backtop


Print 64 comment(s) - last by Jaxonlupis.. on Dec 17 at 9:00 PM


Don't anger Whiskers, you wouldn't like him when he's angry  (Source: Breitbart.com)
South Korean scientists clone cat that glows red

Cloning is a topic of much debate that has uses for good and uses that aren’t so good. Being able to clone animals with specific disease states could make it easier for researchers to tackle genetic diseases that affect animals and humans alike.

In 2005 the infamous Hwang Woo Suk, South Korean cloning scientist, admitted to falsifying stem cell cloning research. Even when it was later found that Suk had actually made a possibly larger breakthrough than the faked research suggested, the damage was already done and Suk was fired and faces legal ramifications for his falsified work.

Another group of South Korean scientists has cloned cats with a florescent protein gene that makes them glow red in ultra violet light. Similar techniques have been used in everything from roundworms to goldfish to pigs. The procedure used in the cloning process is hoped to be able to help develop treatments for genetic diseases.

The lead scientist on the project, Kong Il-keun from the Gyeongsang National University was able to produce a trio of cats with the altered glowing gene. The cats were born in January and February, two grew to adult and one cat was still born.

The South Korean Ministry of Science and Technology said in a statement, “It marked the first time in the world that cats with [altered fluorescence protein genes] RFP genes have been cloned.” 



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Why?
By DonkeyRhubarb on 12/14/2007 7:52:59 PM , Rating: 2
I read this today in the local news paper and tbh found it very interesting. I like new things, why shouldnt I find this interesting?

But then I realised. Why the hell would you do this? Genetics can do lots of things. Thats what they do. They make things 'likely'.

Also, Ive always been for the research side of cloning and stem cell research for the good of human kind.

However, is there a justifiable reason to do this??? Really like, one could argue that its 'proof of concept' or that its added a little bit to our knowledge, but is there really any need to make these cats 'glow in the dark' so to speak?

This is a thing that has always been in the back of my mind - what happens if humans start playing god? Do we really need more proof of the abuse of power that people have over cloning and genetics?

Personally, and this is just my opinion, Im all for the beneficial research in cloning and stem cells, but why must the lives of these conscious beings be created to satisfy something that can't possible benefit us???




RE: Why?
By Hoop on 12/14/2007 8:14:33 PM , Rating: 2
This could benefit us, I think. Think about it. We get this down pat, we could inject a patient with something that will cause the cancer within the body to glow, thus making it easier to see where it's spread to.


RE: Why?
By treehugger87 on 12/15/2007 5:37:37 PM , Rating: 2
Thats what radioactive tracers are for. lol.


RE: Why?
By KellzLH on 12/16/2007 9:08:11 PM , Rating: 2
It's like radioactive tracers, yes.....but without the dose!! It's novel!


RE: Why?
By Cogman on 12/14/07, Rating: 0
RE: Why?
By Chocobollz on 12/15/07, Rating: -1
RE: Why?
By Vinnybcfc on 12/15/2007 5:46:11 AM , Rating: 4
Nice post - Talk about random crap like Bill Gates, sacrificing children and how pet shops are wrong

Did you actually read the post you were replying to?

He was talking about how advanced genetics will help people and a lighthearted comment about how buying a glow in the dark cat is much cooler.


RE: Why?
By FITCamaro on 12/15/2007 11:29:09 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
You really like to value animal with your money do you? Now, if you think you own them because you've bought them with your money, that doesn't mean they are your slave and you could do anything to them. They're all life creatures, if you don't know that already. They breathe, the walk, they eat, they sleep. I'm asking you, how will it feels if someone bought you in a store and do anything they like to you? Well, I'll just say, hope they don't have the same thinking as yours, cuz if they do, then you're gonna feels like hell in the rest of your life.

Tell you what, I've never buy an animal from a shop, and I never feels it's OK to have them in a cage, what would you feel if you being in a cage? Will you feel happy? I do have a pet, but she were a wild cat that come to me when she's pregnant and need help, and so I help her and she always visit me everyday now. Treat animals well and they will treat you well, even if they don't, you still have to treat them well. Show your respect to others so they respect you.


Well in my mind anyone who values a human life the same as that of a cats life, needs to be in a cage.

Animal abuse is wrong. Animal testing so that mankind might benefit is fine.


RE: Why?
By treehugger87 on 12/15/2007 5:39:25 PM , Rating: 3
"humane " testing


RE: Why?
By Screwballl on 12/15/2007 12:32:29 PM , Rating: 3
Do you live in a house or apartment or under a roof with 4 walls of some sort? Ok then you are in a cage of a different name.
Do you drive a vehicle? Another cage of sorts.
In the case of animals, I keep my dog in a cage at night and she prefers it, remember that most wild dogs/cats were pack animals and slept in small close knit caves with their pack. It is natural for them to prefer a closed in cage or "bed" that they feel safe in. The same as your bedroom, if you were raised your whole life under the stars then you would prefer sleeping out in the open, the rest of humanity sleeps in a cage called a bedroom.


RE: Why?
By Manch on 12/15/2007 3:02:38 PM , Rating: 1
idiot


RE: Why?
By rodrigu3 on 12/15/2007 5:47:20 PM , Rating: 1
Just so you know, fluorescent tagging does not have any ill effects. You don't have to be God to know this, it has been scientifically proven. Although if you don't believe in science, this is a totally different issue.

Cats don't talk and do not have the capacity for language. Your argument that cats are living things and their lives are worth the same as that of a human life is flawed. One cat can save many lives and does not have the potential of doing so on its own. One human life can save many lives, however that human life is worth much more because of the potential for him or her to save even more on their own. Please read up on ethics before posting such illogical rambling.

Breathing, walking, eating and sleeping? That's all you have to do to be considered on par with a human being? Listen, if I were a pet, I would be really happy. I would get to walk around naked, crap whenever and wherever I want and not have to clean it up, get free health care, eat however much I want whenever I want, sleep whenever. Sounds like a great life to me.


RE: Why?
By Jaxonlupis on 12/17/2007 9:00:05 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Tell you what, I've never buy an animal from a shop, and I never feels it's OK to have them in a cage, what would you feel if you being in a cage? Will you feel happy? I do have a pet, but she were a wild cat that come to me when she's pregnant and need help, and so I help her and she always visit me everyday now. Treat animals well and they will treat you well, even if they don't, you still have to treat them well. Show your respect to others so they respect you.


Well I must say I find you to be a prick! You have a cat that you let run around out side not spade? You are just helping to make more homeless animals. So in affect you are killing those poor cats! Do you really think their are not enough strays in the world? Try freaking getting a clue! you putz.


RE: Why?
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 12/14/2007 9:04:51 PM , Rating: 2
Scientists do it in worms to trace specific cells during development. Without these markers, we would not have cracked a lot of genetic mysteries.

Still, why you'd put it in all the cells of a cat -- I have no idea.


RE: Why?
By iollmann on 12/14/2007 9:26:13 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
However, is there a justifiable reason to do this??? Really like, one could argue that its 'proof of concept' or that its added a little bit to our knowledge, but is there really any need to make these cats 'glow in the dark' so to speak?


Yes. It serves two purposes. First of all its rather incontrovertible proof that these cats were modified to not only have the new gene, but the gene is actually there and turned on and produces protein that actually works. Just getting the gene in there isn't the whole story. Second since the gene in question probably came from a jellyfish or something like that, it seems likely that the gene didn't get in there due to natural causes. So, it serves as a nice control that lets one say rather convincingly that hey, this really is a transgenic cat, and it didn't just happen by accident. Its just a proof of principle that you can make the genetically modified clone.

I will suggest based on experience from genetically altered fat mice, glowing fish and various other research successes that it is likely that a highly lucrative glowing pet trade will emerge for glowing cats. Frankly, if the cost was similar to the garden variety cat (dime a dozen), I wouldn't mind having a cat I could see in the dark. It would save turning on the lights to find the d*mn thing so I could evict it from the bedroom. My wife sleeps better. I sleep better. The cat will get away with less. Everyone wins!

The major design failure here is that I'd still need a UV lamp. I'll hold out for the bioluminescent flavor.

quote:
what happens if humans start playing god?


This isn't playing God. Playing God is fire, brimstone, earthquakes! -- real WRATH OF GOD(TM) stuff here. Glow-in-the-dark cats and designer children are just good clean harmless fun. Oh sure, I see your look of mock shock and appall. Let's be real here. If we don't do it, someone else will (like the Koreans!). Whoever it is will probably get it wrong for the first 15 generations or so, but eventually it will work out in the end, right? I mean, people are still waiting for Microsoft to get Windows(TM) right, right?

quote:
Personally, and this is just my opinion, Im all for the beneficial research in cloning and stem cells, but why must the lives of these conscious beings be created to satisfy something that can't possible benefit us???


Me! Me! Me! ;-)

What they've done here is follow a similar set of experiments that are already accepted as proof of the creation of transgenic bacteria, fish, mice, etc. Now that they've fairly conclusively proven that it can be done, other scientists will likely pay more attention to the idea of cat cloning. Transgenic cats are likely to be useful for something.

Maybe.

Er... Medical research! Cats are used for medical research at times! That's it!

..but maybe you're on to something here. Really, whether cats (transgenic or otherwise) can ever be considered legitimately *useful* will no doubt be a subject of debate for millennia to come. Most people, I'm sure, land on the resounding "No!" side of that debate. Have you ever asked a cat to do anything? The usual reply from the cat is "Are you insane?" (Note to gentle reader: if you actually hear the cat saying "Are you insane?" then the answer is "yes".) Our cat still owes us $17 for license and registration fees -- official permission by the state to be a cat. I really don't see any indication that she will ever go out and get a job or pay us back in any way. Even fishing a few coins out of the couch would be beneficial. Mostly she just eats, sleeps and purrs on my chest making me wonder if maybe I have pneumonia.

She does add fiber to our diet.


RE: Why?
By Chocobollz on 12/15/07, Rating: -1
RE: Why?
By AmbroseAthan on 12/15/2007 12:07:35 PM , Rating: 2
I would love a clone of myself... we would be an unstoppable Halo3 duo!


RE: Why?
By itlnstln on 12/17/2007 2:30:14 PM , Rating: 1
Hell, I could just use the help at work.

(Yet, amazingly, I had enough time to type this...)


RE: Why?
By RedAlice on 12/17/2007 10:13:06 AM , Rating: 2
You sir, are a riot.
quote:
The major design failure here is that I'd still need a UV lamp. I'll hold out for the bioluminescent flavor.

Agreed. I was all for signing up to get one, but I don't really want to put black lights in all of my lamps.
quote:

I will suggest based on experience from genetically altered fat mice, glowing fish and various other research successes that it is likely that a highly lucrative glowing pet trade will emerge for glowing cats.

Now Glow in the Dark fish would be better...I would only have to get ONE UV lamp.


RE: Why?
By kontorotsui on 12/15/2007 5:58:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is a thing that has always been in the back of my mind - what happens if humans start playing god?


We started playing God once we discovered fire.


RE: Why?
By Manch on 12/15/2007 3:05:25 PM , Rating: 2
Dude these things will be the ultimate night light! How is that not beneficial?


RE: Why?
By wrekd on 12/16/2007 3:52:13 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not saying this is a reason, but when I was in Korea in '99 - '00 I saw poodles in a store window with pink ears, green feet, blue tails and a red mane (shaved mane anyways). Koreans are the ultimate consumers and do very strange things to thier pets.


Brilliant!
By daftrok on 12/14/2007 7:20:52 PM , Rating: 5
Now the next step is to make our children glow in the dark. Whippersnappers always running away from my basement at night, this will help a bundle!




RE: Brilliant!
By youdosuck on 12/14/2007 7:39:36 PM , Rating: 3
Al Gore will love this. Replace all light bulbs with kittens. I think that solves the Global Warming Problem!!!!!


RE: Brilliant!
By AstroCreep on 12/14/07, Rating: 0
RE: Brilliant!
By FITCamaro on 12/15/2007 11:31:26 AM , Rating: 1
This deserves a 6.


RE: Brilliant!
By rodrigu3 on 12/14/2007 8:07:10 PM , Rating: 2
aren't they increasing the cat's chances of getting cancer by exposing it to UV light?


RE: Brilliant!
By Cogman on 12/14/2007 8:17:37 PM , Rating: 2
no, first cats have hair that absorbs most of the light (doesn't make it through to the skin)

Second, its possible they are using the non-cancer causing version. (UV-A? or is it UV-B? I forget)


RE: Brilliant!
By rodrigu3 on 12/14/2007 9:03:47 PM , Rating: 2
yeah I know, it was meant more as a bad joke to follow up the cow comment, sorry


Awesome.
By Sungpooz on 12/14/2007 9:35:21 PM , Rating: 3
Here's an idea"

A yellow electricity-generating rat.




RE: Awesome.
By skyyspam on 12/14/2007 9:57:59 PM , Rating: 3
This is freakin awesome. Next thing you know, we're gonna have cats made out of clay that grow green fuzz when you pour water on them!


RE: Awesome.
By FITCamaro on 12/15/07, Rating: 0
RE: Awesome.
By FITCamaro on 12/15/2007 11:41:00 AM , Rating: 2
I'd go for a cat that can digest its own hair instead of throwing it up on the carpet. Or glows in the dark without needing a UV light.

How about a dog that likes the taste of its own crap.


RE: Awesome.
By JonnyDough on 12/16/2007 3:12:13 AM , Rating: 1
Pretty sure they have those too.
Snoopy might take offense to this, but I'm pretty sure that some beagles will succumb to the tantalizing flavor their own feces. My girlfriend's brother said his has. :-P


RE: Awesome.
By rodrigu3 on 12/15/2007 7:12:05 PM , Rating: 2
thundercats, hoooooo!


RE: Awesome.
By dflynchimp on 12/16/2007 7:13:54 PM , Rating: 2
PiiiikaCHUUUUUUU!!!!!!


Glowing Food
By SaintSinner1 on 12/14/2007 9:11:13 PM , Rating: 3
I wonder if glowing cat will taste same as regular cat.




RE: Glowing Food
By Chocobollz on 12/15/2007 2:17:43 AM , Rating: 2
LAWL!


RE: Glowing Food
By kontorotsui on 12/15/2007 6:06:25 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I wonder if glowing cat will taste same as regular cat.


Of course it does, but then you'll glow as well, so animal rights activist will find.


RE: Glowing Food
By FITCamaro on 12/15/2007 11:33:32 AM , Rating: 2
Hey it'd be a good way to make sure your food is actually chicken from the local Chinese take out place.

There's a reason there ain't a lot of stray cats around those restaurants...


LOL! Cloning done right.
By AggressorPrime on 12/15/2007 1:20:05 AM , Rating: 2
While cloning humans is wrong, namely because people kill the clones afterwards; cloning animals is a ton of fun. Being masters of the world, I say we do this to every living creature but man. The world would be a brighter place. :) (Play on words...)




RE: LOL! Cloning done right.
By Chocobollz on 12/15/2007 2:21:41 AM , Rating: 2
But please don't clone it on... like... T-Rex or Raptors please :). Or else you'll bring Jurassic Park to New York :P.


RE: LOL! Cloning done right.
By Manch on 12/15/2007 3:15:56 PM , Rating: 2
I can't wait to by my kids their My Fisher Price first cloning set!


RE: LOL! Cloning done right.
By timmiser on 12/16/2007 1:29:31 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
While cloning humans is wrong, namely because people kill the clones afterwards;


Huh??

Did I miss a DT update a while back?


Desperate for attention?
By Polynikes on 12/14/2007 10:28:04 PM , Rating: 2
Sounds like these guys needed a gimmick to get some exposure. Cloned animals? Old news. GLOWING cloned animals? <sarcasm>Holy shit, that's AMAZING!</sarcasm>




RE: Desperate for attention?
By derdon on 12/15/2007 5:57:24 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly my thought, when Greenpeace published the recent report comparing gaming consoles on base of hazardous components everyone cried "sensationalism"... And what do these guys do!? Cloning glowing cats... WTF is that!?


RE: Desperate for attention?
By rodrigu3 on 12/15/2007 10:50:24 AM , Rating: 2
Normally, the fluorescent protein is mapped to a specific protein. It isn't just floating around in all cells. However, if they didn't tag any specific protein of interest with it, then this experiment is most likely a gimmick.


Well, technically...
By Goty on 12/14/2007 8:38:20 PM , Rating: 1
Technically you can't glow "red" in ultraviolet light. There are no colors in any other part of the EM spectrum than the visible part.




RE: Well, technically...
By rodrigu3 on 12/14/2007 8:57:26 PM , Rating: 2
the UV light is being used as the excitation wavelength and the red light is the emitted wavelength

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


RE: Well, technically...
By Goty on 12/15/2007 12:41:09 AM , Rating: 1
Ah, well then, the article is just badly worded. Perhaps "under UV light" would have worked better?


These are not really glowing.
By 91TTZ on 12/14/2007 10:38:43 PM , Rating: 2
They put white cats under UW light and they glow red. Hasn't anyone else ever played with black or UV lights? White stuff almost always glows. You could probably take a normal white cat, put it under a black light, and it'll glow, probably purple.




RE: These are not really glowing.
By omnicronx on 12/15/2007 3:35:38 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think this is the same reaction you are thinking of. When you put something white under black light, it lights up really bright, but its still white. These cats are clearly glowing red ;)

The article does not mention how it is done, but I am guessing sure the UVA light used was probably higher in the light spectrum than a normal black light. Probably closer to the X-Ray side of things..

<here>
i.e Infrared --> Visible --> Ulteraviolet ---> X-ray


reproduction
By wordsworm on 12/14/2007 11:25:14 PM , Rating: 1
Does anyone know if these cats can carry on these genes? Will they be able to procreate and pass the genes onto the next generation?




RE: reproduction
By rodrigu3 on 12/15/2007 10:48:03 AM , Rating: 2
Most likely yes. Transgenic animals (mice for example) can pass on the transgene to their progeny. The lab I used to work for had a transgenic mouse strain with a gene you could turn off and on with an antibiotic.


RE: reproduction
By wordsworm on 12/15/2007 11:37:18 PM , Rating: 1
A genetic Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. I love it!

I'm wondering when it will be that prospective parents can go to a gene lab and get a designer child.


I think..
By Chocobollz on 12/15/2007 2:29:19 AM , Rating: 2
After inspecting that cat's picture a little bit more, I think they're a little wierd :P. Well, cats are well known to have their eyes glowing a different color (like green or red) when they're exposed to light from certain angle. But not in this cats? Maybe something wrong with their gene? Or is it completely on a different things because they use UV and not regular lights.

Just my thoughts :P.




RE: I think..
By rodrigu3 on 12/15/2007 10:45:20 AM , Rating: 2
The cat's eyes are reflecting UV light, you just can't see it. Cat's eyes don't "glow," they reflect light you shine at them. You can't see the UV light being reflected here because it is obviously out of the visible spectrum. The cat's photoreceptors (cells on the retina) probably do not transcribe the fluorescent gene so they don't fluoresce red like the rest of the cat.


If South Korea is doing this....
By qdogforeva on 12/15/2007 11:01:38 AM , Rating: 2
Just think of what North Korea is going to do with that mother f#(king freeze ray.




By encryptkeeper on 12/15/2007 1:53:25 PM , Rating: 2
Well, all I have to say is it's about time someone got the ball rolling on this.




heh
By omnicronx on 12/15/2007 2:23:31 PM , Rating: 2
COMING SOON TO KOREAN RESTAURANTS NEAR YOU!!!!!!




By doybyun on 12/17/2007 9:35:43 AM , Rating: 2
His family name is Hwang and his given name is Woo-suk.
He's Mr. Hwang, not Mr. Suk, although I like it how it sounds like Mr. Suck.




It will be great if ...
By chick0n on 12/16/07, Rating: -1
RE: It will be great if ...
By Typhax64 on 12/17/2007 4:45:41 AM , Rating: 1
You Sir, are an idiot!


RE: It will be great if ...
By doybyun on 12/17/2007 9:36:49 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with you, sir.


"Young lady, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" -- Homer Simpson














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki