Anyone catch it?

Currently at a pet co i was reading a article in a reptiles Magazine about genetic engineering in ball pythons( it showed a pied as a example), and how they might be able to make the white different colors :cool::D

I'm a guy but having a Hot pink pied would be awesome. Especially if they make glow in the dark ball pythons.

What do you guys think other if changing them did not effect health or cost a lot of money( which it would)

My thoughts are, even though it would be awesome, no. I would get confused with all the colors people would add or take away from different morphs, and the confusion that would come with that. Not like id be able to afford it any how. They should just leave things alone like the are supposed to be.

I'm not a fan of genetic engineering. Mess with what was orginally intended (design through evolution) and you can get some bad results.

I say no to cloning and genetic engineering. Only exception is in the development of vaccines.

I'd be generally against it. All the testing that they'd have to do in order to get to that stage is not something I'd be in support of. Also, I think it would distract from the beauty of naturally occurring morphs. People would stop being interested in what is naturally beautiful and start buying more of the genetic stuff. I don't think that's right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MelissaFlipski

I'm not a fan of genetic engineering. Mess with what was orginally intended (design through evolution) and you can get some bad results.

I say no to cloning and genetic engineering. Only exception is in the development of vaccines.

---

Don't you mean (design through creation as it states in Genisis 1.) ???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcbrayerreptiles

Don't you mean (design through creation as it states in Genisis 1.) ???

---

Probably design through evolution. Not to get into a religious debate but evolution has been proven, creation has not. ;)

Well, I'm all for genetic engineering and cloning, etc. So I would support it.

I'm not sure I can live long without a glowing cat, truthfully!

So basically, none of you opposed to genetic modification eat any of the following foods???

corn, canola, flax, rapeseed, potatoes, tomatoes, wheat, rice, squash, bananas and soybeans

nor any of the derivatives (ie that cola you drank or anything that includes high fructose corn syrup)???

Wow. Good for you. I'm opposed to 'transgenic' modification, but I can't imagine the chaos of trying to be completely GM free. At least not here in the US where we love our genetic modifications so. Pass the pasta.

Cheers,
Kat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NateDogg13

Probably design through evolution. Not to get into a religious debate but evolution has been proven, creation has not. ;)

---

I of course do not want to start a religious debate;)
But I do want to point out that evolution has not been proven, it is a lot of theories that scientists and even theistic scientists try to state as fact. In reality if you look in school books and even scientific documents about evolution, all of them state it as a theory. Once again, I do not want to start a religious debate here.....But, I would like to challenge you to read a great book that was given to me by a fellow herper. It is called the "evolution of a creationist". Please if you would, try to find this book, it may be difficult to find but after you read it, you will be glad you did....it is absolutely amazing....Not just some boring lecture about creation and evolution....I could barley put it down..."And I can only get into reading if it involves reptiles...LOL"
If you cant find this book please message me or email me at Mcbrayerreptiles@yahoo.com and I will send you a copy of it....

Hold Up Everybody!

Before we get all heated and start debating evolution on a forum dedicated to Herpetology I say we get back the question posed at the beginning of the thread.

Yes, Evolution cannot be proved, but neither can creation. And while many in this country and abroad, base their belief on religion, I think the fact that people are turning this thread into something much larger than basic discussion of ball pythons and their possible morphs is dangerous.

If you want to debate creationism/evolution, get a youtube account and rant away....

Strictly discussing the genetic engineering angle (although I'd be happy to discuss the religious POV), I personally think that specific genetic engineering for designer traits would rob us, as keepers, of the "magic" of hitting odds within a particular clutch. Would there be as much satisfaction in producing a clutch of 6 pieds out of 6 eggs from het x het as there would from genetically masterminding this to happen through controlled engineering? Absolutely not.

The fact that we never quite know what we could get when pairing animals up - and spending a season dreaming of what we could produce - is what keeps a lot of folks working with these animals to start with.

If creating color mutations was so cut-and-dried that anyone could have predictable results every time, it would strip us of the defeats & successes that intrinsically make genetic morphs so much fun (and a more than a bit stomach-knotting!!!) to work with in the first place!

Just my $.02.

K~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KLG

Strictly discussing the genetic engineering angle (although I'd be happy to discuss the religious POV), I personally think that specific genetic engineering for designer traits would rob us, as keepers, of the "magic" of hitting odds within a particular clutch. Would there be as much satisfaction in producing a clutch of 6 pieds out of 6 eggs from het x het as there would from genetically masterminding this to happen through controlled engineering? Absolutely not.

The fact that we never quite know what we could get when pairing animals up - and spending a season dreaming of what we could produce - is what keeps a lot of folks working with these animals to start with.

If creating color mutations was so cut-and-dried that anyone could have predictable results every time, it would strip us of the defeats & successes that intrinsically make genetic morphs so much fun (and a more than a bit stomach-knotting!!!) to work with in the first place!

Just my $.02.

K~

---

I couldn't agree more with you and apparently I can't give you another positive rep:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by West Coast Jungle

I couldn't agree more with you and apparently I can't give you another positive rep:)

---

Well i have it covered :gj:

While I will not touch on the the "religious/scientific debate" itself (I've no desire to go there), I will address a common misunderstanding found therein:

A theory is a scientific model that is supported by empirical data; DNA, genetic transference models, bones of our primitive ancestors as linked through simple biology, carbon dating of fossils ,etc.

The Theory of Evolution is a 'scientific theory' because it meets this onus.

Creationism, on the other hand, regardless from what religion is originates, is not a Theory. It is a faith-based hypothesis.

In the vast majority of debates about Creationism/ID vs. Scientific Theory [of Evolution], people use the word theory synonymously with hypothesis, and this just isn't the case. I have no issue with religious people (one of my best friends is completing his PhD in Theology on his way to becoming a Priest), and I have no issue with non-religious folks* (my sister is devout Atheist), but I do have an issue with claiming a Scientific Theory is on par with a faith-based Hypothesis. I don't think that misrepresenting any side of an argument is beneficial to the debate.

(And I am not suggesting that there are no religious scientists out there.)

Personally I believe that a little evolution vs. religion debate is within the context of this discussion re: genetic engineered morphs. Maybe the mods will disagree and remove these posts, I don't know. Either way, for many people the thought of engineering natural traits does conflict with deeply held beliefs; moral, ethical, and even spiritual. If we are going to discuss the topic, we must acknowledge the diverse opinions people may bring to the table. (Although I will agree that the topic can be a slippery one.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beardedragon

I'm a guy but having a Hot pink pied would be awesome. Especially if they make glow in the dark ball pythons.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SarahMB

I'm not sure I can live long without a glowing cat, truthfully!

---

How about a glow-in-the-dark pig?

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/image...32_glow203.jpg

No, it is not a trick and they are not using special lights; those pigs were genetically engineered to glow in the dark. They are a breed of research pigs that were made to glow in the dark so researchers can better identify cell structures, transplanted cells (ie: stem cells), more accuracy in dissection, etc. The possibilities are vast. Humans and pigs share so much common genetics that they are a prime research animal.

The interesting thing is that the process that was used on the pigs could easily be used on other animals, leading to the very real possibility of creating designer 'glowing pets.' (Dare I say, even 'glowing people'! *wiggles fingers spookily* Although that would utterly destroy the fun of lights-out hide-and-go-seek.)

Here are a couple articles:

BBC News: Taiwan breeds green-glowing pigs (Video option with article.)
ABC News: Glow-in-the-Dark Pigs Make Debut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NightLad

How about a glow-in-the-dark pig?

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/image...32_glow203.jpg

No, it is not a trick and they are not using special lights; those pigs were genetically engineered to glow in the dark. They are a breed of research pigs that were made to glow in the dark so researchers can better identify cell structures, transplanted cells (ie: stem cells), more accuracy in dissection, etc. The possibilities are vast. Humans and pigs share so much common genetics that they are a prime research animal.

The interesting thing is that the process that was used on the pigs could easily be used on other animals, leading to the very real possibility of creating designer 'glowing pets.' (Dare I say, even 'glowing people'! *wiggles fingers spookily* Although that would utterly destroy the fun of lights-out hide-and-go-seek.)

Here are a couple articles:

BBC News: Taiwan breeds green-glowing pigs (Video option with article.)
ABC News: Glow-in-the-Dark Pigs Make Debut

---

That's extremely interesting, but tampering a little too much with nature IMO. Just out of curiousity, how does glowing in the dark help scientists better identify cell structures?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bender29

That's extremely interesting, but tampering a little too much with nature IMO. Just out of curiousity, how does glowing in the dark help scientists better identify cell structures?

---

Sorry, I meant 'structures of cells' that are implanted in people. As the video mentions, implanted glow-in-the-dark-cells can be tracked without the need for biopsies, etc. This can be useful for stem cell research, tracking the spread of tumors and forms of cancer, as well as many other things, I'd imagine.

As for being too 'tampering' - I respectfully disagree. IMO: These pigs are research animals, born and bread for the purpose of helping better understand medicines that will save human lives. If making them glow neon green furthers that goal, while not causing them to suffer, I don't have an issue with it.

But more importantly... this puts me one step closer to a flying monkey! Today they are injecting the DNA of jellyfish to make pigs glow, tomorrow they are injecting the DNA of eagles for my monkey. :P

http://eatourbrains.com/EoB/wp-conte...12/flymonk.jpg
Soon my pet, soon!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KLG

Strictly discussing the genetic engineering angle (although I'd be happy to discuss the religious POV), I personally think that specific genetic engineering for designer traits would rob us, as keepers, of the "magic" of hitting odds within a particular clutch. Would there be as much satisfaction in producing a clutch of 6 pieds out of 6 eggs from het x het as there would from genetically masterminding this to happen through controlled engineering? Absolutely not.

The fact that we never quite know what we could get when pairing animals up - and spending a season dreaming of what we could produce - is what keeps a lot of folks working with these animals to start with.

If creating color mutations was so cut-and-dried that anyone could have predictable results every time, it would strip us of the defeats & successes that intrinsically make genetic morphs so much fun (and a more than a bit stomach-knotting!!!) to work with in the first place!

Just my $.02.

K~

---

Very well said! But of course, this is comeing from a person that gets a surprise out of half their eggs:P And then will not tell us what it is *cough Inferno Cough*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NightLad

While I will not touch on the the "religious/scientific debate" itself (I've no desire to go there), I will address a common misunderstanding found therein:

A theory is a scientific model that is supported by empirical data; DNA, genetic transference models, bones of our primitive ancestors as linked through simple biology, carbon dating of fossils ,etc.

The Theory of Evolution is a 'scientific theory' because it meets this onus.

Creationism, on the other hand, regardless from what religion is originates, is not a Theory. It is a faith-based hypothesis.

In the vast majority of debates about Creationism/ID vs. Scientific Theory [of Evolution], people use the word theory synonymously with hypothesis, and this just isn't the case. I have no issue with religious people (one of my best friends is completing his PhD in Theology on his way to becoming a Priest), and I have no issue with non-religious folks* (my sister is devout Atheist), but I do have an issue with claiming a Scientific Theory is on par with a faith-based Hypothesis. I don't think that misrepresenting any side of an argument is beneficial to the debate.

(And I am not suggesting that there are no religious scientists out there.)

Personally I believe that a little evolution vs. religion debate is within the context of this discussion re: genetic engineered morphs. Maybe the mods will disagree and remove these posts, I don't know. Either way, for many people the thought of engineering natural traits does conflict with deeply held beliefs; moral, ethical, and even spiritual. If we are going to discuss the topic, we must acknowledge the diverse opinions people may bring to the table. (Although I will agree that the topic can be a slippery one.)

---

You're completely right, but less-modern religious people are being thrown into a culture-shock as they encounter educated people on the net. Creationists can be debated every day on digg, why stress them here?

post created trying to edit previous post...sorry!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NightLad

But more importantly... this puts me one step closer to a flying monkey! Today they are injecting the DNA of jellyfish to make pigs glow, tomorrow they are injecting the DNA of eagles for my monkey. :P

http://eatourbrains.com/EoB/wp-conte...12/flymonk.jpg
Soon my pet, soon!

---

If you get a flying monkey you'll have to also attempt to get in on this glowing-mammal business. ..because then you'll glow green. ...and have an army of flying monkeys. Of course, you'll have to give up bathing.

Do you know a good broom maker?



Addressing the subject, I agree with pretty much everything NightLad has said.

As far as whether or not they're actually going to do this - i dunno. I'm not sure how widely available GE resources are that they could be employed to dominate a small corner of the pet industry. The prices our snakes command certainly would be tempting, but those same prices could be gotten out of GE puppies that carry the complete genetic makeup of a champion animal - and more people like puppies than they do snakes. Maybe the masses are less likely to protest the manipulation of snakes as opposed to puppies?

Anyway, if this starts being done with any kind of regularity, we can pretty much say goodbye to our market. It would especially challenge those who do or would like to breed snakes for a living.

Bad for profit, good for poor snake lovers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morphie

Anyway, if this starts being done with any kind of regularity, we can pretty much say goodbye to our market. It would especially challenge those who do or would like to breed snakes for a living.
Bad for profit, good for poor snake lovers.

---

I think it could be good for snake breeders as long as the price on the lab snakes stays high. It could mean new expensive morphs from the lab in addition to those from Africa for us to add to our breeding programs. It would also raise public awareness of snakes as pets.

If they were produced in mass quantity through cloning, you're completely right. I suppose some day it will be possible to code a snake genome to include any morph combo you want, then produce thousands of embryos with that code. Of course the same tech could be used to create a custom virus and kill us all, so I hope it won't be any day soon.

Flying monkeys?......aren't the pidgeons bad enough?


...on the other hand...a pot-bellied elephant would be cool.

http://southpark.comedycentral.com/v...isodeId=103686

Okay, are we talking mass producing snakes through cloning now?

I have to say, it sounds like getting these snakes out there is a good thing, BUT more public awareness has to be made about the proper care.

I'm afraid that if these animals dropped in value so much, where a pied cost a few hundred, we'd see a TON of impulse buyers getting their hands on what we consider, high-end and extremely valuable.

I don't want a plague and epidemic of people buying snakes for a lark, and then learning that these animals can get a good size, and will live for 20+ years. The boom, and afterwards the crash, and release of countless snakes into the wild. Many dieing, and many living in an unnatural enviroment, hurting our own fauna and flora.

Look at how the iguanas were? Or still are in many cases. People buy them thinking they are cool, and we have literally thousands in shelters, and even more down south being released when they get too big.

Not saying BP's get too big, or need specialized care by any stretch of the imagination, but I can already see the mistreatment of snakes and reptiles skyrocketing when they are too affordable.

But the boas, and large pythons are already dumped now, it's almost nothing to dump a $100-$500 snake, but I bet ya they would reconsider just dumping a $5000 snake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littleindiangirl

Not saying BP's get too big, or need specialized care by any stretch of the imagination, but I can already see the mistreatment of snakes and reptiles skyrocketing when they are too affordable.

---

Sadly, I'm sure you're right. I'd prefer it if all pets cost at least as much as three vet visits to encourage proper care, but I don't think there's anything we can do about it.

Ok with out touching the evo v creation deal I will attempt to touch on genetic tampering for cosmetic purposes.

Genetic tampering to better human life in the way of food production or medical research. Imagine the out come of being able to replace organs with OEM part so to speak. Right now people that receive organs must take meds for life in order to keep the body from rejecting the organ. Think if you will people being able to receive a liver or kidney or cornea that is theirs not from another person. No rejection or meds it would be great. To also be able to fix congenital problems in children like MS and so on would be a huge step.

Genetic tampering for the sake of having a cool pet is a pointless waste of time money and resources in my mind. Now true some great discoveries may be made in the process but the chances are slim. Glowing pigs, rabbits, cats, hot pink ball pythons maybe one day but lets use the knowledge to better the creatures that will benefit the most from this us.

OK OK I will no longer post on the suject of evolution vs. creation. We all have different opinions about what we believe. As far as the genetic engineering goes....I do not think it wise to tamper with DNA to a point of alteration. Our DNA is the way it is for a reason. I can't think of any good thing that would come from DNA alteration. just my POV.:)

I would like to politely invite anyone who wishes to carry on the religious debate with me, to private message me on this forum. I enjoy discussing the whole religious debate and all that other stuff as well...so please feel free to message me...Not to start an arguement, but just a simple conversation on the subjects at hand.:)

Ive never really read into genetic engineering, but in cases with fish do they not make them to where they can not reproduce? How about Balls? I think it would be great for a serious collector.

How about a black and red spider? Id call it the widow

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KLG

Strictly discussing the genetic engineering angle (although I'd be happy to discuss the religious POV), I personally think that specific genetic engineering for designer traits would rob us, as keepers, of the "magic" of hitting odds within a particular clutch. Would there be as much satisfaction in producing a clutch of 6 pieds out of 6 eggs from het x het as there would from genetically masterminding this to happen through controlled engineering? Absolutely not.

---

Hey Kara, I think you've made a very good point, I couldn't agree more with your assessment. Honestly, I don't see lab-grown animals ever replacing natural animals as pets. I could be wrong, and that would be incredibly sad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NightLad

How about a glow-in-the-dark pig?

---

Those are pretty cute too, but I did see an article not long ago about glowing kittens being produced. Much cuter, imo!
I've enjoyed all of your posts in this thread, you've shared some excellent information.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SarahMB

Those are pretty cute too, but I did see an article not long ago about glowing kittens being produced. Much cuter, imo!
I've enjoyed all of your posts in this thread, you've shared some excellent information.

---

Ah, I just thought you were mentioning glow-in-the-dark cats for wishes sake. I didn't even know about them already existing! I learned something new today. :)

http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/bto/200...ts_270x202.jpg

News.com article: Scientists create glow-in-the-dark cats
Yahoo News: SKoreans clone cats that glow in the dark

However, the process of creating them was different than the pigs, and they only glow under black/ultraviolet light.

Very interesting. Many people use black/ultraviolet lights to see our nocturnal pets anyway, so the side effect would be quite interesting.

And thanks, I enjoy your posts too!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beardedragon

Currently at a pet co i was reading a article in a reptiles Magazine about genetic engineering in ball pythons( it showed a pied as a example), and how they might be able to make the white different colors :cool::D

---

I don't really ever dive into the evolution vs. creation arguments, or discuss religion much. However, I did want to make a comment on this part of your post. I personally don't believe that you can change the color of the white on a Pied, and here is the reason. If our (meaning the herptoculturists) theories on Pieds is correct, then the white of a Pied is caused by a form of Leucism, in which the chromatophores are missing in the skin cells in the white areas. This would mean that pigments are present in those areas, but the skin is not capable of holdinh the pigment. With that said, you cannot change the color of "missing color".

Just my .01 cent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by muddoc

I don't really ever dive into the evolution vs. creation arguments, or discuss religion much. However, I did want to make a comment on this part of your post. I personally don't believe that you can change the color of the white on a Pied, and here is the reason. If our (meaning the herptoculturists) theories on Pieds is correct, then the white of a Pied is caused by a form of Leucism, in which the chromatophores are missing in the skin cells in the white areas. This would mean that pigments are present in those areas, but the skin is not capable of holdinh the pigment. With that said, you cannot change the color of "missing color".

Just my .01 cent.

---

Well said, I agree 100%:gj:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bender29

That's extremely interesting, but tampering a little too much with nature IMO. Just out of curiousity, how does glowing in the dark help scientists better identify cell structures?

---

GFP (Green Fluorescent Protein) can be used in many creative ways to help scientists learn a variety of things.

First, scientists using a tissue-specific gene promoter can visualize the cells of a specific organ or tissue without dissecting. This will likely save the number of animals used in research in the long run as well as allow scientists to perform more powerful in vivo experiments.


Second, if scientists want to track a specific protein in living cells or organisms they can try to make a GFP-fusion protein. See
http://departments.kings.edu/biology/lux/fuspro.html

There are likely other uses but those are the two I though of

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freakie_frog

Genetic tampering for the sake of having a cool pet is a pointless waste of time money and resources in my mind.

---

The collecting and breeding of morphs as down now seems to be "genetic tempering" as well.

Is there a difference between Nature making the morphs and people? Seems like a double standard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brimstone111888

Is there a difference between Nature making the morphs and people? Seems like a double standard.

---

To me it is....

Designer morphs as we have them today are arent even "nature making morphs".....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MelissaFlipski

I'm not a fan of genetic engineering. Mess with what was orginally intended (design through evolution) and you can get some bad results.

I say no to cloning and genetic engineering. Only exception is in the development of vaccines.

---

So your against tissue engineering organs via stem cells and crops that use less pesticides?

The original albinos, pastels, spiders and a few others were natural, but I don't think Super pastel x woma x spider x pinstripe is at all natural. To an extent it is genetic modification, but without the tiny sringe.

This thread got too long for me to wade through right now, lazy, I know. But in regards to this,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcbrayerreptiles

Don't you mean (design through creation as it states in Genisis 1.) ???

---

I didn't mean to start a debate, but I clearly meant evolution. I mean that through evolution, animals are designed to survive and procreate best in their environments. Why mess with it?

Btw, I don't mind hybrids, but I don't like gene replacement/splicing crap, except for vaccines.

So you are against Gene Replacement Therapy to cure dying children? What about cloning new organs for people, so they don't die on the waiting list?

http://www.amda-pompe.org/acid.htm

Seems a little ridiculous to me, but to each there own I guess....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SarahMB

Hey Kara, I think you've made a very good point, I couldn't agree more with your assessment. Honestly, I don't see lab-grown animals ever replacing natural animals as pets. I could be wrong, and that would be incredibly sad.

---

Captive Born and Breed (CBB) Ball Pythons are hardly natural pets. I dont see how animals that have been born and raised generation after generation in the plastic tub drawers of racks is natural.....seems pretty lab-based to me.

Most people I think here would agree that wild-caught (WC) ball python specimens hardly make good pets.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beardedragon

Currently at a pet co i was reading a article in a reptiles Magazine about genetic engineering in ball pythons( it showed a pied as a example), and how they might be able to make the white different colors :cool::D

I'm a guy but having a Hot pink pied would be awesome. Especially if they make glow in the dark ball pythons.

What do you guys think other if changing them did not effect health or cost a lot of money( which it would)

---

Just wondering, What was the name of the article? And what month's issue is it found in? Jan or Feb?

I dont think anyone has made a transgenic reptile species.......most of our methods for making modifications to an organism's genome or replacing genes have been pioneered in the mouse and have been tailored to the developmental biology and reproductive physiology of mammals.....

However, there have been recent advancements in making transgenic chickens.....http://seedmagazine.com/news/2006/06...ge_lab_mic.php

There are also a lot of methods for fish.....in fact the world's first transgenic pet is a zebrafish called Glofish

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mendel's Balls

I dont think anyone has made a transgenic reptile species......

url]http://seedmagazine.com/news/2006/06/lab_chickens_challenge_lab_mic.php[/url]

---

I was wrong...there is at least one very recent patent application claiming the establishment of transgenic snakes expressing GFP!........including ball pythons, king snakes, and corn snakes

See United States Patent 20080005807

Some of it very technical (which isnt too big of a problem for me) but its also very legalese ......But it is worth a read....It is pretty interesting......

I recommend reading "Egg Injection and Incubation", "Hatching and Propogation", and "Utility"

Bob Clark seems to have provided the animals......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by muddoc

If our (meaning the herptoculturists) theories on Pieds is correct, then the white of a Pied is caused by a form of Leucism, in which the chromatophores are missing in the skin cells in the white areas. This would mean that pigments are present in those areas, but the skin is not capable of holdinh the pigment. With that said, you cannot change the color of "missing color".

---

Under black light:cool: (~395 nm) and with a GFP or GFP-derivative transgenic snake, you may be able to change the missing color......

a leucistic is even mentioned in the patent above.

Your correct, a lot of scientific talk.... not tonight.... *zzz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beardedragon

Currently at a pet co i was reading a article in a reptiles Magazine about genetic engineering in ball pythons( it showed a pied as a example), and how they might be able to make the white different colors :cool::D

---

Anyone know the details on the original article he found?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mendel's Balls

Under black light:cool: (~395 nm) and with a GFP or GFP-derivative transgenic snake, you may be able to change the missing color......

a leucistic is even mentioned in the patent above.

---

I will not get into a debate with someone that much more knowledgable on the subject than myself, but I would love to see that animal. In my tiny little brain, I can't understand how it could work, but science these days does many things that I don't understand, but definitely appreciate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by muddoc

I will not get into a debate with someone that much more knowledgable on the subject than myself, but I would love to see that animal. In my tiny little brain, I can't understand how it could work, but science these days does many things that I don't understand, but definitely appreciate.

---

Green Fluorescent Protein (GFP) has intrinsic fluorescence, built-in to its structure. It does not need to be within a chromatophore to fluoresce.

This is why it is useful to so many biologists....if you want to follow the movement or development or development of pretty much any tissue, you can try to selectively express a GFP protein in those cells and then you can shin UV light on the organism and watch for sometime to gather the data you need.

If you want to track a particular protein, you can try to fuse the protein with GFP to track the life of the protein in an individual cell.

Basically GFP has been shown to express itself and function in all kinds of cells.

Wild-type GFP fluoresces green, but researchers have created mutant GFP proteins that fluoresce different colors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_f...FP_derivatives

Maybe a Leucistic ball python might show the fluorescence better than a wild-type because there no other pigments to interfere with it.

GFP originated from Jellyfish, and is really amazing to see in person when fused with different animals. They have already done it to pigs, and they actually breed true and produce GFP carrying piglets.

Awesome stuff :)

Thanks for that explanation Mendel. I think I understand it a bit better.

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fu...deoid=19045233