Genetic Engineering does indeed have problems

Rcjohnsen rcjohnsen at
Sat Feb 19 21:09:35 EST 2000

<< Subject: Re: Genetic Engineering does indeed have problems
From: jbwalsh at  (Bruce Walsh)
Date: Thu, Feb 17, 2000 6:21 PM
Message-id: <200002171806.LAA26850 at>

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-Ascii"

Jim chimes in with " It
is very disingenuous to say that "Nature itself likes genetic
based on the presence of mitochondria and chloroplasts in animal and
cells.  You should know better."

Actually, I do indeed know better, which is why I said this.  Most of the
original genes in the mitochondria and chloroplasts have been transferred
to the nucleus --- animal mtDNA have only 20 odd protein coding genes,
cpDNAs have around 150 protein coding genes, yet the molecular energy
structures unique to both organelles have 1000-2000 other proteins, which are
all nuclear.  All those bacteria genes are now in our nuclei, a massive feat
of genetic modification.

Peace >>
Interestingly, this may be about to change, and your answer may be speculative.
 Did the mitochondrial genes(or some of them come from our nuclear) or all from
mitochondrial to the nucleus, and for that matter did all the mitochrodrial
come from bacteria?  There is transfer back and forth. 
   Clones offer a unique and interesting opportunity.
Human clones have been carried out to the 32 cell stage using enucleated bovine
ova and human diploid cells.  Now is bovine mitochondia now constituting 1% of
the human clone bovine?? or bacterial and exactly like us?? or has it mutated
during the time separating cows and humans to make us both unique.
Ah...Life is beatuiful!  And I can hardly wait till the courts and churches
figure this and related issues out.  This question may be moot anyway since
imprinting may play a key role as to the donor egg to be used??!!

More information about the Leps-l mailing list