Here's a past reply on this issue I made a few weeks ago...

In case anyone wants some information about "gene 6"...better/correctly known as "P6"...as it pertains to current discussion based on a study by the EFSA...

This is a very wide range of proteins found in virus encoding from HIV to mosaic virus...these proteins are also found in the smoke of burning meat and tobacco. It's a very wide range. In this case, one of the biggest dangers would be a chance encoding to re-invigorate the "dead" version of cauliflower mosaic virus (or P6 residues) that's very commonly used as a carrier string for DNA/RNA insertion that it's inserted into. This could lead to some allergy problems, too, even if it doesn't fully express the mosaic virus but still overlaps enough to express P6 proteins. P6 is a known allergen, though it's not one that everyone is sensitive to.

The expression of this gene is highly unlikely, though...and would be regulated to a single (or very small groups) of plants doing this replication rather than entire seed source or a field suddenly replicating mosaic virus or P6 residues. If it is the case that encoding suddenly made it large-scale available it would show up heavily in the research stage and it wouldn't make it out into the consumer market since it's showing inferior/bad genetic expression. One of the biggest parts of GMO research is tossing out 99%+ of everything you're actually trying to create because positive effects of expression aren't stable enough to sell it as seed...or it's showing "bad" expressions.

There's a lot of otherwise harmful viruses (to plants or humans) used to insert GMO traits for start/end points into a genetic change that are made inert (and distinctly different) from their original genetic package, but still contain large parts of what makes up the virus, itself. Viruses can easily carry genetic information and they're ideal vehicles for transferring it. The genetic carriers of the virus are merely vehicles. Once you change the "genetic package" inside a virus it's not even what you started with. The "guts" are changed dramatically. If you put a Dodge Neon engine in a Porsche very few people would still consider it a Porsche. That's the level of dramatic change in sequencing going on inside of these packages. You can take certain virus types, depending on what you're trying to achieve, and precisely insert genetic information with start/termination points into existing DNA/RNA...totally turning it's genetic information into something totally different in both makeup and application.

Btw, to those with P6 protein sensitivities...this would be a big deal. I'm not trying to knock the research at all. I'm just saying it's overlapping expression would most likely be contained to a very few plants in a field, not widespread. While genetic start/termination points are very good with insertion and replication once stable, nothing is perfect when you're exchanging genes...we see it even natural breeding. The major problem with this particular chain of insertion is the overlapping of the 2 sequences given as example in the paper and what could happen as a consequence of them being genetically linked so closely together...even if there's a very small chance of it happening as defined.

It's also worth mentioning we're talking a single virus carrier, not the 100s of types (or the 20-ish most commonly used) carriers. It would also be greatly influenced by the new information inserted, what was cut out, and where the start/termination points overlap (if there is any replication overlap). There's more than 1 way to insert genetic information into virus and the chances of overlap encoding or reversion is different depending on the type of method used.

nc-crn, your cut and paste from an earlier discussion is interesting, but it does not appear to address most of the concerns brought up in the main link that I gave ("The paper linked to in the "Here is a link that might be useful" box has 124 comments which the reader may find interesting.") .

The following is a quote from the link that indicates what they are concerned about:

"The Many Functions of Gene VI
Gene VI, like most plant viral genes, produces a protein that is multifunctional. It has four (so far) known roles in the viral infection cycle. The first is to participate in the assembly of virus particles. There is no current data to suggest this function has any implications for biosafety. The second known function is to suppress anti-pathogen defenses by inhibiting a general cellular system called RNA silencing (Haas et al. 2008). Thirdly, Gene VI has the highly unusual function of transactivating (described below) the long RNA (the 35S RNA) produced by CaMV (Park et al. 2001). Fourthly, unconnected to these other mechanisms, Gene VI has very recently been shown to make plants highly susceptible to a bacterial pathogen (Love et al. 2012). Gene VI does this by interfering with a common anti-pathogen defense mechanism possessed by plants. These latter three functions of Gene VI (and their risk implications) are explained further below:"

This post was edited by henry_kuska on Sun, Feb 24, 13 at 16:23

Gene6/P6 expression after an insertion would be an encoding error that wasn't "fixed" by built in proofreading DNA replication processes. It would require an insertion error in initial encoding or, more likely, an error encoding which the proofreading process (a function of P3 DNA polymerase) of DNA replication did not fix. Aka, this would be a mutation of the DNA which, by chance, encoded the P6 protein in a single plant.

There's a very small chance of this happening in a plant as it is, and it's almost impossible for this to happen with a large amount of plants in a stand.

The particular virus + insertions have been in use for almost 20 years.

In order for a P6 allergen danger to manifest itself, which most people are not allergic to, it would have to happen in a plant which had a DNA replication error and happened to fix a P6 protein. A person who's susceptible to the allergy would also happen to ingest the mutated plant's grain...which would be a very small chance given how much grain is mixed with the rest of the crop or harvested grain in an elevator.

In order for the mutated plant to become susceptible to infections the same replication error (including a proofreading not correcting it) would have to happen and the plant would have to actually contract an illness. This would effect the plants and could effect the surrounding plants.

It's just something that's possible, but highly unlikely...and extremely rarely found to actually happen. The proximity of the gene insertion points gives a chance encoding of P6 a chance to happen via overlap.

Fwiw, the P6 replications found in the actual report are not even known allergens...though the P6 class of proteins include many allergens.

From the report...

"As no scientific literature has been reported on any allergenic properties of CaMV and no similarities have been shown to know allergens, it can be concluded that the P6 protein is most likely not an allergen. In addition, a toxin database was constructed, and no significant sequence similarity with the P35S variants was detected. These data suggest that the P35S variants do not contain ORFs that encode for proteins that have allergenic or toxic properties."

It's also worth mentioning that ORFs in a GMO insertion would also be a mutation because Open Reading Frames contain no genetic/DNA "stop" points so it continues to self-replicate. GMO insertions include specific start and termination points in order to precisely get a desired genetic string/chain into whatever it's being inserted into. If an insertion and mutation formed ORFs the chances of this P6 expression goes up, though, via sheer volume of replications without being stopped.

"Although the P35S overlaps partially with gene VI, the likelihood of unintended effects occurring will depend on whether the partial gene VI is transcribed. We believe that if P35S is embedded in a transformation construct with another gene cassette at its 5′ flank, it is unlikely that the partial gene VI will be transcribed. In contrast, when the P35S is inserted adjacent to plant genomic DNA, transcription from an endogenous plant promoter might take place and create a chimeric protein that contains part of P6. "

The chance that something can happen doesn't mean it will happen. For those that complain about GMO allergens this does open up an area to concentrate new research on, though the scientists themselves couldn't even replicate a known allergen in their forced experiments using unnatural forces to play with the DNA.

"though the scientists themselves couldn't even replicate a known allergen in their forced experiments using unnatural forces to play with the DNA."

So then the chances are very rare then?

They replicated some P6 proteins, just not any known allergen types.

Talking about P6 proteins is like talking about "cars" or "trees"...there's many specific types that act in a different manner from each other even though they're all basically proteins...or cars...or trees.

There's a chance some people may be allergic to the types replicated, but given that they're not "known" to be allergenic it's doubtful enough that the researchers, themselves, believe the P6 produced aren't allergens. CaMV (Cauliflower mosaic virus) has existed a very long time and the whole study's effect is based around it's possible overlaps producing P6.

Most of the response refers to allergens.

The following does refer to one of the points made in the link that I gave: "In order for the mutated plant to become susceptible to infections the same replication error (including a proofreading not correcting it) would have to happen and the plant would have to actually contract an illness. This would effect the plants and could effect the surrounding plants.

It's just something that's possible, but highly unlikely...and extremely rarely found to actually happen. The proximity of the gene insertion points gives a chance encoding of P6 a chance to happen via overlap."

Concerning whether something is "It's just something that's possible, but highly unlikely...and extremely rarely found to actually happen.".

What does history tell us?

When there was concern about plants developing resistance to glyphosate, the reply was: Citing agreement from university scientists, the company declared it “highly unlikely” that widespread use of Roundup Ready technology would lead to resistant weeds."
See the Google search below.

Here is a link that might be useful: Google search

A plant like that wouldn't become breeding stock, though. It wouldn't have a chance to pass it's genetics.

Even if it did happen to pass it's genetics in the wild, the negative aspect would have to be a sexually linked trait and that may not be in play here. I doubt it is, but I'm not sure...nor if it would be a dominate trait even if it is capable of being passed sexually. Either way we're talking about a small chance of a plant existing which would have to be on the very edge of a field and by chance pass it genetics to someone's saved seed. It becomes even less likely considering how few farmers save seed of most of these types of crops (corn, soy, cotton, etc) compared to buying fresh hybrid seed (GMO or non-GMO). It's a highly unlikely "perfect storm" situation.

GMO seed parents (and non-GMO hybrid seed parents) are very specific, tightly controlled, property...though regular non-GMO hybrid seed stock doesn't have patent control over gene sequences.

Weeds in the wild and insects in the wild go through many generations and changes in evolution. Every GMO and non-GMO hybrid seed is a bottleneck of specific genes.

This post was edited by nc-crn on Sun, Feb 24, 13 at 22:59

The following was pointed out: "Weeds in the wild and insects in the wild go through many generations and changes in evolution."
------------------------------------
H.Kuska comment. Yes, and what about plant viruses?

------------------------------------------

It is my understanding that one GM gene per plant is now "yesterdays news" and that stacked genes is now the "in thing". How much does this complicate the picture?
http://bch.cbd.int/onlineconferences/guidancedoc_ra_stackedgenes.shtml

Here is a link that might be useful: Upper-limit mutation rate estimation for a plant RNA virus

Stacked genes have been what's going on since day-1...before the first were made market available.

We use a lot of "on the surface" scary virus/bacteria genetic material to make GMO insertions or create GMO "parts" for insertion. E-coli types are commonly used, though not any scary as the "flesh eating" E-coli type(s).

The plant virus in question in this insertion would be CaMV, which, if somehow invigorated wouldn't even effect corn/soy/cotton because this mosaic virus is plant specific to cauliflower, radish, cabbages, turnips, etc...plants that wouldn't even be growing this time of year.

That said, it would be an extremely low chance of a mutation creating the regeneration of the virus.

A GMO insertion can be thought of taking ABCDEFGHIJKL and turning it into ABCUVWXYZJKL. It's so dissimilar that the chances of it becoming what it once was is extremely low and would require some really extreme chance overlapping.

It's a lot more likely (though not very likely) that mutation + overlap would create the P6 proteins (or protein parts), not re-invigorate the virus, itself.

This post was edited by nc-crn on Mon, Feb 25, 13 at 15:01

OMG GMO!!!!! We're all gonna DIE!

It's the cauliflower mosaic virus, and anyone who has eaten anything in the brassica family has already eaten the viral DNA ... every time you eat anything you eat its DNA and the DNA of all its viruses and bacteria.

The following statement was made:
"The plant virus in question in this insertion would be CaMV, which, if somehow invigorated wouldn't even effect corn/soy/cotton because this mosaic virus is plant specific to cauliflower, radish, cabbages, turnips, etc...plants that wouldn't even be growing this time of year."
--------------------------------------------
H. Kuska comment: If someone wants to start a thread about invigorating viruses from fragments, I would be interested in following it. However, that is not the concern, as I read it, of the article by Jonathan Latham and Allison Wilson that I linked to.

I also gave links to several other papers which appear to have been ignored in this thread. Particularly,

http://permaculturenews.org/2013/01/28/hazardous-virus-gene-discovered-in-gm-crops-after-20-years

gives information which should be sufficient to negate the posted concerns in this thread about the complete virus being eated:
---------------------------------------------
Posted on Mon, Feb 25, 13 at 15:23

"OMG GMO!!!!! We're all gonna DIE!
It's the cauliflower mosaic virus, and anyone who has eaten anything in the brassica family has already eaten the viral DNA."
---------------------------------------------
Quotes from the link.
"It is of interest that the objections for ‘shredding’ the scientific paper of Podevin and du Jardin [1] and Latham and Wilson’s report [2] are exactly the ones used against us. The first objection is that humans have been eating the CaMV for millennia without ill effects; the second is that the CaMV 35S promoter is only active in plants and certainly not in animal or human cells.

Our rebuttal to the first objection is that the intact CaMV, consisting of the CaMV genome wrapped in its protein coat, is not infectious for human beings or for other non-susceptible animals and plants, as is well-known; for it is the coat that determines host susceptibility in the first instance. So eating the intact virus is of little consequence. However, the naked or free viral genomes (and parts thereof) are known to be more infectious and have a wider host-range than the intact virus. Furthermore, the synthetic CaMV 35S promoters are very different from the natural promoters, and are both much more aggressive as promoters driving inappropriate gene expression as well as more prone to fragment and recombine."

"The second objection ��" that CaMV 35S is not active in animals and human cells ��" is simply false as we discovered in the scientific literature dating back to 1989, and pointed this out in a third paper [6] (CaMV 35S promoter fragmentation hotspot confirmed, and it is active in animals). The CaMV 35S promoter was found to support high levels of reporter gene expression in mature Xenopus oocytes [7], and to give very efficient transcription in extracts of nuclei from HeLa cells (a human cell line) [8]."

----------------------------------------------------

Here is a link that might be useful: intact CaMV, consisting of the CaMV genome wrapped in its protein coat, is not infectious for human beings or for other non-susceptible animals and plants

Okay, this has gone from the discussion of a possible P6 expression in a chance overlap expression...to questioning the very makeup, use, and interaction of CaMV/CaMV35S, itself.

We're now talking about something totally different than what was initially brought up.

For over 20 years CaMV and it's promoters have been used for GMO insertion in agriculture plantings in the "real world" beyond the lab.

CaMV is no longer CaMV when GMO insertions are made. It's like ripping the engine out of a Porsche and replacing it with the engine from a Dodge Neon. It may have a Porsche shell, but that isn't a Porsche on the inside. There is no intact virus...just part of it...which is useless without the whole thing from an infection standpoint. We would be infecting plants with the initial virus every single time if that was the case. A partial expression of a gene isn't an expression of a gene. ABCDEFG isn't the same as ABCXYZG. Theorizing that that these genes would start splicing at exact points and randomly picking up new genetic insertions that would be infectious/re-invigorating is possible...about as possible as getting struck by lightning while dodging a meteor that was coming for you while you were on your way to cash in your $10m lottery ticket you just won.

Those objections from whoever you quoted also sounds like it came from someone who doesn't understand GMO or genetics. I'm really sure the person posting those objections has no idea what CaMV actually is/does. ...or they have some kind of agenda for spreading half-truths because this isn't "heavy" stuff in the world of GMO.

-edit- Okay, this is an ISIS article...she (Dr. Mae-Wan Ho) DOES know better, but she's trying to "do other things". She also believes AIDS isn't a real disease and it's an excuse for pharm companies to sell meds, btw. She's part of a very small minority of people/scientists who are rather sure we're going to see reversions of original virus/bacteria from parts of them merely existing...even though they're missing a lot of key information which makes them a new genetic package to begin with. The scientific community at large isn't a huge fan of her...and ISIS exists, mostly, because no one will publish her work.

"However, the naked or free viral genomes (and parts thereof) are known to be more infectious and have a wider host-range than the intact virus. "

This is true...but the guts aren't the virus, itself...it's the new genetic package that's "free." The "infection" that would be taking place is the whole point of GMO insertion...to pass that changed/inserted genetic information in a host plant.

CaMV carriers can infect almost ANY cells...human, plant, you name it. What matters is what's in the guts, not the fact it can be used in a carrier. What matters even more is that the host can actually do something with what's passed to it. This goes back to the early 1980s as far as practical use...especially in HUMAN insulin production (where most modern insulin comes from via GMO).

CaMV happens to be a great carrier for packaging any genetic packages.

This post was edited by nc-crn on Mon, Feb 25, 13 at 19:18

The following quote was made: "We're now talking about something totally different than what was initially brought up."

H.Kuska comment. I started the thread and linked to a specific paper by Jonathan Latham and Allison Wilson . I have attempted to keep the conversation focused first on that paper and then later on the other links that I proved in my initial post . As far as I can determine, even the last post is only partially on the points that are in my initial links (and no references were presented). To keep this thread on track, If someone feels that they have points about my initial post, please put the material in quotes from the link that you are discussing. And please no personel attacks against others. If you want to discuss other subjects, please start your own thread.

"The gmo modifications utilize a virus to insert the new genes. Unfortunately, a significant fragment of the viral gene has been reported to stay in the gmo plant."

I've been trying to explain this...

They're not taking all of the virus out and putting all fresh genetic code in...they're taking part of a virus's genetic code out and inserting new genetic information in.

It's no longer the same thing. It's genetically, uniquely different...both what it is and how it works.

Being 60-75-whatever% CaMV no longer makes it CaMV in practice. The insertions are made in order to pass along new genetic information.

If ABCDEFG encodes CaMV then ABCXYZG isn't going to ecode CaMV even though ABC+G still exists.

Our DNA contains much "junk data" along with the stuff that matters. When you restructure DNA in a matter such as GMO insertion you're putting new "data" that a plant/animal can "make sense" of along with turning old "useful data" into "junk data."

This isn't even the point of the paper at http://www.es.landesbioscience.com/journals/gmcrops/article/21406/?show_full_text=true

...what that paper was about I've covered above.

You seem to have questions raised by the article at permaculturenews...which was written by Dr. Ho from ISIS. The points she raised are simply things she's piggybacked on in order to write something totally different from the points raised by the initial study. Similar can be said by Dr. Mercola's points on that other blog link, only Dr. Mercola doesn't have the credentials that Dr. Ho has on the issue and probably doesn't fully grasp what's going on genetically. He tends to be a "jack of all trades" when it comes to subjects...and he's not the expert he asserts himself to be on as many subjects as he covers.

There's a lot of nothing being made over gene fragments (which isn't a new discovery) by Dr. Mercola and Dr. Ho and others...as if it was some kind of new "smoking gun" rather than something that is well known and matter of fact.

Also, what Jonathan Latham and Allison Wilson wrote isn't a scientific study...it's a "news report" from Independent Science News who (like Dr. Ho) run their own organization to publish their own news/views. If you look at some of the things they wrote, such as "When Gene VI is intentionally expressed in transgenic plants, it causes them to become chlorotic (yellow), to have growth deformities, and to have reduced fertility in a dose-dependent manner " then you'd see all these GMO crops in the field turning yellow and having growth deformities if this was more than an extremely low chance thing. They've taken a hodge-podge of other's work and pieced together an "article" backing up their point...some of which doesn't help show what they're trying to prove.

The important part (and actual focus) of the study concerns P6 overlap creation possibilities and I covered that above.

This post was edited by nc-crn on Mon, Feb 25, 13 at 21:46

The statement was made "Being 60-75-whatever% CaMV no longer makes it CaMV in practice."

--------------------------------------
H.Kuska comment. Please provide the quote where one of my cited papers states that it was CaMV in practice.

==============================
The following quote was given: ""The gmo modifications utilize a virus to insert the new genes. Unfortunately, a significant fragment of the viral gene has been reported to stay in the gmo plant."

And then:
"I've been trying to explain this..."

----------------------------------------
H.Kuska comment: Oh? I do not see the connection between your statements and that simple statement of fact that you have quoted. Is that an accurate statement or not. And if you feel that it is not accurate, please provide your references.

Okay, at this point...if you're interested...I'm gonna have to ask you exactly what you want to know in the first place...because I'm totally lost.

I've explained "The gmo modifications utilize a virus to insert the new genes. Unfortunately, a significant fragment of the viral gene has been reported to stay in the gmo plant." numerous times...recently in the post before hand.

I've also explained the point of the paper (the actual study) and chance encoding of P6.

As far as references go...I don't know. Textbooks, actual practice. Talk to someone besides me in the industry.

This is what I do for a living.

This is how GMO "happens." This is genetic interaction at a basic level of modification.

We can talk deletions and domains if you want...we're basically talking about "breaking a circle" at specific points of "important" initial genetic information and then deleting/inserting new genetic information in. It turns the old data into unreadable/unusable junk while the host knows what to do with the new information. It's like adding destructive noise to a voice message while also taking parts of the message out and inserting new voices in. It would be a very rare, next to impossible, thing to actually hear the initial message thanks to the tampering.

This post was edited by nc-crn on Mon, Feb 25, 13 at 22:02

I stated this on: "Posted by henry_kuska z5 OH (kuska@neo.rr.com) on Sun, Feb 24, 13 at 16:15"

"nc-crn, your cut and paste from an earlier discussion is interesting, but it does not appear to address most of the concerns brought up in the main link that I gave ("The paper linked to in the "Here is a link that might be useful" box has 124 comments which the reader may find interesting.") .
The following is a quote from the link that indicates what they are concerned about: "The Many Functions of Gene VI
Gene VI, like most plant viral genes, produces a protein that is multifunctional. It has four (so far) known roles in the viral infection cycle. The first is to participate in the assembly of virus particles. There is no current data to suggest this function has any implications for biosafety. The second known function is to suppress anti-pathogen defenses by inhibiting a general cellular system called RNA silencing (Haas et al. 2008). Thirdly, Gene VI has the highly unusual function of transactivating (described below) the long RNA (the 35S RNA) produced by CaMV (Park et al. 2001). Fourthly, unconnected to these other mechanisms, Gene VI has very recently been shown to make plants highly susceptible to a bacterial pathogen (Love et al. 2012). Gene VI does this by interfering with a common anti-pathogen defense mechanism possessed by plants. These latter three functions of Gene VI (and their risk implications) are explained further below:"
-----------------------------------
Please notice that they give scientific references. Have you any scientific references to refute their points and their references?

No, I just have nearly a decade of experience doing it for a living and some degrees.

I've already told you I don't have a list of references to give you.

If you choose to not believe, that's up to you. The great thing about science is that it doesn't care about people's faith...it just is.

You're overlooking the fact that P6 expression is highly unlikely in the first place to concentrate on things it "might" do.

Reading the actual paper might fill in some blanks vs. the side-roads those blog/"news" postings are taking you on. Reading just the Discussion part of the paper says a lot about what you need to know without inserting fear and speculation.

"In conclusion, different P35S variants are in use to express proteins in transgenic plants. Here, we detailed the overlap of P35S with the coding sequence of gene VI. Our bioinformatic analyses indicated that no ORFs are present in the P35S that are similar to known toxic and allergenic proteins. Possible unintended effects that are linked to the use of extended versions of the P35S have been determined. The -343 variant, identified by Odell and colleagues, contains all of the necessary elements for full promoter activity and does not appear to result in the presence of an ORF with functional domains, rendering it and its related variants the most appropriate promoter variants for avoiding unintended effects."

-Reference...the actual report... =p

This post was edited by nc-crn on Mon, Feb 25, 13 at 22:36

I am interested in what you have to say scientifically about the points that are under discussion. If you want to discuss the original paper Podevin and du Jardin 2012 , (which I have read and feel that I understand), please start another thread.

You may want to include a discussion of the following paper in your thread.

"Scientific assessment of publication by Podevin and du Jardin (2012)
24.01.2013

By request from the Norwegian Directorate for Nature Management, GenØk has written a scientific assessment of the publication by Podevin and du Jardin."

Of particular interest to me in your thread will be your discussion of the following:

"This approach ignores the potential availability of protein domains of toxins and allergens in the linear translated sequences. Domains are the functional portions of proteins and consist of at least 25 amino acids. If a domain search{{gwi:807}} shows no hit against known toxic proteins, it should not be concluded that potential toxins might not be found in the future because the domain databases as collections of protein domains are constantly updated."

The original link stopped working, I upgraded it and will post it here:

http://www.genok.com/news_cms/2013/january/vitenskapelig-vurdering-av-publikasjon-fra-podevin-og-du-jardin-2012/181

Here is a link that might be useful: link for above

This post was edited by henry_kuska on Mon, Feb 25, 13 at 23:54

"If a domain search shows no hit against known toxic proteins, it should not be concluded that potential toxins might not be found in the future because the domain databases as collections of protein domains are constantly updated."

It also shouldn't be concluded it should/could be found in the future.

P6 proteins are very old, very studied, proteins. There's tons of them.

I've also mentioned...quoting from some of my past posts...

"There's a chance some people may be allergic to the types replicated, but given that they're not "known" to be allergenic it's doubtful enough that the researchers, themselves, believe the P6 produced aren't allergens."

"The chance that something can happen doesn't mean it will happen. For those that complain about GMO allergens this does open up an area to concentrate new research on, though the scientists themselves couldn't even replicate a known allergen in their forced experiments using unnatural forces to play with the DNA."

If a company uses the shortest type of P35S insertion they can...you can lessen the chance of an overlap...and this is what's being done anyway. It is not the goal to blindly shoot huge strings of frames/genetics into existing genetic material hoping they stick. Precise start/end points as cleanly "taken" as possible is the goal. Aside from all of this, it would be rare for a "bad overlap" to actually happen in the first place.

What's probably more important is phenotype/genotype testing is done on everything before it's released into the market place to make sure everything is functioning as desired. The primary focus of this is to ensure a company isn't accidentally introducing something which can make the plant weak or otherwise faulty once a farmer puts a few thousand dollars worth of seed in the ground, but it easily identifies any other issues.

Putting together a GMO "package"/seed isn't as simple as "shoot some genes, breed, and done." 99%+ of all research plants put in the ground (non-consumer, research/development) are torn out as unsuccessful because it has undesired phenotype/genotype characteristics or the genetic insertion didn't "take". Some plants are doing what they're supposed to do, look like what they're supposed to look like, but once the transcriptions are looked at on a genetic level they show undesirable characteristics (such as possible inherit weaknesses to physical or disease issues via known genetic issues).

Could it happen? Yes. Is it likely to happen and hit the consumer? No. Does "no" mean it has a 100% chance of not happening? No.

If something does happen the GMO companies will have all the information needed to see what happened, what kind of insertion was made, what OFRs were used, etc.

As far as things to worry about in the GMO world, I would personally chalk this one up really low on the totem pole of worries.

This post was edited by nc-crn on Mon, Feb 25, 13 at 23:24

Btw...I'm not trying to talk down to you (or anyone that reads this).

No one's an expert on everything. Unless you're talking about changing plugs, changing the oil, or other general maintenance on a car...almost everything talked about cars is gonna go right over my head...especially if it's some kind of discussion about how to get the greatest energy exchange from a given fuel's combustion and the proper mechanical pathway to get there (for instance).

I'm trying to walk a line between being technical and not going too far over anyone's head. Just because the things I'm trying to explain in a less-profession-specific way sounds right in my head doesn't mean it translates well outside of my head.

I had requested that another thread be started.

Your opinion is "interesting", but other scientists opinions are "interesting" also. I have already pointed out the incorrect "opinions" about "Citing agreement from university scientists, the company declared it “highly unlikely” that widespread use of Roundup Ready technology would lead to resistant weeds."
---------------------------
Here is the present (2012) "opinion" of the The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). It is the keystone of European Union (EU) risk assessment regarding food and feed safety. In close collaboration with national authorities and in open consultation with its stakeholders, EFSA provides independent scientific advice and clear communication on existing and emerging risks.

"While addressing question two of the mandate, the EFSA GMO Panel compared the hazards associated with plants produced by cisgenesis and intragenesis with those obtained by either conventional plant breeding techniques or by transgenesis. The Panel concludes that similar hazards can be associated with cisgenic and conventionally bred plants, while novel hazards can be associated with intragenic and transgenic plants. The Panel is of the opinion that all of these breeding methods can produce variable frequencies and severities of unintended effects. The frequency of unintended changes may differ between breeding techniques and their occurrence cannot be predicted and needs to be assessed case by case. Independent of the breeding method, undesirable phenotypes are generally removed during selection and testing programmes by breeders. The risks to human and animal health and the environment will depend on exposure factors such as the extent to which the plant is cultivated and consumed."

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/2561.htm

Here is a link that might be useful: link for above

I have listed the major concerns in the original paper in this thread (in quotes from the actual paper) on Sun, Feb 24, 13 at 16:15.

Very recent published research (J Gen Virol. 2013 December; volumn 94, pages 2777-2789.)
has addressed the following: "Title: Identification of the domains of cauliflower mosaic virus protein P6 responsible for suppression of RNA silencing and salicylic acid signalling"

They conclude: "Fifty-four transgenic events commercialized in the USA contain up to 528 bp of the coding region of ORFVI (Podevin & du Jardin, 2012). The potential expression of a C-terminal P6 polypeptide with defence-suppressing properties has been identified as a possible hazard in genetically modified crops (Latham & Wilson, 2013). The essential role for the N-terminal region of P6 in these activities demonstrates that these concerns are unfounded."
------------------------------------------------
Please note that these scientists apparently took the orginal research to be presenting points worthy of doing additional research on. This is the scientific way.

Here is a link that might be useful: link to December 2013 research paper cited above

I missed this thread back february.

I find the subject quite interesting, and was talking about it in a thread I started a few weeks ago. When specimen plants are infected with these altered viruses, what exactly is going on, both in the original plant and it's offspring?

To keep it simple, let's say you infect a plant with the mosaic virus that has had it's insides largely swapped for bt. Let's say the plant gets a strong infection, so some percentage of the plant is now mosaic virus, right? And some percentage of that is bt, right?

Now imagine one eats some part of this plant. One is eating some percentage of mosaic virus with bt, right? Is this much different from eating some part of a cauliflower plant infected with ordinary mosaic virus?

Or is this not what is gong on in a strain of maize that has been bred to replicate this virus altered with bt?

"To keep it simple, let's say you infect a plant with the mosaic virus that has had it's insides largely swapped for bt. Let's say the plant gets a strong infection, so some percentage of the plant is now mosaic virus, right? And some percentage of that is bt, right?"

The chance of it reverting back to CMV is so remote it's got about the same chance of creating a new novel virus that's something totally different...it's almost impossible/improbable.

Basically, the guts are ripped out and genetic structure changed to the point that what was there is now genetic "junk" except for the new insertion. Kinda like the combination to open a safe would be 4-23-27-31-3-28-2...and a cut/deletion + insertion is made to turn it into 4-23-8-38-2-21-2...it's just not going to "open the safe" again since only 3 of the 7 numbers needed in the combination are still present. The genetics inside in the virus are so scrambled/new that reversion would be practically impossible.

The only intact thing about the virus that the new genetic code was inserted into is the outside protein(s) coat making up the shell that holds the genetic package...which is responsible for it spreading the genetic package inside of it.

The issue raised by the paper in question (the real paper, not the top-linked "scare" articles) is that care should be made in choosing your insertion target and where that insertion will take place on the genetic string because mutations or errors in replication/duplication may create some bad things that could be avoided by choosing a better carrier package or insertion site for the new genetics. Once again, though, this is a very rare instance that wouldn't be continuously bred into a line...would be rare to pass into the wild...and would be rare to happen in the first place. Out of the "mutated" (lab created) P6s formed in the paper, none are human allergens. It's a call-to-notice for best practices paper...not a call-to-action because of present danger paper. It's a good paper...scientists/corporations have taken it seriously.

This post was edited by nc-crn on Thu, Dec 26, 13 at 15:58

Henry...I cannot believe (actually, can believe, totally) that you jumped back into this thread to try to justify the utter crap that you presented in the thread's initial run in order to try to prove that you both knew what you were talking about and were presenting a logical flow of discussion.

You were lost, out of your realm of knowledge, and running around in circles because you wanted to pretend you were in your league (and was treated as such by me for quite a while out of respect and your own insisting that you could handle it) yet you had no idea how to process this information...both what was presented to you by me, and the stuff you dug up for yourself.

"Please note that these scientists apparently took the orginal research to be presenting points worthy of doing additional research on. This is the scientific way."

Yeah, please note that I agree...but since you have NO IDEA WHAT'S GOING ON OR WHAT TO DO WITH ANY OF THIS INFORMATION you didn't pick up on that at any point...even after all this time to re-digest this thread.

That new paper you linked...many of the things being said...the things you hold such current value...MUCH OF IT WAS SAID BY ME MONTHS EARLIER IN THIS THREAD AND YOU DISMISS THEM THEN AND NOW. Holy crap, guy...you don't have the tools to understand the stuff you're posting. It is not your field...it is not in your knowledge realm...and if it is you're being willfully ignorant in order to "win" a discussion on the internet at the expense of trashing someone else's legitimate knowledge as well as poisoning legitimate points on the subject.

You're only concerned with "winning" some pointless internet argument when you're not even equipped with the proper tools to fight.

"The only intact thing about the virus that the new genetic code was inserted into is the outside protein(s) coat making up the shell that holds the genetic package...which is responsible for it spreading the genetic package inside of it."

I realize that I'm trying to understand something while lacking the basic education required.....but, isn't any virus not much more than a thing that is good at getting into certain much bigger organisms and then replicating itself wildly, IOW, 'infecting' them? On another thread you described the modified CaMV as a "shell". Apparently it is still capable of self-replication, or multiplication, right? Otherwise how could it give a plant an infection? So the plant now has a huge number of replicated CaMV shells that each contain replicated BT? Or is it that the BT gets released inside the plant and replicates itself independently from the junk "shells"?

The "shell" is the phsycial container for the genetic information within. Some work better than others for infecting plant tissues no matter the payload contained within the shell.

A virus is basically a protein(s) shell with genetic information contained within...from an evolutionary standpoint its rather primal and basic. The shell is the mechanism to physically spread that information contained within the shell...kinda like a biological syringe invading cells and replicating itself at the same time. It doesn't care/know what it's replicating and invading...it just knows that's what it's supposed to do.

You can have a BMW car, but if you change the guts of it with a Ford engine and internal parts...in that case it looks like a BMW, but it acts like a Ford. It may look like a BMW from the outside, but inside it's nothing like a BMW to the point that if you tried to pass it off as one that wouldn't fly.

nc-crn said: "MUCH OF IT WAS SAID BY ME MONTHS EARLIER IN THIS THREAD AND YOU DISMISS THEM THEN AND NOW."

H.Kuska comment. On Mon, Feb 25, 13 at 20:30 I requested the following: "I started the thread and linked to a specific paper by Jonathan Latham and Allison Wilson . I have attempted to keep the conversation focused first on that paper and then later on the other links that I proved in my initial post . As far as I can determine, even the last post is only partially on the points that are in my initial links (and no references were presented). To keep this thread on track, If someone feels that they have points about my initial post, please put the material in quotes from the link that you are discussing."

You have now made the above (in captial letters) statement about the new paper that I have presented with no quotes of statements that you have made to back up your claims.

After my first post you presented a post from another thread. I replied: "nc-crn, your cut and paste from an earlier discussion is interesting, but it does not appear to address most of the concerns brought up in the main link that I gave ("The paper linked to in the "Here is a link that might be useful" box has 124 comments which the reader may find interesting.") . "

I then specifically pointed out to you what I was concerned about:
"The following is a quote from the link that indicates what they are concerned about:

"The Many Functions of Gene VI
Gene VI, like most plant viral genes, produces a protein that is multifunctional. It has four (so far) known roles in the viral infection cycle. The first is to participate in the assembly of virus particles. There is no current data to suggest this function has any implications for biosafety. The second known function is to suppress anti-pathogen defenses by inhibiting a general cellular system called RNA silencing (Haas et al. 2008). Thirdly, Gene VI has the highly unusual function of transactivating (described below) the long RNA (the 35S RNA) produced by CaMV (Park et al. 2001). Fourthly, unconnected to these other mechanisms, Gene VI has very recently been shown to make plants highly susceptible to a bacterial pathogen (Love et al. 2012). Gene VI does this by interfering with a common anti-pathogen defense mechanism possessed by plants. These latter three functions of Gene VI (and their risk implications) are explained further below:"

Your replies were/are mainly centered around the allegery function: "Gene VI Is a Unique Transactivator of Gene Expression.......The result will presumably be production of numerous random proteins within cells. The biosafety implications of this are difficult to assess. These proteins could be allergens, plant or human toxins, or they could be harmless. Moreover, the answer will differ for each commercial crop species into which Gene VI has been inserted."

The first is to participate in the assembly of virus particles. There is no current data to suggest this function has any implications for biosafety."

The above fixation on possible allegery problems (by you)is indicated in your next reply: "In order for a P6 allergen danger to manifest itself, which most people are not allergic to, it would have to happen in a plant which had a DNA replication error and happened to fix a P6 protein. A person who's susceptible to the allergy would also happen to ingest the mutated plant's grain...which would be a very small chance given how much grain is mixed with the rest of the crop or harvested grain in an elevator."

In the same post you think that you are answering the "Gene VI Interferes with Host Defenses" and possibly the "Gene VI Is an Inhibitor of RNA Silencing" points made by Jonathan Latham and Allison Wilson by stateing: "In order for the mutated plant to become susceptible to infections the same replication error (including a proofreading not correcting it) would have to happen and the plant would have to actually contract an illness. This would effect the plants and could effect the surrounding plants."

Please compare your answer to what the last paper reports.

Timewise this takes us to my Mon, Feb 25, 13 at 20:30 post pointing out the other concerns which I feel are addressed in the new published, reviewed scientific paper that I just presented : ""Title: Identification of the domains of cauliflower mosaic virus protein P6 responsible for suppression of RNA silencing and salicylic acid signalling"
--------------------------------------

They specifically put the two papers that I felt were important into their conclusion.
-------------------------------------
When plant virus fragments get into humans, there is the possibility that our bodies will attempt to fight them just as they fight human viruses ( RNA silencing and salicylic acid signalling).
The following article may be of interest on this point:
"Humans Have Antibodies against a Plant Virus: Evidence from Tobacco Mosaic Virus" ( Published: April 03, 2013)

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0060621

-------------------------------------
.

Here is a link that might be useful: corrected link to the broken link in first post.

Yes, you still don't understand...I've already brought that up.

Now you double-don't-understand...you can triple it if you'd like.

There is a reason that the European Union has banned GMOs in foods and that China will not allow GMO contaminated foods to be brought in.

Here is a link that might be useful: GMO foods equal Natural

This post was edited by kimmsr on Fri, Dec 27, 13 at 8:04

kimmsr,

Your article had nothing to do with ANY health issues relating to GMO's.

Along with many well to do ag scientists, I too dont understand why anyone wouldnt want to use GM crops-less soil erosion, less pesticides, less fertilizer, more yield,over all more eco friendly to grow......

"I too dont understand why anyone wouldnt want to use GM crops"

This statement indicates to me that you are not really knowledgeable about agriculture and are mindlessly flogging some kind of agenda.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against GMOs, I think they can have a place in a producer's toolbox of crops. I merely detest a one trick pony pursuit of said agenda.

Lloyd

Concerning human RNA silencing, this is an example of a scientific field that is developing before our eyes. The following October 2013 Nature article is an interesting summary of where the field is now.

http://www.nature.com/news/mammals-chop-up-viral-rna-to-attack-infection-1.13600
----------------------------------------------
Monsanto has recently published a research paper concerning RNA silencing and their GMOs.

Title: "Computational sequence analysis of predicted
long dsRNA transcriptomes of major crops reveals
sequence complementarity with human genes"

https://www.landesbioscience.com/journals/gmcrops/2012GMC0042R1.pdf

Their conclusion is: "However, the number and diversity of long dsRNA molecules in plant tissue from crops such as lettuce, tomato, corn, soy and rice with complementarity to human genes that have a long history of safe consumption supports a conclusion that
long dsRNAs do not present a significant dietary risk."

I have put a long link to one discussion of a possible ramification in the link box. It was not put there because it is the most important link in this post. It is put there because its length would mess up the formatting of this post. The discussion just illustrates that the presence of RNA silencing mechanisms is of concern in the scientific community.
---------------------------------
Does the tobacco virus article that I linked to shed any light on the bodies reaction to virus particles in food? Yes, no, and or maybe. Tobacco viruses particles enter the body through the lungs while food contained virus particles pass through the digestive system. Because of evolution one can expect that normal food virus particles at the concentrations found naturally in our food supply have reached an equilibrium with our bodies. Does that also apply to all gmo virus particles that have been utilized and in the concentrations that we would be subjected to if GMOs were a major source of food?

Here is a link that might be useful: long link to discussion

This post was edited by henry_kuska on Fri, Dec 27, 13 at 15:44

China allows GMOs...just the ones they've approved, though...it's a kinda slow process there that doesn't keep up with the newer variety types very well.

Also Henry...you're free to continue to pretend you have an idea what you're talking about, but I'm not going to entertain your half-assed approach to this discussion given that you have no idea how to follow what you think you're in full control over. It's pointless from my point of view and it would be embarrassing to you if your ego allowed such a thing to happen.

For instance...the entire last paragraph you wrote above...you probably have no idea how asinine it is or how poorly it reflects upon your grasp of the issues you're attempting to muse about.

This post was edited by nc-crn on Fri, Dec 27, 13 at 16:08

I think that the following potato virus paper is an interesting read (too bad that they used injection instead of oral entry).

Since the oral route of exposure to virus fragments is of particular concern to this thread, please note the following: "The oral route of vaccination has also been used in studies in transgenic AD mice using transgenic potatoes expressing five tandem repeats of A-(1��"42). Mice immunized with A with this edible vaccine made antibodies against A and had reduced A plaques in the brain (53)."

If you have children, grandchildren, nieces and/or nephews, you may want to introduce them to what science is now doing in the field of our immune system.

I will not be surprised (in fact I predict) that this field will turn out to be so important that one or more Nobel Prizes Will result.

Here is a link that might be useful: link to full potato paper

"I think that the following potato virus paper is an interesting read (too bad that they used injection instead of oral entry)."

IT'S BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE PAPER IS TRYING TO DO.

Holy crap.

Give Google a rest.

This paper is about antibody reaction of Necrotic Ringspot Virus on proteins that are thought to affect Alzheimers. I would explain how this has NOTHING to do with issues you're trying to bring up, but you're not into listening to stuff like that...you're into "winning" an argument at the expense of knowledge.

There is NO advantage to this study to do this orally, but this would require a lesson in biology and oral transport which you would have no intention of learning about if this thread or history is any indication.

It also has little to nothing to do with issues you're trying to raise, though I'm sure you'll be back to twist your logic into how it's just absolutely on target and apt...as usual...and as usually incorrect.

Do you even realize how far off-mark you've gone from the start of this thread...through many points in this thread...to get where you are at now? Do you realize how often this happens in any thread you're in where you have no idea what to do with the information you're delving into in order to prove a point about something you know little-to-nothing about?

The answer is..."no" to both. Which makes me wonder why I even typed any of this.

Biology isn't your strength...deal with it. You are doing head-spinning disservice to this field...especially when you throw around how you're a scientist. Yes, so am I...unlike you, however, I am trained in this field and you aren't. Just because someone is a mechanic it doesn't mean they can fix commercial aircraft as well as cars. It's a broad field.

The following is a quote from the potato paper: "mice inoculated with PVY (H.Kuska comment: PVY is potato virus Y) develop antibodies that bind to A in both neuritic plaques and neurofibrillary tangles, whereas antibodies to material from uninfected potato leaf show only modest levels of background immunoreactivity."
.............................
"Immune responses generated from dietary exposure to proteins homologous to A may induce antibodies that could influence the normal physiological processing of the protein and the development or progression of AD."

-----------------------------
To break this down. Question: Do plant virus stimutate a reaction in mammals? Answer: This plant virus did. Fortunately the reaction appears to have a positive outcome. Will all virus reactions result in positive outcomes to mammals?

Sub question: Would passage through the digestive system have prevented this reaction? Answer, I do not know. Please notice the use of "dietary exposure" in my above quote.

Also please note the following quote from the paper:

"We propose that the mechanisms demonstrated by the A immunization paradigm may also be operating lifelong, without active or passive vaccination. Those individuals with higher levels of the presumed naturally occurring anti-A antibodies may be protected from developing AD. Conflicting studies have been reported thus far on this possibility: increased (10��"12), decreased (13��"15), or unchanged (16) levels of anti-A autoantibodies have been noted in studies of AD patients and control subjects. Moir et al. (17) found that circulating autoantibodies specific for A oligomers are decreased in AD. It is not clear whether the studies discussed above measured total circulating anti-A antibodies or only those antibodies that were not bound to circulating A (18). Also, the presence of circulating anti-A
antibodies may very well be modified by the presence of disease; anti-A antibody studies have not yet been completed in longitudinal studies of as yet unaffected subjects. It is also not clear if the assays applied in these studies were sensitive to cross-reacting antibodies. Thus, the active and passive A immunization paradigm
suggests that the presence of circulating anti-A antibodies may influence the development of AD. In the absence of A vaccination, exposure to an immunogen that bears significant amino acid sequence homology to A could result in antibody production that has either protective or detrimental consequences (as
illustrated by the studies mentioned above)."