
objection to GMO... the natural mechanisms still co-evolved with us ("us"
being the whole biosphere here). It is mathematically reasonable to be
concerned that fully artificial genetic manipulation is of a different kind,
and not merely of a different quantity. (Even ignoring that in the latter
case, sufficient quantity takes on a quality of its own.)

Generally I've been pretty positive on GMO food but I have to admit that the
mathematical argument against it has a certain potency, when you understand
the mathematics of evolution. There is a significant qualitative difference
between coevolved mechanisms and artificial mechanisms that ignore that
history. I'm still not convinced that our current skills are really great
enough to produce some sort of disaster, but that's a debate point with an
expiration date on it.

------
mikro2nd
Smells like teh astroturf to "shape" attitudes towards GMOs.

~~~
FilterSweep
I had that same feeling rather early on when I reached this:

> Opponents have frequently maintained that an interspecies gene transfer done
> in a laboratory—the insertion of a bacterial gene into corn to make it
> insect-resistant, for example—would never occur naturally and is therefore
> unethical and potentially unsafe.

> The new study, published Thursday in the journal PLOS Genetics, undermines
> that argument.

> "You realize that nature is creating genetically modified organisms all the
> time,” said Salvador Herrero, a geneticist at the University of Valencia,
> Spain, and co-author of the study. “It’s not so weird to transfer genes from
> one organism to another.

I don't see how these results undermine the argument in any way, _whatsoever_,
Mr. Naik.

The only way it can undermine an anti-GMO agenda is to "equate" human genetic
modifications to nature's genetic modifications. The gene vectors we create
are different.

Herrero's point laid out here also appears _taken out of the scope of the
results of the original study_. Or, more accurately, Herrero's point was taken
out of context by the authors of the WSJ piece.

~~~
eivarv
I don't think there's much to undermine in the first place, as the opponent
argument isn't much of an argument – just an appeal to nature (if I understand
their position correctly).

Whether the modifications are done by nature or by an agent is irrelevant in
itself, as nothing is exclusively inherent to either approach.

Any legitimate skepticism would be backed by critique of theory or argument,
and/or contributing alternative explanations.

~~~
13years
The argument I have heard is that this is part of the basis for the
significant difference. Random mutations -
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1559911/](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1559911/)

~~~
eivarv
Consider this hierarchy: Natural/Artificial(whatever these terms mean) ->
Genetic Modification(General field) -> Plant Transformation(Specific method)
-> Using Agrobacterium tumefaciens(Specific technique) -> The application in
practice.

Even if one proves that something applies to a step/layer, one cannot
generalize downwards (towards the general); only upwards (towards the
specific).

That's why I find the anti-GMO craze weird: Genetic modification in itself
isn't harmful, and also happens in nature all the time (as if this makes a
difference). It's specific outcomes of certain modifications, or side-effects
of specific applied techniques (as noted in the article you linked to).

So, whether a genetic modification is performed by "chance" (as in by nature),
or deliberately (as in by humans) is irrelevant in and of itself.

Weakness or risk is inherent not in the performing agent (or lack thereof),
but in the the technique or its application – which is clear from the article.

------
SixSigma
Minor nitpick:

"Genes typically persist if they provide some benefit."

Or genes persist if they don't provide some detriment. Evolution is a value
maximising process, so it minimises costs of reproduction.

~~~
eivarv
This is actually important to note.

------
ergothus
Article doesn't match the headline at all. The study seems to say "Hey, when
your body produces and injects viruses into a host, you can transfer genes",
which is obviously a small subset of biological interactions.

It also casually lumps horizontal transfer between bacteria into the same
category as multicellular life. We _know_ how bacteria do it, and it's not how
most eukaryotic cells are built.

------
codeddesign
So...in other words gmo foods can potentially change human genes or at least
add new genes. How in the world would this ever be an argument for gmo foods.
::mind boggled::

~~~
mudil
Nowhere in the article it says that eating foods is responsible for gene
transfers from GMOs into you. The point of research is that gene jump between
species. Naturally, through vectors such as viruses. So, when scientists
introduce say a rapid-growth potato gene into salmon, it's not necessarily
such a far fetched gene manipulation. These types of genetic jumps happen
naturally all the time.

Opponents of GMOs are very vocal about introduction of "foreign" genes into
species. ("How can we have a rapid-growth salmon, if they escape into the
environment?" is a typical argument.) But that argument looks pretty feeble if
you consider the above mentioned research.

~~~
13years
I don't think you need to even consider gene transfer to be concerned about
species with new traits impact on the environment.

We already have plenty of lessons of introducing existing species outside of
their natural environment which resulted in disaster for the local ecosystem.

------
riemannzeta
It is truly amazing how similar this is to the descolada in Orson Scott Card's
_Speaker for the Dead_

Quite a visionary that man.

